Creative Critical Thinking

Roderic A. GirlePhilosophy DepartmentUniversity of Auckland

CCT

Should the title not be: Creative AND Critical Thinking

CCT

The most sympathetic orthodox view :

Two sides of the one coin.

Creative and Critical complement each other.

Should the title not be: Creative and Critical Thinking

CCT

How is it possible ?

To be both Creative and Critical ?

To be Creatively critical ?

Should the title not be: Creative and Critical Thinking

David

Picture of the Statue of David

(The actual image makes the file too large for easy publication.

The image in the presentation came from:

http://au.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=statue+David)

CCT

Creative work builds on critical and technical skills.

That foundation of critical and technical skill can be built -- creativity can not be constructed, only prepared for.

This marvelous statue is the result of the combination of critical and creative thought and imagination.

CCT

There is a story to be told about critical thinking.

CCT

There is a story to be told about critical thinking.

We begin with standard Critical Thinking courses.

CCT

There is a story to be told about critical thinking.

We begin with standard Critical Thinking courses.

Consider an alternative.

CCT

Then you give them a audio clip, and ask, “Give an analysis of the argumentation in this clip.”

Here is the clip (it’s part of a TV show).

Say that students have almost finished a standard Critical Thinking course.

CCT

TABLE TALK(Documentary New Zealand)

TVONE documentary of an after dinner

discussion. There are several people.

Kath sets the scene.

Susan asks the opening question, Kath

responds, Tom buts in and speaks in a

very blunt fashion. Kath responds.

Then Susan asks Tom a leading question.

Tom responds.

Finally there is a comment from Nola.

(The audio clip is removed to make the file smaller.

The script follows anyway.)

(The script begins with:- )

Susan: If it makes any sense to ask this question, tell me.

Nameless: Shoot!

Susan: If you could have chosen your own sex, what would you have chosen?

Kath: Well I was going to be called something like “Rodney”, if I was a boy; so I am really glad I am a girl, because “Rodney” does not sit well with me.

CCT

What are the premises?

What are the conclusions?

Are there any arguments at all?

What would be the standard CT issues?

CCT

We could analyse and develop some premise/conclusion arguments -- pack in the so called ‘suppressed’ premises and even the ‘suppressed’ conclusions.

For example:-

Susan: If it makes any sense to ask this question, tell me.

Nameless: Shoot!

Susan: If you could have chosen your own sex, what would you have chosen?

Kath: Well I was going to be called something like “Rodney”, if I was a boy; so I am really glad I am a girl, because “Rodney” does not sit well with me.

Susan: If it makes any sense to ask this question, tell me.

Nameless: Shoot!

Susan: If you could have chosen your own sex, what would you have chosen?

Kath: Well I was going to be called something like “Rodney”, if I was a boy; so I am really glad I am a girl, because “Rodney” does not sit well with me.

CCT

What are the premises?

What are the conclusions?

CCT

What are the premises?

What are the conclusions?

If I was a boy I was going to be called something like “Rodney”

“Rodney” does not sit well with me.

So I am really glad I am a girl.

CCT

What are the premises?

What are the conclusions?

If I was a boy I was going to be called something like “Rodney”

“Rodney” does not sit well with me.

So I am really glad I am a girl.

Not Valid

CCT

If I were to be a boy, I would have been called something like “Rodney.”

“Rodney” does not sit well with me.

If “Rodney” does not sit well with me, then I would not want to be called something like “Rodney”.

If I would not want to be called something like “Rodney”, then I would not want to be a boy.

If I would not want to be a boy, then I would be glad to be a girl.

So I am really glad I am a girl.

CCT

If I were to be a boy, I would have been called something like “Rodney.”

“Rodney” does not sit well with me.

If “Rodney” does not sit well with me, then I would not want to be called something like “Rodney”.

If I would not want to be called something like “Rodney”, then I would not want to be a boy.

If I would not want to be a boy, then I would be glad to be a girl.

So I am really glad I am a girl.

CCT

If I were to be a boy, I would have been called something like “Rodney.”

“Rodney” does not sit well with me.

If “Rodney” does not sit well with me, then I would not want to be called something like “Rodney”.

If I would not want to be called something like “Rodney”, then I would not want to be a boy.

If I would not want to be a boy, then I would be glad to be a girl.

So I am really glad I am a girl. Clumsy

CCT

The real problem here is that this party discussion is not really about arguments.

We analysed and developed a

premise/conclusion argument -- packed in the so called ‘suppressed’ premises, and got a really clumsy result.

CCT

The real problem here is that this party discussion is not really about arguments.

We analysed and developed a

premise/conclusion argument -- packed in the so called ‘suppressed’ premises, and got a really clumsy result.

What a waste of time!

CCT

The real problem here is that this party discussion is not really about arguments.

We analysed and developed a

premise/conclusion argument -- packed in the so called ‘suppressed’ premises, and got a really clumsy result.

That is not the point --this discussion is about a question.

CCT

Why then would students push to find, or even manufacture premise/conclusion arguments and not say anything about questions?

The answer is that a theory pushes the

search for premise/conclusion arguments.!

Susan: If it makes any sense to ask this question, tell me.

Nameless: Shoot!

Susan: If you could have chosen your own sex, what would you have chosen?

Kath: Well I was going to be called something like “Rodney”, if I was a boy; so I am really glad I am a girl, because “Rodney” does not sit well with me.

Tom: It’s a senseless question. I think it’s absolutely senseless. I do not know what it feels like to have breasts and no genitalia. I just have no idea what it’s like.

Everyone: buzz buzz! Oh my God! ... me show you!

Susan: If it makes any sense to ask this question, tell me.

Nameless: Shoot!

Susan: If you could have chosen your own sex, what would you have chosen?

Kath: Well I was going to be called something like “Rodney”, if I was a boy; so I am really glad I am a girl, because “Rodney” does not sit well with me.

Tom: It’s a senseless question. I think it’s absolutely senseless. I do not know what it feels like to have breasts and no genitalia. I just have no idea what it’s like.

Everyone: buzz buzz! Oh my God! ... me show you!

Susan: Am I just totally a woman, all over? Is that what you’re saying? But I’m not; you know. I’m just a person like you are.

Nameless: No.

Susan: Isn’t there a sense in which you know if I’m me, then maybe my gender is variable or isn’t it? What do you think?

Tom: Someone who adopts a social role, a sort of female oriented social role, is not someone who is asking or answering the question, “Do I want to be a woman?” Because I think when you ask or answer that question you are not talking just about the social role you took; you are also talking about the bells and whistles, the physiology.

Tom: I mean, like, what’s it like to have a period? I don’t know, thank God!

Kath: Well, how can you say “Thank God” if you don’t know. It might be a really great experience for all you know!

Tom: Well, ah,according to the testimony of those few women who I’ve had the privilege of living with, it’s not always such a great experience.

Kath: You’re right actually!

Nola: OK! none of the men have answered, as far as I can see, “Would you prefer to be a man or a woman?”

Tom: I mean, like, what’s it like to have a period? I don’t know, thank God!

Kath: Well, how can you say “Thank God” if you don’t know. It might be a really great experience for all you know!

Tom: Well, ah,according to the testimony of those few women who I’ve had the privilege of living with, it’s not always such a great experience.

Kath: You’re right actually!

Nola: OK! none of the men have answered, as far as I can see, “Would you prefer to be a man or a woman?”

Nola: OK! none of the men have answered, as far as I can see, “Would you prefer to be a man or a woman?”

Questions and answers are of enormous importance in discussion and debate.

Standard CT courses might have something about loaded questions (the fallacy of many questions).

And that’s it!

CCT

Why then would students push to find, or even manufacture premise/conclusion arguments and not say anything about questions?

The answer is that a theory pushes the search for

premise/conclusion arguments.!

CCT

It’s the classical Argumentation Theory

CCT

It’s the classical Argumentation Theory

The Demonstrative Theory of Argumentation

CCT

The Demonstrative Theory of Argumentation

CCT

The Demonstrative Theory of Argumentation

A more descriptive title is:

The Premise-conclusion Theory

CCT

The Demonstrative Theory of Argumentation

A more descriptive title is:

The Premise-conclusion Theory of Argumentation analysis

CCT

It is the d o m i n a n t orthodoxy in Argumentation

Analysis Theory.

Critical Thinking is often called “baby logic”

It is baby premise/conclusion logic.

CCT

The Demonstrative Theory of Argumentation

(Is there any other possibility?)

CCT

The Demonstrative Theory of Argumentation

There had better be other possibilities.

CCT

But it alone is not good enough for the world in which we live -- and in which students live.

The Demonstrative Theory is too passive and reflective for people living in a highly interactive, dynamic and changing world.

We need a far more interactive approach.

To the extent that the Demonstrative Theory is a well explored, research supported theory -- fair enough.

CCT

• Ignores far too much.

• It is retrospective, and is neither responsive nor pro-active.

• No hot-action skills are imparted.

The Demonstrative Theory

CCT

The Dialogue Theory of Argumentation

Analysis

is part of a whole general approach to the

logic of dialogue.

We need to look at an alternative theoretical basis for CCT.

CCT

The Logic of Dialogue

analyses everyday interactive reasoning and argumentation in terms of

• the categories of dialogue

• the moves people make

• the commitments they build up

CCT

• Information Exchange

• Persuasive

• Debating (competitive)

• Inquiry

• Epithetic (abusive, flattery)

• Negotiation

• Command

There are several important kinds of dialogue:

CCT

The dialogue theory

• Focuses on

Participants’ moves

CCT

The dialogue theory

• Focuses on

Participants’ moves (speech acts)

CCT

The dialogue theory

• Focuses on

Participants’ moves

asserting

CCT

The dialogue theory

• Focuses on

Participants’ moves

asserting

questioning

CCT

The dialogue theory

• Focuses on

Participants’ moves

asserting

questioningwithdrawing

CCT

The dialogue theory

• Focuses on

Participants’ moves

asserting

questioningwithdrawingcommanding

CCT

The dialogue theory

• Focuses on

Participants’ moves

asserting

questioningwithdrawingcommandingpromising

CCT

The dialogue theory

• Focuses on

Participants’ moves

• Explains in terms of

CCT

The dialogue theory

• Focuses on

Participants’ moves

• Explains in terms of

Commitments

CCT

The dialogue theory

• Focuses on

Participants’ moves

• Explains in terms of

Commitments

Changing Belief and Question sets

CCT

The dialogue theory

• Focuses on

Participants’ moves

• Explains in terms of

Commitments

CCT

The dialogue theory

• Focuses on

Participants’ moves

• Explains in terms of

Commitments

Interactions

CCT

The dialogue theory

• Focuses on

Participants’ moves

• Explains in terms of

Commitments

Interactions: what follows what.

CCT

The dialogue theory

• Focuses on

Participants’ moves

• Explains in terms of

Commitments

Interactions: what follows what.

Questions asked

CCT

The dialogue theory

• Focuses on

Participants’ moves

• Explains in terms of

Commitments

Interactions: what follows what.

Questions asked

Responses

CCT

The dialogue theory

• Focuses on

Participants’ moves

• Explains in terms of

Commitments, Interactions

Permissible and required

joint activity

CCT

ad hominem from persuasion or inquiry or debate to abuse.

ad baculum from persuasion or inquiry to negotiation.

Some of the traditional fallacies are seen as involving a move from one kind of dialogue to another

CCT

• Now for some fun!

Text of Monty Python

The Argument

The Cast (in order of appearance.)

• M= Man looking for an argument

• R= Receptionist

• Q= Abuser

• A= Arguer (John Cleese)

• C= Complainer (Eric Idle)

M: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.

R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?

M: No, I haven't, this is my first time.

R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?

M: Well, what is the cost?

The Argument

R: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.

M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.

R: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.

(Pause)

R: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory.

Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.

M: Thank you.

(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)

Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT?

M: Well, I was told outside that...

Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!

M: What?

The Argument

Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, toffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!

M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!

Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.

M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.

Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.

M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.

Q: Not at all.

M: Thank You.

(Under his breath) Stupid git!!

(Walk down the corridor)

M: (Knock)

A: Come in.

M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?

The Argument

A: I told you once.

M: No you haven't.

A: Yes I have.

M: When?

A: Just now.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: You didn't

A: I did!

M: You didn't!

A: I'm telling you I did!

M: You did not!!

A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?

M: Oh, just the five minutes.

The Argument

A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.

M: You most certainly did not.

A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.

M: No you did not.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: You didn't.

A: Did.

M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.

The Argument

A: Yes it is.

M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.

A: No it isn't.

M: It is!

A: It is not.

M: Look, you just contradicted me.

A: I did not.

M: Oh you did!!

A: No, no, no.

M: You did just then.

A: Nonsense!

M: Oh, this is futile!

A: No it isn't.

The Argument

M: I came here for a good argument.

A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

A: It can be.

M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

A: No it isn't.

M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

A: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!

M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

(short pause)

The Argument

A: No it isn't.

M: It is.

A: Not at all.

M: Now look.

A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.

M: What?

A: That's it. Good morning.

M: I was just getting interested.

A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.

M: That was never five minutes!

A: I'm afraid it was.

M: It wasn't.

(Pause)

A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.

M: What?!

The Argument

A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!

A: (Hums)

M: Look, this is ridiculous.

A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!

M: Oh, all right.

(pays money)

A: Thank you.

(short pause)

M: Well?

A: Well what?

M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.

A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.

M: I just paid!

The Argument

A: No you didn't.

M: I DID!

A: No you didn't.

M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.

A: Well, you didn't pay.

M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!

A: No you haven't.

M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.

A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.

M: Oh I've had enough of this.

A: No you haven't.

M: Oh Shut up.

(Walks out of the room.)

The Argument

CCT

Monty Python and The Dialogue theory

First, a negotiation.

Second, an abusive confrontation.

Third, a mix of debate, inquiry, and persuasion (and points of order).

In fact, we can laugh AND explain.

CCT

They can learn about ways to act in dialogue

• ways to disagree

• suspending judgement

• seeking reasons

• asking questions

• evaluating lines of reasoning

Students can be taught about reacting to movesby other participants.

CCT

This is brings the possibility of the creative

• better understanding

• new insights

• illuminating questions

• perceptive answers

Students can be taught about reacting to movesby other participants.They can learn about ways to act in dialogue.

CCT

• The rational -- the irrational

• The fair -- the unfair.

• The quality and presumptions of questions

• The response -- the answer

• The promise kept -- the promise broken

• The reasonable command -- the unreasonable

Students (and teachers)can begin to see what is going on in everyday interactions.

Thinker

Picture of The Thinker

(http://au.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=Thinker+statue&ei=UTF-8&x=wrt )