 Background Beliefs
We’ve all had that experience, the one where we start arguing with someone and find that we disagree about pretty much everything. When two people have radically different background beliefs (or worldviews), they often have difficulty finding any sort of common ground. In this lesson, students will learn to distinguish between the two different types of background beliefs: beliefs about matters of fact and beliefs about values. They will then go on to consider their most deeply held background beliefs, those that constitute their worldview. Students will work to go beyond specific arguments to consider the worldviews that might underlie different types of arguments.
|
 Building a Better Argument
Whether it’s an ad for burger chains, the closing scene of a “Law & Order” spinoff, a discussion with the parents about your social life or a coach disputing a close call, arguments are an inescapable part of our lives. In this lesson, students will learn to create good arguments by getting a handle on the basic structure. The lesson will provide useful tips for picking out premises and conclusions and for analyzing the effectiveness of arguments.
|
.jpg) Everything You Know Is Wrong 1: Us and Them
Good reasoning doesn’t come naturally. In fact, humans are instinctively terrible reasoners — most of the time, the way our brains work isn’t rational at all. Even with exceptional training in analytical thinking, we still have to overcome instincts to think simplistically and non-analytically. In this lesson, students explore some of the irrational ways in which humans think, and learn to recognize and overcome the habits of mind that can get in the way of good reasoning. Here we focus on the ways that people define themselves and others — how we develop our personal and group identities, how we treat people whose identities are similar or different, and how this affects our perceptions and our ability to reason.
|
.jpg) Everything You Know Is Wrong 2: Beliefs and Behavior
Good reasoning doesn’t come naturally. In fact, humans are instinctively terrible reasoners — most of the time, the way our brains work isn’t rational at all. Even with exceptional training in reasoning skills, we still have to overcome instincts to think simplistically and non-analytically. This is the second of two lessons focusing on the instincts and habits of mind that keep us from thinking logically. In the first one, we looked at how people define themselves, alone and in groups, and how this affects behavior. This time around, we will focus on how people reconcile their beliefs with the world around them, even when the evidence doesn’t seem to agree with those beliefs.
|
 Hoodia Hoodoo
Many of us have wished we could magically shed a few pounds. So it’s no surprise that "miracle" weight-loss products rake in millions of dollars – especially when their advertisements sandwich (so to speak) endorsements by leading news organizations between pictures of impossibly ripped bodies. It’s also no surprise that the products rarely live up to their billing. This lesson assesses misleading claims for a weight-loss product called Hoodia that is advertised heavily on the Internet and elsewhere. Students will dig beneath the hype to find the single scientific study on which the marketing is based and analyze whether it can support the claims.
|
 House and Holmes: A Guide to Deductive and Inductive Reasoning
Maybe you’ve seen Dr. House in action – figuring things out from what seem like totally unrelated clues. Like Sherlock Holmes before him, House is a master of induction. In this lesson, students will keep up with the doctor (and a lawyer, too) as they learn how to spot – and analyze – both inductive and deductive arguments. Students will then get a chance to show off their deductive skills by solving a logic puzzle and test their inductive abilities by solving a 5-minute mystery.
|
 Listerine: Miracle Liquid or Product in Search of a Purpose?
Everyone knows that Listerine kills the germs that cause bad breath. You probably assumed that meant that Listerine would cure bad breath. But it doesn’t. Nor does it cure dandruff. Or prevent colds. Or eliminate the need for flossing. That, of course, hasn’t kept the makers of Listerine from making all of those claims. This lesson examines misleading (and even outright false) advertisements for Listerine, a well-known household product. Students will locate and analyze several alternative sources of information about Listerine’s claims and weigh their credibility.
|
.jpg) Monty Python and the Quest for the Perfect Fallacy
If you weigh the same as a duck, then, logically, you’re made of wood and must be a witch. Or so goes the reasoning of Monty Python’s Sir Bedevere. Obviously something has gone wrong with the knight’s reasoning – and by the end of this lesson, you’ll know exactly what that is. This lesson will focus on 10 fallacies that represent the most common types of mistakes in reasoning.
|
 PETA Pressure
Persuading an audience requires intensive research and scrupulous fact-checking – or, you could just figure out what your audience wants to hear and tell them that. Politicians, advertisers and others with something to sell choose words and images that will appeal to their target audience, enticing them to accept claims unquestioningly. Some of these manipulators, like the animal activism site peta2.com, focus their attentions on teenagers and young adults. In this lesson, students won't check peta2's factual accuracy, but will learn to spot their manipulative tactics and why they should be skeptical about them.
|
 The Battle of the Experts
When we hear a piece of information that surprises us, we often react by saying, “Where’d you hear that?” It’s a good question, and one we should ask more often, because some sources are better – sometimes much better – than others. In this lesson, students will learn to distinguish between credible and not-so-credible types of sources. They’ll explore the biases of different sources and develop tools for detecting bias. In their effort to get to facts that are as objective as possible, students will examine the differences between primary and secondary sources, check the track records of different sources and practice looking for broad consensus from a range of disinterested experts.
|
.jpg) The Credibility Challenge: In Search of Authority on the Internet
The Internet can be a rich and valuable source of information – and an even richer source of misinformation. Sorting out the valuable claims from the worthless ones is tricky, since at first glance a Web site written by an expert can look a lot like one written by your next-door neighbor. This lesson offers students background and practice in determining authority on the Internet – how to tell whether an author has expertise or not, and whether you’re getting the straight story.
|
.jpeg) The Language of Deception
It’s a phased withdrawal, not a retreat. Except that the terms actually mean the same thing. But “retreat” sounds much worse, so savvy politicians avoid using it. That’s because they understand that there is a difference between the cognitive (or literal) meaning and the emotive meaning of a word. This lesson examines the ways in which terms that pack an emotional punch can add power to a statement – and also ways in which emotive meanings can be used to mislead, either by doing the reader’s thinking for him or by blinding her to the real nature of the issue.
|
 Who'll Stop the...Snow?
Rudy Giuliani, maybe? After all, he did it in New York. At least that’s what he boasted during a Republican presidential primary debate in November 2007. Giuliani, who has since dropped out of the race, was clearly joking, but his spoof illustrated a serious point that good critical reasoners should keep in mind: the fact that two things happen at the same time isn’t by itself reason for thinking that they are related. Giuliani’s joke illustrates what logicians call a post hoc fallacy. This lesson will help students recognize – and avoid – post hoc arguments.
|