Present two things of value that you’ve learned about critical thinking in this module. Then, identify a time in your own experience when you failed to exhibit one of these qualities, as well as a time when you succeeded in fulfilling one of these ideals. Describe the different outcomes of these two engagements. What did you learn from each? How does this pertain to Socrates’ claim that the unexamined life is not worth living? Initial posts are to be 500-600 words and should be posted directly into the forum, not as attachments.
Down below are some of the things we learned this week.
Module 1 Objectives
Completion requirements
Mark as done
*Appreciate why critical thinking is better than the passive acceptance of beliefs.
*Appreciate the relevance of the claim “The unexamined life is not worth living” to critical thinking
*Contrast a world where no critical thinking is needed with the world we live in.
*Clarify the meaning of critical thinking.
*Distinguish between weak-sense and strong-sense critical thinking.
*Integrate the role of values with critical thinking.
Check out this video to see the role of asking the right questions in the critical thinking process. Remember, as critical thinkers we are enjoined to think actively, which is to say, we don’t just receive information passively like a sponge. Think of the process more like “panning for gold.” We are charged with sifting valid or useful concepts from information that might be misleading or irrelevant. Also, pay careful attention to the observation here that critical thinking isn’t about being critical in the common sense of the term. We do not engage in this process in order to slam points of view. We engage in it in order to dissect and comprehend them. (PLEASE NOTE: YOU MIGHT HAVE TO COPY AND PASTE THE LINK IN A NEW WINDOW)
Socrates was a pivotal figure in the history of philosophy, and the consummate critical thinker insofar as he always asked questions rather than passively receiving the conventional opinions of the day. Given his overall convictions, charisma, and the range and depth of his thought, that description is almost an understatement. I would like to introduce him like this: Before Socrates, philosophers were preoccupied with the nature of the physical universe. They were like natural scientists in a sense, though they relied more on general speculation than on concrete empirical research. They questioned the ultimate physical nature of the cosmos, and provided general accounts such as, ultimate reality is comprised of air, or earth, or fire, etc. Or they sought general explanations to explain why everything changes, or why there is no such thing as change. When Socrates comes along he turns the philosophical gaze inward, you might say, and for the first time, begins to focus inquiry on the human being and his/her place in society, rather than the character of the physical universe. With Socrates, self-examination becomes key. As he says in Plato’s dialogue, the Apology, which I post below, “the unexamined life is not worth living.” If I could sum up Socrates in a word, it would be to say that he asked tough questions in order to improve himself and his community. The web link immediately below describe his life and the dramatic circumstances surrounding his trial and execution. (PLEASE NOTE: YOU WILL HAVE TO COPY AND PASTE THE LINK INTO A NEW WINDOW)
We also read Platos apology
Category: Critical thinking
Note: please complete all four sections below and label all sections with the numbers and letters listed below.
(1) In some detail explain the scientific method and all of its steps as presented by the textbook.
(2) Consider the readings from Chapter 11 of the textbook The Power of Critical Thinking 7th edition by Lewis Vaughn on “The Scientific Method” and “Testing Scientific Theories.” Develop a hypothesis related to the efficacy of a Covid-19 vaccine (your company calls it “coRid-23”) and use hypothesis testing to develop your own scientific, clinical trial. Be sure your experiment will provide the most conclusive results possible. As such, as part of the clinical trial, be sure to explain and incorporate all of the following ideas: (a) the experimental group, (b) the control group, (c) placebo, (d) double-blind study, and (e) replicated study. In addition to applying each of these ideas to your own study, you must also explain them in a few sentences.
(3) Find an online website or internet article discussing one of the recent scientific studies related to a Covid-19 vaccine study (e.g. Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, etc.). The article must come from a reputable news source (choose between: NYT, BBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, or FOX only). Include a link to the news article you chose. Briefly summarize the details of the vaccine study/trial.
(4) Then, compare your chosen news article from (3) above to your own proposed study of coRid-23 in part (2). Then answer two (and only two) of the following questions: (a) How are the two studies similar? (b) What are some specific differences between the two studies? (c) If the goal is to have a vaccine that works on all people, how might the study or studies be improved? (d) What concerns do you have with either of the two studies? (e) How might you compare the two vaccines to determine which of the two is better/more effective? [Remember to label with the letters all parts above.]
Assignment Instructions
Create an infographic or table that highlights critical thinking. The infographic or table can be created in Canva, PowerPoint, Microsoft Word, or another program you are familiar with.
Include the following in your infographic or table:
A definition of critical thinking
A description of the benefits of critical thinking
A description of the barriers to critical thinking
At least 4 critical thinking skills
A minimum of one scholarly source
Create a mind map for how critical thinking is used as a nurse based
on the major components of critical thinking and/or evidence-based
practice (EBP). The branches should expand on at least four
thoughts/ideas from the major components.
Include the following design elements in your mind map:
Follow the branch or hook format–branches are thickest closest to
the central component (i.e., closest equals EBP in priority order)
Use the same colors for each theme/set of relationships (a mind map is brightly colored)
Major components of a topic have branches which expand on many thoughts/ideas
Present names on all or most of the branches or hooks
Use at least four relevant illustrations, which will make the mind map memorable
Topics radiate from the center of the page–ideas branch out from other ideas in a logical and organized manner
Based on your current knowledge of critical thinking, consider your strengths and weaknesses as they relate to being or becoming a critical thinker.
Write 200–250 words using the following discussion prompts to guide the content of your initial post, and then respond to at least two of your peers’ posts.
Discussion Prompts
Identify 2–3 strengths that will contribute to your success as a critical thinker. How will these strengths contribute to your success as a critical thinker within the medical field? Explain.
Identify 2–3 areas you would like to improve to become a more successful critical thinker. Why did you select these areas? Explain.
How do you think identifying your strengths and weaknesses will contribute to your success in becoming a critical thinker as a result of this course?
How will becoming a critical thinker assist you in applying the nursing process?
Assignment Content
SIFT exercise: Using the AllMedia chart, select a “left” and a “right” online source that address the same news story on a given day. Each must contain at least three “factual” statements (i.e., those reported as facts). For each of the sources, identify the source and assess its credibility. Then, again for each of the sources, list all the “facts” reported in the article and–for each “fact”–find corroborating (or disconfirming) support. If any “fact” is attributed to another third-party source, trace this “fact” to the source and confirm that it is accurate, not conflated, and not taken out of context. Finally, list three sets of facts–those cited by both sources, those cited only by the “left” source, and those cited only by the “right” source.
Assignment Content
SIFT exercise: Using the AllMedia chart, select a “left” and a “right” online source that address the same news story on a given day. Each must contain at least three “factual” statements (i.e., those reported as facts). For each of the sources, identify the source and assess its credibility. Then, again for each of the sources, list all the “facts” reported in the article and–for each “fact”–find corroborating (or disconfirming) support. If any “fact” is attributed to another third-party source, trace this “fact” to the source and confirm that it is accurate, not conflated, and not taken out of context. Finally, list three sets of facts–those cited by both sources, those cited only by the “left” source, and those cited only by the “right” source.
Consider the fallacies of relevance listed in Chapter 8 of our textbook. Think about a recent conversation or a recent news or magazine article you have read. Identify two fallacies of relevance you noticed in the conversation or article. You must list and discuss fallacies by name, as discussed in Chapter 8 of the textbook. Consider how you, personally, might avoid committing fallacies of relevance, and list two ways you can avoid them in the future. In your replies to students, note some polite ways to point out when someone commits a fallacy of relevance.
write a coherent, unified, and sophisticated essay that offers a compelling, persuasive argument regarding the topic
-Addiction in America is _______________________. (Be specific. Be compelling. Be clear. Be persuasive.)
Use the 2015 film “Prescription Thugs” by Chris Bell as one source
REQUIREMENTS:
Twelve-hundred (1,200) word minimum, as counted by Canvas. Yes, you can always write more.
One-percent (1%) deduction for each one-percent (1%) short of the word count.
If you do use outside research, it must be properly introduced, attributed, and cited.
Proper essay structure.
For your full debate project, each of you is to submit a minimum of:
3 strong pro arguments for your topic. Each argument should be fully developed with a minimum of 6 clear premises that logically support a specific conclusion related to a particular aspect of your larger conclusion (a total of 18 premise + evidence pro pairs). All of the premises must be written in your own words, and supported by a separate piece of well-documented evidence.
(90 points)
3 strong con arguments for your topic. Each argument should be fully developed with a minimum of 6 clear premises that logically support a specific conclusion related to a particular aspect of your larger conclusion (a total of 18 premise + evidence con pairs). All of the premises must be written in your own words, and supported by a separate pieces of well-documented evidence.
(90 points)
10 credible and relevant sources for your debate topic (these cannot include sources like procon.org, debate.org, thoughtco.com, debatewise.org, etc.). You need to include a minimum of 2 specific, relevant pieces of information from each of these sources somewhere in your arguments or moderator questions. (20 points)
10 good moderator questions, in your own words. Half of your moderator questions should be aimed at the weaknesses of the pro side of the debate and half of your questions should be aimed at the weaknesses of the con side of the debate. (20 points)