More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance Of Creative And Critical Thinking
Importance of critical thinking in daily life
Importance of critical thinking in daily life
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
I feel that the thesis of the article “An Intellectual Free Lunch” by Michael Kinsley is that people often share strong, uneducated opinions on topics that they do not have adequate information on, and this tends to cause issues. I strongly agree with the argument that the author is making in this article. Many people start up disagreements that are unnecessary due to not being properly informed enough to for a solid opinion. Like Kinsley writes in his article, “All over the country… citizens are expressing out-rage about how much we spend on foreign aid, without having the faintest idea what the amount is” (251). People feel that if they “talk big” then that automatically means that they know what they are talking about, and that simply is not true at all. I deeply respect that everyone has their own unique opinions, but these opinions are easier to understand when they can be backed up with factual information. When someone does not …show more content…
I think Kinsley makes a valid point in his article by saying, “As long as you’re mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore, no one will inquire very closely into what, exactly ‘it’ is and whether they ought to feel that way” (252). This can lead to multiple people being misinformed and also makes it more difficult for the truth to be exposed and accepted. I firmly agree with many points that Kinsley brings up in this article. Many times, people with speak strongly on topics in which they are not properly informed. Other people tend to follow these misinformed ideas and then the actually facts are harder to be discovered. This seems to be a huge issue in today’s society. There are so many controversial topics dealing with politics, science, religion and more. It is extremely important that we are properly educated on these topics so we can have a solid base to build our opinions
Kimmel uses quite a few fallacies in his argument, such as begging the question, guilt by association, and slippery slope. For example Kimmel uses guilt by association throughout this article in the same manner that he is using logic to prove his entire argument. Kimmel constantly compares the characteristics of individuals and uses these similarities to say that because they have all of these things in common, they must have the same reasoning for taking the same actions, which is in a way pairing people together just based on the fact that they are associated with one another in terms of background, which is an example of the fallacy “guilt by association”(Kimmel). The use of these fallacies would essentially damage the ability of the article to create a convincing argument, if the purpose were to strictly make the audience agree with his opinion. Kimmel’s credibility also “takes a hit” as he fails to properly state the origin of any of his proof in his article which once again would make the audience skeptical of his ethical standings and once again ultimately disprove his argument if it were for the sole purpose of
... in question are complex,” and “either side of these debates are often well argued” (378). He proposes that we seek understanding from both sides of the aisle, so that way we may have opinions substantiated by fact. As Zinser puts it, “[a]n informed public is the grease that keeps democracy running properly” (364). Democracy is contingent upon the citizens of America being thoroughly informed about important issues and using that information when it is time to make a decision at the voting booth. The media is rampant with false information, radical ideologies, and skewed perspectives that influence our decisions. Therefore, as Americans it is important that we actively seek the information in order to form our own opinions because passive absorption without scrutiny leaves us vulnerable to strong, influential ideologies that may not represent our beliefs and values.
Americans have embraced debate since before we were a country. The idea that we would provide reasoned support for any position that we took is what made us different from the English king. Our love of debate came from the old country, and embedded itself in our culture as a defining value. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that the affinity for debate is still strong, and finds itself as a regular feature of the mainstream media. However, if Deborah Tannen of the New York Times is correct, our understanding of what it means to argue may be very different from what it once was; a “culture of critique” has developed within our media, and it relies on the exclusive opposition of two conflicting positions (Tannen). In her 1994 editorial, titled “The Triumph of the Yell”, Tannen claims that journalists, politicians and academics treat public discourse as an argument. Furthermore, she attempts to persuade her readers that this posturing of argument as a conflict leads to a battle, not a debate, and that we would be able to communicate the truth if this culture were not interfering. This paper will discuss the rhetorical strategies that Tannen utilizes, outline the support given in her editorial, and why her argument is less convincing than it should be.
Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Baltimore County Public Library. Web. 11 Nov 2009
In source C, William Blanche explains how people are being too dependent on others words instead of finding out themselves. He states “Critical thinking has become a lost art form filled with media’s attempt to persuade us to sidetrack our ability to come to a conclusion, based on the facts”. What Blanche is trying to explain is that people are looking for media to give them answers and explain news and situations instead of trying to find out themselves. Having help from media isn’t a bad thing, but completely depending on media is a bad thing. Using your brain to decipher information has become quite rare in this day and age and this can be related back to students in the classroom. Instead of trying to learn and go out and struggling to find information, students easily search on Google and click on the first link. They inhale all that information without thinking for a second if they should find out more information. Why? Because it is easy for them. By doing this, a student isn’t learning, but rather, they are simply regurgitating ...
What apparent problem or difficulty or surprising fact is the discussion meant to solve or allay?
“Ignorance of facts” simply means that the education is there but this generation just chooses not to use it. According to one of my sources, 56 percent of 18-to 29-year-olds have low knowledge levels while only 22 percent of 50-to 64-year-olds did. This shows that today’s age knows less than half of what previous generations know. With this much access to education, technology, books and documents that this generation has, the percentile should be much lower than that. In this day and age, people are more focused on social media sites than getting their head in the books. People would rather see false accusations and false information on websites such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and so forth instead of picking up a newspaper and reading what truly occurred. The world we live in today is nothing compared to past generations. There is so much knowledge in our elders that has failed to be passed on the the youth, it’s nonsensical. Knowledge is power and if we want to help the next generations become more intelligent, we need a great deal of power.
Mills believes that the people who “silence” people the most would be the Catholic Church. He thinks they are the most prejudice against people who voice against there believes. He explains, “…that a large portion of the noblest and most valuable moral teaching has been the work, not only of men who did not know, but men who knew and rejected, the Christian faith” (49). Essentially, some of our most important teachings have come from people speaking against the Christian Church. In summary, Mills believes that in order for people and society to progress, we must give them the ability to think for themselves. Mills is persuasive in his first argument because a society that is silenced will never...
After applying the critical thinking framework advocated by Browne and Keeley (2010) several shortcomings in reasoning become obvious. As illustrated throughout the paper the memo is emotionally charged, employs poor evidence, and contains reasoning fallacies. Based on the findings the conclusion can neither be accepted nor rejected. It would advisable to obtain further information before arriving at a decision on the matter.
...g the truth eventually emerge, sometimes there is not even a chance for it to become visible. The marketplace of ideas favors the powerful and the only way to have the truth emerge is to have someone, or something, with the same amount of power to let the truth out into the marketplace of ideas.
... thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” I think this quote fits in with this essay perfectly, as sociologically you can teach something that has been examined scientifically to someone who has no knowledge of the subject, but trying to explain the same thing to someone who has prior knowledge, or common-sense, is not always so simple.
Much of what we know today of current events comes from online sources on social media or as eye-catching links on the side of a website. These articles, though there could potentially be truth to them, almost always rely on captivating simple statements and stories that connect with the reader on an emotional level, rather than a logical one. This affects students’ education for the simple reason of our nearly inseparable connection with our cell phones and social media. This has become our go-to source for anything we want to know, and since fake news is so readily available to us, it is what we easily believe is true. The availability of fake news makes it’s presence known in the classroom, where students are distracted from the lesson by groundbreaking stories being shared across every media platform in existence, which a vast majority have access to. Even in politics, where our reliance for leadership lies, is tainted with post-truth information. Facts given to us by the presidential office, cleverly titled “alternative facts” by our highest elected official, show the true effect of how post truth can ruin credibility and trust. It even affects the education given by teachers, those who are paid to educate the next generation of children. History teachers can be swayed one way or another by news channels, constantly pushing out breaking news about
Common American experience seems to suggest that a solution to every dilemma can be found through enough lobbying, legislating, media-blitzing or politicking. We often believe that the person arguing most eloquently, reasonably or forcefully will win every dispute, yet there are times when this optimism fails. Despite great efforts to show the strength of a position, there are arguments that we cannot untangle simply by proving our right and another's wrong. Some moral questions permit such different outlooks that holders of completely opposing views can both be morally sound. Rather than trying to reason away one side we can only hope to understand each position well enough to acknowledge its critical elements and keep bitter dissension to a minimum.
Reading through the essay I felt that Bob Smietana the author was speaking as a reporter. Rather than offering his own opinion he throughout the essay presented opinions from both sides of the arguement.