Critical Thinking

In the class of Thinking Skills we were assigned to do a summary of the hole Unit 1. To start with, critical thinking teaches the skills required to analyse and evaluate arguments, this issues can be use on our daily life and applied into any subject. Some of this are:

• Arguments: Consists of reason/s which support a conclusion.
• Evidence: Designed to persuade, in order to be persuaded to accept the above argument, we would need evidence to support it.
• Credibility: Evidence is not enough to make us believe in something, consequently we need a judgment about the credibility of the evidence.

Whatsmore, for your argument to be reliable and believable it is need information as a tool of support in the conclusion contained. Evidence comes from sources, for example newspapers, eyewitnesses, government press release, etc. However, is important to asses the credibility of the source.

There are numbers of techniques which can support credibility of sources and the evidence they provided, this are also known as credibility criteria. There are two types:

• Neutrality: An impartial source which does not take sides. It has no reasons to lie or distort evidence in another's favour. Some neutral sources are Conciliation and arbitration service or ACAS.
• Vested Interest: When its need something to gain from promoting and defending a particular point of view. This can lead them to select certain evidence or maybe ignore and reject any other evidence for self benefit.

Moreover, regarding the expertisers, evidence given by this experts are often judged to be highly reliable, their training knowledge, skills and experiences make this people a credible source. Normally, the higher the reputation of a source, the more credible it is seen to be.

Furthermore, as source of evidence, eyewitness accounts are regularly seen as more credible than second hand or hearsay evidence, although in the re-telling there are many details that may be missed since the witness could have a impaired vision or hearing besides having an obstruction preventing a clear view.

As well as this refers, corroboration are pieces of evidence which support each other as a result, this increases the credibility of evidence. Nevertheless, this does not mean that corroboration is always true, When people fear for their lives, for example, they may all tell the same false story. Additionally, evidence is always selective, this means, it is selected only evidence which supports their views, as for example, greenpeace. But this one-sided selection of evidence reduces the credibility of sources.

Another concept is context, this refers to the setting or situation in which evidence is produced, is is really important to look wider context in order to identify factors which might affect the evidence which people provide.

EVIDENCE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE TRUE IN ORDER TO BE CREDIBLE