Recognizing And Making Critical Judgement
Discussion and Examples
Making critical judgement implies an attempt at objective judging so as to determine both merits and faults. Critical reading is thoughtful reading because it requires that the reader recognize not only what is being said at the literal level but also facts, opinions, attitudes, inferences, and bias.
You show good judgment – or lack of it – through the kinds of facts and opinion.
Knowingly or unknowingly, you make critical judgement all the time from deciding on the type of toothpaste to buy to choosing a topic for an English theme. The trick is to always be aware of your critical judgements and to know the reasoning behind your decision.
Further you must be aware of the judgement the author is making and you must also be aware of the judgment you make based on your own bias about the subject.
To evaluate or to judge what you read you must attempt to answer such questions as these:
- Is the author telling the truth as far as he knows it?
- Does he know the truth?
- Is he prejudiced?
- Does he have an ax to grind?
- What are his ideas and claims worth to me?
In the following paragraphs some standards of evaluation are discussed.
A One-Side Presentation of Details.
Next let us evaluate two paragraphs making use of particulars and details in support of an argument.
Much of this masculine point of view or course is due to the fact that man is giving to vain (if sometimes glorious) imaginings, whereas woman is realistic. I utter nothing new or revolutionary in saying this. For confirmation of the truism that imagination is peculiarly masculine, one need only recall that all the fairy tales of the world have been, and continue to be, written by men. I give you Hans Christian Andersen, the Brothers Grimm, Andrew Lang, Homer, Virgil, the s spinner of Scheherazade's adventures, the Arab storyteller in the market place, the Indian creator of mythology, the ancient Hebrews who accounted for the beginnings of life. At the same time, masculine imagination creates the Casper Milquetoasts of the -world. They people life with terrors of their own devising and then become frightened by their own creations; they deteat themselves before ever getting a start.
Anonymous proved his claim that men are imaginative, women realistic? It seems so. But waitl Here is a paragraph taking the view:
I just don't understand this man. He says men are imaginative, are realistic. "For confirmation of this truism," he says, "I give you Hans Christian Andersen, the Brothers Grimm, Andrew Lang, Virgil, and the nameless spinner of Scheherazade's adventures" O.K., Anymous, two can play at gift giving. 1 give you Marie de France, the Sisters Bronte, Beatrix Potter, Selma Lagerlof, lady, Laura E,, Richards, Helen Bannerman, Lily F. Wessethoeft, and Beatrice Lillie. No, on second though I think I’ll keep Betrice Lillie. You don’t deserve her, and I doubt if you could manage her.
You see E.B. White gives us some details that Anonymous has left so you can see that Anonymous's argument is not worth what it seemed to be.
These paragraphs by aninonymous and E.B. White illustrate the difficulty you may have in evaluating an argument supported by particulars and details. It you are not familiar with a given subject, you may easily be misled by a one-sided presentation of details. The will appear logical to you because you do not know that supporting an opposing argument have been left out.
How can you cope intelligently with this difficulty? How can you whether opposing details have not been presented? These are not questions to answer, for the truth about many problems is hard to find out, even here in the United States, where, normally, we are free from censorship. One thing you can do is to seek deliberately for opposing arguments. If you are in the habit of reading only one, find some magazine with a different editorial policy and read it too. Read newspapers and books written from different points of view Another thing you can do is to keep an open mind. Remember, not seemingly plausible argument is sound.
Misleading Comparison
Let us examine a selection in which a conclusion is reached by paring one animal with another. What is your evaluation of the result?
The cat is a stupid animal, incapable of learning any tricks. Whoever heard of a cat who would play dead or shake hands?
The dog, on the other hand, is quick to learn. He can be taught to beg, to shake hands, to fetch his master's slippers, and to guard, even with his own 1ife, his master's child.
The cat is stubborn; she does as she pleases. If a child tries to play with her and she wants to sleep, she scratches the child and runs away.
But a dog is obedient and dog's ears are sensitive), 'only that baby love him and pat on the head.
The cat is selfish and lacking in affection. She prefers being left in a cozy spot by the fire to being petted and played with.
But the dog is most loving. He lives, not by meat alone, but by the affection caresses of his master. Dogs have been known to refuse food and even to die when a beloved master has left them.
Clearly, the dog is a much better pet than the cat.
If you don't know cats or dogs, this selection may soi.uzd logical. But before you accept the conclusion that the dog is a better pet than the cat, read the following selection:
The dog is filthy fellow. He litters the dooryard with bones, old shoes, and other things he drags in. He wades through mud but protests when he is given a bath.
The cat, however, is clean. She never litters the house or the lawn, and she constantly washes herself, thus keeping her coat glossy and beautiful.
The dog appears more intelligent than he is because he aims to please. By patience, repetition, and praise, his master can teach him to perform many tricks. And if the dog is given food as a reward, he will learn more quickly than otherwise.
But the cat is shrewd. She knows how to get what she wants. A Persian cat once learned to pretend that she wanted to be let outside in order to get her mistress out of bed. But when Miss Green got up, Pussy always went straight to the refrigerator, where the food was kept.
The cat, though affectionate (how she loves to be stroked), is independent. She is a free animal and will not cringe or fawn for favors.
But the dog is servile. Whip him, and he comes crawling like a slave. Truly, the cat, unlike the dog, is a noble animal, one worthy of respect.
Now you can see that, like the method of supporting a statement by details, the method of comparison and contrast may be misleading if important details are left out. In the two selections concerning the dog and the cat, neither has made use of false of details; yet, as a whole, each selection is misleading and false.
The Method of Repetition
Repetition of a slogan is a method of advertising which calls for alertness rather than for evaluation. It is used without supporting evidence and may give the reader or listener no opportunity for thought. The way in which it may mislead us is insidious; it works subtly. The first time we hear the refrain "that Rosebud look" and we are told that we can have it "in just ten days" we may laugh. After we have heard it a hundred times, it may sink into our subconscious, and we may find ourselves thinking that the use of Rosebud soap really will give us a beautiful, rose-petal-soft skin.
And so it goes with a dozen other slogans, ''the prevention lotion," "not a sore throat in a train load," "they thrill,” “she’s engaged she uses wonder crème” – after we have heard them along enough, we may believe them.
Faulty Cause-to-Effect Reasoning
Another thing to watch for as you read is faulty cause-to-effect reasoning. A common difficulty in cause-to-effect reasoning is distinguishing between a true cause of an event or condition and samething which merely went before that event or condition.
Example I
On my way to the grocery. I saw a black cat. On my way home, I dropped a dozen eggs. Did the black cat cause me to drop the eggs? Well, on my trip to the grocery, I saw other things besides the black cat: a bed of yellow jonquils, a brilliant cardinal and his reddish brown mate, a wriggling puppy, a curly-headed baby holding onto his mother's hand. Why, then, should I say that, out of all the things I saw, the black cat brought me my bad luck? Very likely it was my own carelessness which was responsible.
Example 2
I had a cold last week. I went to bed, took aspirin and soda. In four days the cold was practically gone. Did the aspirin and soda cure it? Or the bed rest? If you ask your doctor, he'l1 probably tell you that many colds get better in four days' time, no matter what remedies are used or not used. So, you see, an event or condition is not necessarily caused by an event or condition immediately preceding it.
Further you must be aware of the judgement the author is making and you must also be aware of the judgment you make based on your own bias about the subject.
To evaluate or to judge what you read you must attempt to answer such questions as these:
- Is the author telling the truth as far as he knows it?
- Does he know the truth?
- Is he prejudiced?
- Does he have an ax to grind?
- What are his ideas and claims worth to me?
In the following paragraphs some standards of evaluation are discussed.
A One-Side Presentation of Details.
Next let us evaluate two paragraphs making use of particulars and details in support of an argument.
Much of this masculine point of view or course is due to the fact that man is giving to vain (if sometimes glorious) imaginings, whereas woman is realistic. I utter nothing new or revolutionary in saying this. For confirmation of the truism that imagination is peculiarly masculine, one need only recall that all the fairy tales of the world have been, and continue to be, written by men. I give you Hans Christian Andersen, the Brothers Grimm, Andrew Lang, Homer, Virgil, the s spinner of Scheherazade's adventures, the Arab storyteller in the market place, the Indian creator of mythology, the ancient Hebrews who accounted for the beginnings of life. At the same time, masculine imagination creates the Casper Milquetoasts of the -world. They people life with terrors of their own devising and then become frightened by their own creations; they deteat themselves before ever getting a start.
Anonymous proved his claim that men are imaginative, women realistic? It seems so. But waitl Here is a paragraph taking the view:
I just don't understand this man. He says men are imaginative, are realistic. "For confirmation of this truism," he says, "I give you Hans Christian Andersen, the Brothers Grimm, Andrew Lang, Virgil, and the nameless spinner of Scheherazade's adventures" O.K., Anymous, two can play at gift giving. 1 give you Marie de France, the Sisters Bronte, Beatrix Potter, Selma Lagerlof, lady, Laura E,, Richards, Helen Bannerman, Lily F. Wessethoeft, and Beatrice Lillie. No, on second though I think I’ll keep Betrice Lillie. You don’t deserve her, and I doubt if you could manage her.
You see E.B. White gives us some details that Anonymous has left so you can see that Anonymous's argument is not worth what it seemed to be.
These paragraphs by aninonymous and E.B. White illustrate the difficulty you may have in evaluating an argument supported by particulars and details. It you are not familiar with a given subject, you may easily be misled by a one-sided presentation of details. The will appear logical to you because you do not know that supporting an opposing argument have been left out.
How can you cope intelligently with this difficulty? How can you whether opposing details have not been presented? These are not questions to answer, for the truth about many problems is hard to find out, even here in the United States, where, normally, we are free from censorship. One thing you can do is to seek deliberately for opposing arguments. If you are in the habit of reading only one, find some magazine with a different editorial policy and read it too. Read newspapers and books written from different points of view Another thing you can do is to keep an open mind. Remember, not seemingly plausible argument is sound.
Misleading Comparison
Let us examine a selection in which a conclusion is reached by paring one animal with another. What is your evaluation of the result?
The cat is a stupid animal, incapable of learning any tricks. Whoever heard of a cat who would play dead or shake hands?
The dog, on the other hand, is quick to learn. He can be taught to beg, to shake hands, to fetch his master's slippers, and to guard, even with his own 1ife, his master's child.
The cat is stubborn; she does as she pleases. If a child tries to play with her and she wants to sleep, she scratches the child and runs away.
But a dog is obedient and dog's ears are sensitive), 'only that baby love him and pat on the head.
The cat is selfish and lacking in affection. She prefers being left in a cozy spot by the fire to being petted and played with.
But the dog is most loving. He lives, not by meat alone, but by the affection caresses of his master. Dogs have been known to refuse food and even to die when a beloved master has left them.
Clearly, the dog is a much better pet than the cat.
If you don't know cats or dogs, this selection may soi.uzd logical. But before you accept the conclusion that the dog is a better pet than the cat, read the following selection:
The dog is filthy fellow. He litters the dooryard with bones, old shoes, and other things he drags in. He wades through mud but protests when he is given a bath.
The cat, however, is clean. She never litters the house or the lawn, and she constantly washes herself, thus keeping her coat glossy and beautiful.
The dog appears more intelligent than he is because he aims to please. By patience, repetition, and praise, his master can teach him to perform many tricks. And if the dog is given food as a reward, he will learn more quickly than otherwise.
But the cat is shrewd. She knows how to get what she wants. A Persian cat once learned to pretend that she wanted to be let outside in order to get her mistress out of bed. But when Miss Green got up, Pussy always went straight to the refrigerator, where the food was kept.
The cat, though affectionate (how she loves to be stroked), is independent. She is a free animal and will not cringe or fawn for favors.
But the dog is servile. Whip him, and he comes crawling like a slave. Truly, the cat, unlike the dog, is a noble animal, one worthy of respect.
Now you can see that, like the method of supporting a statement by details, the method of comparison and contrast may be misleading if important details are left out. In the two selections concerning the dog and the cat, neither has made use of false of details; yet, as a whole, each selection is misleading and false.
The Method of Repetition
Repetition of a slogan is a method of advertising which calls for alertness rather than for evaluation. It is used without supporting evidence and may give the reader or listener no opportunity for thought. The way in which it may mislead us is insidious; it works subtly. The first time we hear the refrain "that Rosebud look" and we are told that we can have it "in just ten days" we may laugh. After we have heard it a hundred times, it may sink into our subconscious, and we may find ourselves thinking that the use of Rosebud soap really will give us a beautiful, rose-petal-soft skin.
And so it goes with a dozen other slogans, ''the prevention lotion," "not a sore throat in a train load," "they thrill,” “she’s engaged she uses wonder crème” – after we have heard them along enough, we may believe them.
Faulty Cause-to-Effect Reasoning
Another thing to watch for as you read is faulty cause-to-effect reasoning. A common difficulty in cause-to-effect reasoning is distinguishing between a true cause of an event or condition and samething which merely went before that event or condition.
Example I
On my way to the grocery. I saw a black cat. On my way home, I dropped a dozen eggs. Did the black cat cause me to drop the eggs? Well, on my trip to the grocery, I saw other things besides the black cat: a bed of yellow jonquils, a brilliant cardinal and his reddish brown mate, a wriggling puppy, a curly-headed baby holding onto his mother's hand. Why, then, should I say that, out of all the things I saw, the black cat brought me my bad luck? Very likely it was my own carelessness which was responsible.
Example 2
I had a cold last week. I went to bed, took aspirin and soda. In four days the cold was practically gone. Did the aspirin and soda cure it? Or the bed rest? If you ask your doctor, he'l1 probably tell you that many colds get better in four days' time, no matter what remedies are used or not used. So, you see, an event or condition is not necessarily caused by an event or condition immediately preceding it.
No comments:
Post a Comment