PHIL 347 Week 8 Journal

Name

Chamberlain University

PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning

Prof. Name

Date

Critical Thinking

Reflection on Definition

Upon reviewing my initial journal entry, I find that my definition of critical thinking remains unchanged. I continue to believe that critical thinking involves the ability to utilize one’s knowledge effectively and apply it to real-life situations. For instance, a nurse must possess strong critical thinking skills to provide optimal care for patients. This enduring perspective underscores the practical application of critical thinking in professional settings.

Heart of the Matter

Importance of Concepts in Critical Thinking

In my first journal entry, I reflected on the authors’ assertion that the concepts presented in Chapters 12, 13, and 14 constitute “the heart of the matter.” After studying these chapters in depth, I now understand that these concepts are pivotal to critical thinking because they elucidate how humans think and the reasoning processes behind their thoughts. These chapters lay the foundation for our critical thinking abilities, enabling us to analyze differing viewpoints and understand the reasoning behind disagreements. This enhanced comprehension reinforces the authors’ emphasis on these concepts as essential to developing robust critical thinking skills.

Journal

Ethical Decision-Making

The lecture posited that an argument is ineffective unless it is grounded in a “strong and reasoned ethical base.” I agree with this assertion, as ethics play a crucial role in forming sound arguments. Ethics involve the principles that govern right and wrong conduct, while an argument consists of reasons aimed at persuading others about the validity of an action or idea. Combining these definitions highlights the synergy between ethics and effective argumentation. For example, cheating on a test is universally recognized as unethical, making it an unacceptable behavior. Therefore, incorporating ethical considerations strengthens the validity and persuasiveness of an argument.

Looking Forward

Lifelong Learning in Critical Thinking

I do not believe that I have acquired all the necessary knowledge about critical thinking within the past eight weeks. Instead, I view critical thinking as a lifelong endeavor. Continuous learning is essential because new information and experiences constantly emerge, requiring ongoing critical analysis. For example, in the nursing profession, critical thinking is integral to daily practice as nurses encounter diverse challenges within their scope of practice. This perpetual learning process ensures that critical thinking skills remain sharp and relevant throughout one’s career.

PHIL 347 Week 8 Journal

Table: Reflection on Critical Thinking and Ethical Decision-Making

PHIL 347 Week 7 Course Project: Argumentative Paper

Name

Chamberlain University

PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning

Prof. Name

Date

Title: Should the Police Be Defunded?

In recent years, public awareness and discourse surrounding issues like gender, career pathways, wealth inequality, race, and human rights have become more prominent. Society no longer takes government policies and social norms at face value; instead, individuals increasingly seek education and stand up for their rights. A pivotal moment in this awakening occurred with the tragic death of George Floyd, an African American man. Accused of a minor offense, Floyd was detained, handcuffed, and held on the ground by police officers, one of whom kneeled on his neck despite Floyd’s pleas that he couldn’t breathe. This incident resulted in Floyd’s death and ignited a surge of Black Lives Matter protests, with “I can’t breathe” becoming a rallying cry. Floyd’s case highlighted long-standing issues of racial discrimination and mistreatment by law enforcement toward people of color, leading to widespread calls for police defunding. This paper will examine the contentious debate around defunding the police and argue against it due to the potential for increased crime, limited impact on racial injustice, and economic implications for local governments.

Advantages of Defunding the Police

Advocates for police defunding argue that reducing police budgets would curtail abuses of power, particularly against marginalized communities. The criminal justice system has a history of disproportionately incarcerating Black individuals, with one in three Black men expected to face incarceration in their lifetimes, compared to one in six Latino men and one in seventeen White men (Hinton et al., 2018). Black women are also significantly affected, with one in eighteen expected to face incarceration, compared to one in one hundred eleven White women (Hinton et al., 2018). Studies show that racial injustice in law enforcement stems partly from systemic racism and a lack of diversity within the police force (DeAngelis, 2021). For example, the Mapping Police Violence Database reveals that Black people are statistically less likely to be armed during police encounters, yet they face disproportionately high fatality rates (DeAngelis, 2021). Another argument for defunding is that resources currently allocated to police could be redirected to community development efforts, such as mental health services, education, and affordable housing (The Economist Newspaper, 2020).

Disadvantages of Defunding the Police

Opponents of defunding argue that it would increase crime rates, as police presence serves as a deterrent to criminal activity. Lum et al. (2021) found that approximately 17% of calls to the police are for non-violent crimes, suggesting that police play a crucial role in maintaining public order. The complete removal or reduction of police funding could compromise community safety, particularly in high-crime areas. Furthermore, defunding does not address the root causes of racial injustice within law enforcement. Racial discrimination is a complex psychological issue tied to factors such as social hierarchy, power structures, and media influence, as outlined by Roberts & Rizzo (2021). While reallocating police funding may limit officers’ on-duty actions, it does not address underlying prejudices that contribute to racism. Lastly, the economic consequences of defunding should be considered. Since the 2007–2009 financial crisis, local governments have relied on fines and fees collected by law enforcement to fund community projects (The Economist Newspaper, 2020). Reducing police funding would impact local government revenue and potentially hinder public services.

Conclusion

The decision to defund or maintain police funding requires a balanced consideration of the pros and cons. This paper concludes that police should not be defunded, as the potential for increased crime, minimal impact on racial justice, and negative economic consequences outweigh the advantages. The complex issues surrounding law enforcement reform demand more than budget cuts; instead, systemic solutions that address the psychological and social roots of racial injustice are needed.

References

DeAngelis, R. (2021). New Evidence from the Mapping Police Violence Database. SAGE Journals. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/21533687211047943

Hinton, E., Henderson, L., & Reed, C. (2018). An Unjust Burden: The Disparate Treatment of Black Americans in the Criminal Justice System. Vera Institute of Justice. https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/for-the-record-unjust-burden-racial-disparities.pdf

Lum, C., Koper, C., & Wu, X. (2021). Can We Really Defund the Police? A Nine-Agency Study of Police Response to Calls for Service. Police Quarterly. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10986111211035002

PHIL 347 Week 7 Course Project: Argumentative Paper

Roberts, S., & Rizzo, S. (2021). The Psychology of American Psychology. American Psychological Association. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-45459-001

The Economist Newspaper. (2020). Cutting American police budgets might have perverse effects: Defunding the police. The Economist (Online). https://www-proquest-com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/docview/2421186570

PHIL 347 Week 6 Checkpoint

Name

Chamberlain University

PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning

Prof. Name

Date

Question 1: Fundamental Reasoning Strategies

The text identifies three fundamental reasoning strategies that guide our approach to analyzing information: comparative reasoning, ideological reasoning, and empirical reasoning. Each strategy plays a role in how we interpret data, form arguments, and draw conclusions in critical thinking contexts.

Question 2: Comparative Reasoning and Its Basis

Comparative reasoning involves a process of comparing two concepts or ideas to highlight similarities or differences. This form of reasoning helps individuals interpret information, draw inferences, and offer explanations. It fundamentally relies on critical thinking skills, allowing individuals to link familiar concepts with unfamiliar ones to enhance understanding.

Question 3: Evaluating Comparative Reasoning with Argumentation Tests

The textbook outlines four tests for evaluating arguments: truthfulness of premises, logical strength, relevance, and non-circularity. These tests, however, are not ideal for assessing comparative reasoning. For instance, using “true” or “false” as evaluative terms does not sufficiently clarify comparisons in the first test. The second test, which assesses similarities and dissimilarities, often presents conflicting cases, making it challenging to use effectively. The third test requires the maker of the analogy to clarify the comparison’s relevance, which is subjective. Lastly, in the fourth test, unfamiliar concepts complicate connecting premises to conclusions, as seen in comparisons like business and warfare, where the unfamiliarity of war among businesspeople hinders comprehension. Therefore, these tests fall short in evaluating comparative reasoning effectively.

Question 4: Criteria for Evaluating Comparative Reasoning

Five criteria are essential in evaluating comparative reasoning: familiarity, simplicity, comprehensiveness, productivity, and testability. Familiarity refers to the listener’s knowledge level of the compared objects. Simplicity examines the complexity of the comparison, while comprehensiveness considers the comparison’s inclusion of key features. Productivity measures the comparison’s ability to generate new ideas, and testability refers to its capacity to predict outcomes that may be false.

Question 5: Importance of Key Similarities in Comparisons

The effectiveness of a comparison is largely determined by the strength of its key similarities. When similarities between two items are strong and persuasive, the credibility of the resulting conclusion is enhanced, as the comparison becomes more meaningful and relevant.

Question 6: Defining Empirical Reasoning

Empirical reasoning is a logical approach based on evidence and observations. It involves using experiential premises to support or refute a hypothesis. This reasoning is inductive, self-corrective, and open to verification through independent scrutiny.

Question 7: Characteristics of Empirical Reasoning

Empirical reasoning possesses three defining characteristics: it is inductive, self-corrective, and verifiable by independent sources, ensuring that conclusions drawn can be challenged and tested for accuracy.

Question 8: The Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis is an empirical concept proposing that any observed association between two variables is purely coincidental. This hypothesis is foundational in statistical testing.

Question 9: Purpose of Empirical Reasoning

The primary goal of empirical reasoning is to provide explanations, make predictions, or control events by drawing on evidence-based premises.

Question 10: Evaluating Empirical Reasoning

Empirical reasoning is evaluated using the four argumentation tests: truthfulness, logical strength, relevance, and non-circularity. Independent verification, such as peer review, can further validate empirical findings.

Question 11: Addressing Logical Strength in Research Design

The research design phase that addresses logical strength involves data analysis and interpretation of findings. This stage provides grounds for making logical inferences regarding the hypothesis’s validity, ensuring a robust link between premises and conclusions.

Question 12: Purpose and Process of Peer Review

Peer review involves expert scrutiny of research, evaluating the validity of methods, ideas, and conclusions. Its primary goal is to ensure that published research meets established standards of credibility and rigor.

Question 13: Correlation and Causation in Critical Thinking Courses

While data supports a positive correlation between critical thinking courses and student skill development, this does not imply causation. Multiple factors may contribute to skill improvement, making it inappropriate to attribute causality to course participation alone.

Question 14: Caution in Assumptions About Empirical Reasoning

Empirical reasoning, even if it appears rigorous, should not automatically be assumed to meet all evaluative criteria. Errors in peer review or statistical analysis can lead to the publication of flawed findings; therefore, caution is warranted.

PHIL 347 Week 6 Checkpoint

References

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).

PHIL 347 Week 6 Checkpoint

Sternberg, R. J., & Sternberg, K. (2016). Cognitive psychology (7th ed.).

PHIL 347 Week 5 Journal

Name

Chamberlain University

PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning

Prof. Name

Date

Week 5: Journal on Self-Regulation and Decision-Making

Self-regulation is a crucial skill that allows individuals to recognize and assess their actions or decisions and, when necessary, make corrections. Without purposeful effort, focusing attention can become challenging, particularly when multitasking or engaging in routine activities. This process is frequently in use during daily activities, such as studying or staying alert while driving. The mind often operates in two thinking systems. System-1, a quick and reactive process, is used in situations demanding immediate responses. For example, ordering coffee in a familiar coffee shop requires minimal thought, as the situation is routine. As Facione (2016) explains, “System-1 thinking relies heavily on situational cues, salient memories, and heuristic thinking to arrive quickly and confidently at judgments, particularly when situations are familiar and immediate action is required.” By contrast, System-2 thinking is a slower, more logical process used when situations require thoughtful planning or deliberation. For instance, selecting a college is a decision involving consideration and analysis of various options, aligning with long-term life goals. This process is supported by System-2 thinking as it allows for a more thorough examination of options, leading to a conscious, well-considered choice. According to Facione (2016), “Critical thinking is system-2 thinking focused on resolving the problem at hand and at the same time monitoring and self-correcting one’s own process of thinking about that problem.”

Heuristics also play an influential role in decision-making. They act as mental shortcuts, allowing for quick decisions based on previous experiences. A common example is choosing an outfit for a busy day; when rushed, a familiar outfit may be chosen rather than thoughtfully selecting a new one. Heuristics are efficient for quick decision-making but can lead to cognitive bias if relied upon excessively. For instance, upon hearing a description of someone fond of donuts and frequently dressed in blue, one might assume the individual is a police officer rather than a family member, like a grandfather.

PHIL 347 Week 5 Journal

This is known as representative heuristics, a form of stereotyping. Another decision-making factor is dominance structuring, where a person strongly believes in their choice and resists changing it. This confidence can be beneficial, such as when completing a project or fulfilling a promise to help a friend. However, it may also lead to unfavorable outcomes if the person is unwilling to reevaluate their decision, especially in high-stakes situations like diagnosing a patient. Facione (2016) observes, “The critical thinking skill of self-regulation and the habit of truth-seeking are our best hopes for identifying those occasions and guarding against hanging onto poor decisions.”

Cognitive bias, often influenced by memory, impacts judgments by skewing our perception of events. When we interpret future situations through the lens of past experiences, bias may cloud our judgment. For example, observing someone become ill after receiving a vaccine might lead to the assumption that vaccines generally cause illness. However, by examining facts and data—such as understanding the individual may have had a cold unrelated to the vaccine—our perspective can shift, enabling more informed decisions. Mastering factual knowledge and data interpretation can reduce cognitive biases in System-1 thinking, promoting clearer and more rational decision-making.

Decision-Making Concepts Table

PHIL 347 Week 5 Journal

References

Facione, P. A., & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Think critically.

PHIL 347 Week 4 Assignment: Journal

Name

Chamberlain University

PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning

Prof. Name

Date

Week 4 Assignment: Journal Inference

Inference and Reasoning

Inductive and deductive reasoning are both essential methods for reaching sound conclusions, much like the terms “valid” and “warranted.” Although different, both approaches ultimately seek to ensure that a topic is justified. Deductive reasoning emphasizes research hypotheses, whereas inductive reasoning is more focused on generating hypotheses from new data. These terms are context-sensitive, meaning that readers interpret their meaning based on usage. For instance, one might say, “Mary’s test results are not valid because she cheated,” where “valid” relates to integrity. Conversely, the term can also indicate something justifiable, as in, “He made a valid remark by bringing up the event that occurred last year.” Similarly, “warranted” varies by context: “John’s actions warranted that he be sent home from work” implies a justified action, while “He received a warrant from the court” pertains to a legal document. Despite originating from the same linguistic roots, each term adopts unique meanings depending on its application.

Fallacies in Argumentation

Understanding and identifying fallacies and the faulty logic they present in clear, everyday terms greatly aids in evaluating arguments (Facione & Gittens, 2016). I find this approach insightful because it highlights the essence of fallacies and the importance of explaining them clearly for comprehension. The following example illustrates a fallacious argument: “Anyone that is imprisoned can still be innocent, as understanding of one’s condition is true freedom. The more you are aware of yourself, the more you are completely free” (Facione & Gittens, 2016). The assertion implies that self-awareness equates to freedom, despite physical confinement, which distorts reality. A more accurate expression would suggest that learning about oneself can enhance personal freedom if grounded in self-belief.

Civic Responsibilities in Health Care

The American healthcare system has been a contentious issue for decades, with ongoing debate over whether the U.S. should implement universal healthcare similar to other nations, many of which are less affluent yet manage to provide comprehensive coverage. Addressing such a topic, as outlined in the assignment, requires substantial time and research. Although the discussion dates back to 2009, exploring this issue may offer insights into our healthcare system’s structure and current policies. Particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare accessibility is paramount as it helps cover medical bills, doctor’s visits, and medication expenses. The pandemic underscores the urgent need for the government to create affordable healthcare options for the uninsured. For many Americans, access to healthcare can mean the difference between life and death. Working in a medical office, I frequently see patients struggle with copays and prescription costs, a heartbreaking reality. Despite offering assistance, such as copay cards, discount codes, or free samples, these efforts often fall short. Many uninsured individuals hesitate to seek hospital care, fearing insurmountable debt.#

PHIL 347 Week 4 Assignment: Journal

References

Facione, P. A., & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Think critically (3rd ed.).

PHIL 347 Week 3 Quiz Critical Thinking

Name

Chamberlain University

PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning

Prof. Name

Date

Week 3 Checkpoint Quiz Overview

The Week 3 Checkpoint Quiz is scheduled to be completed by January 25 at 1:59 am and is worth 50 points. It consists of 10 questions, accessible for 8 days from January 17 at 1:59 am to January 25 at 1:59 am. This quiz assesses understanding of key concepts and terminology from Chapters 6 and 7 of the course textbook. There is no time limit on this quiz, but students are allowed only one attempt. Grading for this quiz is based on the accuracy of responses, directly aligned with course outcomes (CO) 2, 4, and 6.

Instructions and Quiz Content

This checkpoint quiz aims to evaluate students’ comprehension of core course topics, particularly critical thinking and analysis. Students should review Chapters 6 and 7 in the textbook and corresponding lessons before starting the quiz. Questions in the quiz require students to articulate and apply critical thinking principles by responding to scenarios and evaluating the logic behind various claims. Each question must be answered based on the knowledge gained from assigned readings, with each answer checked against specific benchmarks, including tests of logical strength, relevance, and accuracy.

Quiz Performance and Feedback

After submission, students can review their answers, along with their performance score. A score of 50 out of 50 indicates full comprehension of the quiz material, with responses correctly addressing all critical thinking challenges presented. Answers to questions cover diverse concepts, such as evaluating authority perspectives, defining expertise, analyzing unsupported claims, and identifying reasoning fallacies. The quiz also includes real-world scenarios where students must apply learned criteria to test arguments’ worthiness and reasonableness.

Table of Quiz Details

PHIL 347 Week 3 Quiz Critical Thinking

References

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).

PHIL 347 Week 2 Discussion

Name

Chamberlain University

PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning

Prof. Name

Date

Option 1: California Washington Mural

Action to Take on the Artwork

The murals depicting America’s past and involving themes of slavery, prejudice, and hatred should not remain visible, especially in public spaces like high schools. These depictions serve as reminders of a painful history that may trigger negative emotions for viewers. Consequently, I strongly believe that the murals should either be destroyed or covered up to prevent these visuals from perpetuating harmful narratives.

Message Conveyed by the Artwork

When Victor Arnautoff originally created these murals, they aimed to reflect the revolutionary era’s historic events. Although they may not have seemed offensive at the time, the context has shifted, and the artwork’s representations are now politically charged. These murals contain strong political critiques, likely intended to spark conversations around past political controversies and social events (Mahnken, 2019). Today, however, these representations may induce discomfort among viewers, as the artwork’s message no longer aligns with contemporary values of inclusivity.

The Artwork’s Historic Significance and the Artists’ Intentions

While the murals possess historical significance, not all history requires preservation, especially when it represents brutal or tragic events. Presently, our society seeks to engage with historical “truth” rather than an idealized or sanitized version. In my view, the artist may have intentionally portrayed a biased view by excluding certain harsh realities like slavery and genocide faced by African Americans and Native Americans (Pogash, 2019). Furthermore, individual viewers may interpret these murals through their own experiences and biases, influencing their reception of the artist’s message.

References

• Mahnken, K. (2019, July 23). Censorship or student safety? Plans to remove iconic mural at San Francisco High School spark furor. The 74 Million. Retrieved January 15, 2022, from https://www.the74million.org/article/censorship-or-student-safety-plans-to-remove-iconic-mural-at-san-francisco-high-school-spark-furor/

PHIL 347 Week 2 Discussion

• Pogash, C. (2019, April 11). These high school murals depict an ugly history. Should they go? The New York Times. Retrieved January 15, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/arts/design/george-washington-murals-ugly-history-debated.html

PHIL 347 Week 1 Assignment: Journal

Name

Chamberlain University

PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning

Prof. Name

Date

Week 1 Assignment: Journal Critical Thinking

Definition of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking can be understood as the process of thoughtful consideration before providing a response or taking action. Although it is commonly exercised in daily life, individuals may not always recognize when they are engaging in critical thinking due to the habitual nature of certain decisions. Sometimes, muscle memory takes over, allowing for automatic responses without conscious thought. However, in situations requiring careful consideration, it is necessary to pause and reflect before reaching a decision. In the nursing profession, critical thinking is essential. For instance, when caring for patients, I use critical thinking by integrating my knowledge, evidence-based research, and physician orders to ensure the best possible outcomes for patients.

Heart of the Matter

The authors of Think Critically (Facione & Gittens, 2016) identify chapters 12, 13, and 14 as the “heart of the matter” because these chapters bridge together earlier content, creating a cohesive understanding of critical thinking. By describing these chapters as the core, the authors suggest that they provide key contrasts between different thought processes. They emphasize that even when individuals strive to be objective, underlying uncertainties may influence their thought processes. This reflects that our thinking is often shaped more by belief systems than by empirical evidence alone. The three chapters focus on inference and explanation. Inference refers to drawing conclusions based on evidence, while explanation involves understanding the rationale behind these conclusions. Although I may not fully grasp the significance of these concepts, I recognize that drawing a valid inference requires a logical explanation. For instance, if a favorite television show is abruptly canceled, I might feel disappointed. However, knowing the reason behind the cancellation would allow me to understand and accept the decision more readily.

Challenges and Insights

One of my main challenges this semester will be keeping up with the weekly reading assignments. I do not particularly enjoy reading books and often prefer learning through PowerPoint slides. Additionally, being enrolled in an online course means I must adapt to learning without in-person lectures. Nevertheless, the concepts I encountered in the first three chapters have taught me the importance of not rushing to conclusions. By examining situations thoroughly, I can gain a deeper understanding of what went wrong and why, enabling me to identify logical explanations. I also tend to be quick-tempered, though this trait mainly surfaces with family members. I suspect this is because I let my guard down with them, whereas I am more restrained with others. Ultimately, the lessons learned from this course will benefit me personally and professionally, as they encourage greater patience and understanding.

References

Facione, P. A., & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Think critically (3rd ed.). Pearson.

PHIL 347 Week 1 Assignment: Journal

Table Version