FIFTH TASK 2

Underlying assumptions:

Passage 6.4.
According to overture.com, more people search for information about the modern scientist, Emeagwali, on the internet than any other scientist. The number of pages downloaded are the equivalent to a best-selling book. Everybody must have heard about his discoveries by now.

Assumption 1: Everybody knows who Emeagwali is and what his discoveries are.
Assumption 2: The audience understands what a best-selling book means.

Implicit assumptions used as reasons:

Passage 6.9.

People used plants as a method of curing illness for centuries before the advent of modern medicines. The same plants are often used by the pharmaceutical industry as the basis for the medicines we use even today. Medicines are now expensive to produce and purchase. It would be better if we returned to traditional methods, using leaves and roots of plants rather than mass-produced pharmaceuticals.

Assumption 1: Pharmaceutical and traditional medicine are equally useful to cure illness since plants are the basis of both. 
Assumption 2: Medicine in traditional methods is less expensive than medicine in the pharmaceutical industry.

False premises:

Passage 6.15.

Cities are too polluted by cars' exhausted fumes and chemicals pumped into the air. In the countryside, the air is free of pollution. People ought to stop living in cities as it is healthier to live in the countryside.

Premise 1: It assumes the countryside is completely free of pollution, it just takes into account gasses emitted by traffic while Ozone, which is a pollutant, is higher in rural areas.

Implicit arguments:

Passage 6.27.

Anna is eight years old now and it is time she was sent away to work. The farm at Nexby requires a pair of hands to help gather hay and feed the pigs and chickens. They will take her on and pay her room and board. She will only work from 6 a.m. until 6 p.m. every day. They are good people and will see that she does not fall into sin through idleness. Anna will be allowed home most years for Christmas day.

Argument 1: Eight years is the age at which children have to start working.
Argument 2: It's a tradition that children are sent away to work.
Argument 3: Idle children are sinners. 

Stereotypes:

We'll decorate the room pink as they have two girls.

Stereotype: It's a gender stereotype which say "blue is for boys and pink is for girls". 
What I consider completely wrong because colors don't have gender. Everybody can wear the color they want; women can like blue, green, black, etc.

Assuming causal links:

Passage 7.1. 

Life expectancy is much higher in Western countries than in the past. Obesity is also much higher. Therefore, obesity must increase our life expectancy.

Causal link 1: The two trends of life expectancy and obesity can be correlated. Life expectancy is an effect caused by obesity.

Identifying the nature of the link:

Passage 7.6.

Marie Curie, Einstein, and Darwin had long hair. They were all great scientist. Therefore, to be a great scientist you need long hair.

Nature of the link: The conclusion only works if there is an assumption or assumptions that are not covered by the reasons.
Assumption: All people who have long hair are great scientists. 

False analogies:

Passage 7.12.

As the basis of an argument, the premises are like the foundation of a building. If the premises are not well-founded, the argument is likely to collapse. 

Analogies: 
Premises are like the foundation of a building. 
The argument is like a building.

These comparisons are valid since they give a better and more accurate understanding of the situation.

FIFTH TASK 1: REFLECTION ABOUT STEREOTYPES

For many decades, people have been labeled within their target sex and country. Women for housework and men for hard work are some of the stereotypes we find in our society. Although, stereotyping have been changing throughout the years and some labels have been removed there are still many people feeling annoyed because of the label they have. For instance, Colombia is still labeled as a drug trafficking country because of the Pablo Escobar era, but we as Colombian people know this country should not be consider so any more. 

After watching the video about Latin america stereotypes I could realize there are many completely false stereotypes. Latin Americans hate people from other countries expect them to act in a way just because of the label their country people have. Also, I could say each Latin country differ from each other since in the video many of the stereotypes were a half truth and a half myth. For instance, the stereotype "Latinos all know how to dance", they say "Chile, Argentina, and Mexico we are not the good dancers" while the Colombian girl and Cuban guy say they are really good dancers. Thus, I believe each country is different, even if they are from the same part of the map. We can not label them as if they conform just one country that have the same aspects and characteristics. 

Considering stereotyping is something that has always persisted in our society is imposible to remove it as a whole, but what we can do is try to change false labels people from different countries have created about us. Therefore, we should start to consider stereotyping all people from a country is completely generalized because each person is different even if they live in the same country; for instance, if we go to the example above about Latinos being good dancers and we refer to Colombian people, we could say people from Bogota are not good at dancing while Caleños are really good, even though not everybody fit in this label. That is why we should stop stereotyping people for their sex or country because we could make them feel uncomfortable and annoyed if they consider the stereotype is a myth. 

FOURTH TASK B: Critical Thinking Skills

"Chimps may not qualify as humans, but they richly deserve protection from animal researchers who regard them as nothing more than objects to further the interests of mankind." By James Lee.
This is a position because he is expressing his own idea about a topic.

"I agree with Sebo that "Kiko and Tommy are not mere things". I have never had a pet dog or cat that was a "mere" thing. The birds at our feeders, whether starlings or hawks, are not "mere" things." By Marvant Duhon.
This is a disagreement becase he held a different point of view from the author of the article.

"It is not true that every culture ha always agreed with that moral law." By EvelynU.
This is a position.

"Human sacrifice was widespread in antiquity, and was considered morally good. The noble Romans believed that humans could be killed for their entertainment. Americans believed that enslaved persons could be killed without it being murder. Most Americans still believe that a person who has committed a crime in the past can be killed now to satisfy justice, not to avoid a present danger. Many Americans apparently believe that a man committing a crime such as selling loose cigarettes might have to be killed if he resists arrest." By EvelynU.
This is an argument since he tries to persuade the audience giving specific evidence (data) about events in the past.

"The solution is for our own species to show that we are evolved enough ourselves to recognize and respect how advanced these other species are - and that we're not unique - and formally accord them legal personhood and rights." By Lori Sirianni.
This is a conclusion since he provides an observation and a solution after the arguments.

"This debate bears an eerie resemblance to one in the early 19th- century South over whether black people were fully human. The central premise behind slavery held that slaves possessed no independent spirit of their own, that they served as a mere extension of their master's will." By James Lee.
This is background information.

FOURTH TASK A: Critical Thinking Skills

SHOULD CHIMPANZEES BE CONSIDERED ‘PERSONS’?

AN INTRODUCTION: You might be aware that chimpanzees can recognize themselves in a mirror, communicate through sign language, pursue goals creatively and form long-lasting friendships. You might also think that these are the kinds of things that a person can do. However, you might not think of chimpanzees as persons.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Nonhuman Rights Project does. Since 2013, the group has been working on behalf of two chimpanzees, Kiko and Tommy, currently being held in cages by their “owners” without the company of other chimpanzees. It is asking the courts to rule that Kiko and Tommy have the right to bodily liberty and to order their immediate release into a sanctuary where they can live out the rest of their lives with other chimpanzees.

A POSITION OR POINT OF VIEW: It is arguing that if every being must be either a person or a thing, then Kiko and Tommy (chimpanzees) are persons, not things. 

AN ARGUMENT: When we think about the basis of our own personhood, we do not think about how we happen to be classified in a biology textbook. Instead, we think about features of our lives such as conscious experience, emotionality, a sense of self and bonds of care and interdependence. When it comes to whether one should be treated as a person or a thing, these kinds of features, and not their genetic bases or evolutionary histories, are what matter. This is why we can all know that we have rights without having to check our genes.

AN AGREEMENT: The Nonhuman Rights Project is taking a bold position: It is arguing that if every being must be either a person or a thing, then Kiko and Tommy are persons, not things. I agree, and many other philosophers do, too.

AN OPPOSING ARGUMENT: Only humans can be persons because only humans have the ability to use language and reason in abstract and sophisticated ways. 

A DISAGREEMENT (of the opposing argument): Kiko and Tommy can do many impressive things, including communicate with others and pursue goals in a creative, intelligent manner. But they cannot do these things in the same kinds of ways that many humans can.

AN EXPLANATION: This view of personhood is unacceptably exclusionary. We all lack the ability to use language and reason in abstract and sophisticated ways early in life, some of us lose these abilities later in life, and some of us never develop them. Yet while humans might not have moral or legal duties when we lack these abilities, we can clearly still have moral and legal rights. This is why many judges and legal experts now rightly reject this exclusionary view of personhood as fundamentally at odds with contemporary standards of human rights. (The example explains why judges reject this exclusionary view of personhood)

A DESCRIPTION: “Human” is best understood as a biological concept that refers, at present, to a member of a particular species, Homo sapiens. In contrast, “person” is best understood as a moral and legal concept that refers to an individual who can hold moral and legal rights.

A CONCLUSION: The simple truth is that Kiko and Tommy are not mere things. Whatever else we say about the nature and limits of moral and legal personhood, we should be willing to say at least that. The only alternative is to continue to accept an arbitrary and exclusionary view about what it takes to merit moral and legal recognition. Kiko and Tommy deserve better than that, and so do the rest of us.

Summary of Stephen Brookfield's Lecture.

Stephen Brookfield is a scholar in adult education who holds the John Ireland Endowed Chair at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. Before that, he was a Professor of Higher and Adult Education at Columbia University in New York for ten years. During 2002 he was a Visiting Professor at Harvard University. In this occasion, Brookfield made a lecture about critical and creative thinking providing tools and techniques to help students question their assumptions.

He states that Critical Thinking focuses on understanding and checking out assumptions, while Creative thinking emphasizes the ability to look at things from multiples responses to familiar ideas and practices, that means move outside from typical mental framework. The point of both critical and creative thinking is to take informed action.

Brookfield also explains three kinds of assumptions students are likely to encounter:

1. Casual: this one is the most common uncover in classrooms, it is about cause-effect.

2. Prescriptive: students think about how scholarship should look like (e.g. a good teacher should engage in this particular way), this assumption usually have the word "should".

3. Paradigmatic: This is the hardest one to get students to uncover, it is a kind of common sense taken for granted.

He explains four intellectual traditions: analytical philosophy, natural science, critical theory, and pragmatism. The last one is the most intersected with creativity because it implies that knowledge is constantly reinvented, opened to new ways of thinking.

Brookfield asked some students "what is critical thinking learned?" and these are some of the responses he got:

1. Make instructor modeling by critical incident questionnaire, assumptions inventories, ending presentations, discussions and exercises with questions, chalk talk.

2. Providing real world illustration/examples.

3. Instructor points/counterpoints: Model critical and creative thinking in front of students through engaging critical conversations and exploring alternative perspectives.

4. Speaking of tongues: Make students realize that there are multiples ways of understanding the same situation or idea.

5. Introduce critical and creative thinking incrementally: I like this method of becoming critical because it is a non-threatening way to get closer to think critically and creative in your own pace, it is like a scaffolding process.

6. Present a situation that takes students by surprise (face and respond to a "disoriented dilemma"). There are many ways to create it, some of them are teaching with no speech (visual, musical, kinetic, etc) and classroom geography that means that as a teacher I can change my position and talk to the ones who sit on the back.

Reflection Tasks Proposed by Stella Cottrell (2005) in her paper "What is critical thinking?"

EMOTIONAL SELF - MANAGEMENT.

For me, the emotions that are most difficult to manage when others disagree with me are:

At the moment of accepting other people's point of views that are different from mine, I usually feel frustration and anxiety because I think my supporting point can be insignificant and powerless.

I deal with these by:

When people contradict my ideas I have to try to calm down and understand their point of view and the evidence they present to support it because there are many ways to look at an issue and maybe we are both right even if they don't agree with me.   

INFLUENCES OF MY THINKING.

For me, the influences on my own thinking that I need to be most aware of so they don't prejudice my thinking are:

What I need the most when I am expressing my thoughts and ideas is the awareness of myself as a person and as a critical thinker, knowing myself means that I evaluate my personal motivations, interests, and the gaps in my knowledge. 

I will deal with this by:

The previous aspects influence me a lot when I am presenting my ideas because if I am not sure about why I am saying something it could lose credibility, so what I have to do is question my own point of view and check the evidence used to support it.

CHALLENGING OPINIONS.

For me, the thing that I find most difficult about challenging the opinions of other people are:

Sometimes I close myself to the idea that only my opinion is correct, it does not matter what other people think or say. However, when they base their ideas on clear and truthful evidence become easier for me to understand their point of view.

I deal with this by:

In order to be sure if a person is not wrong, I have to ask him why he think in that way and what his evidence and reasons are. I try to understand his perspective on the issue and respect his ideas. 

REFLECTION 1.

Do you recognize anything of yourself in Bodner's description of students? What effect would the approach he suggests have on your learning and understanding? 

Bodner describes students as people who "know" without understanding, also that they are not able to apply their knowledge outside the narrow domain in which it was learned. Sometimes, I as a student read and learn something by memory just to fulfill a teacher's task; not matter if it is important for me or not, even sometimes I don't mind why I am doing a task.

The approach he suggests about as students we should look for answer questions such as 'How do we know . . . ?' and 'Why do we believe . . . ?' I find really useful this approach since it is important that we as students really understand the tasks and the topic not just in the classroom but in reality.

We could learn better and become true critical thinkers if we do and replicate every new knowledge. 

REFLECTION 2.

Barriers that affect my critical thinking abilities:

After having read, I got to the conclusion that there are some barriers that not allow me to become a true critical thinker: lack of methods, strategies, and practice; mistaking information for understanding.

Consider what you could do to manage these barriers in the next few months:

I think that a way to manage these barriers is practicing much more in my academic and professional work, throughout this practice I will find methods and strategies that help me to criticize in a better and convincing way.  Also, although critical thinking can be a hard work I have to work more on it because sometimes I prefer to take a point of view from a teacher, a book, or an article as mine, while I could do that for myself through reading and got my own conclusion and ideas.