Comprehensive research serves as a crucial instrument for comprehending the origins, dynamics, and repercussions of social problems, along with potential solutions. This section provides a concise overview of the critical thinking skills and research methods employed by sociologists to collect information about social problems.

Meaning Analysis

The core element of critical thinking is the ability to think clearly. To address a social problem or assess a claim effectively, it’s imperative to grasp the intended meaning behind the issue or claim (Lau and Chan 2004-2024). Precise communication and prevention of misunderstandings necessitate vigilance against vagueness or ambiguity, although there are contexts, like jokes or poems, where clarity and precision may be unnecessary or even undesirable. While vague promises might be made for flexibility in certain situations, there are many instances where clear thinking and meaning analysis are particularly crucial:

1. Abstract issues – When dealing with abstract issues, the initial task often involves clarifying the key terms or concepts relevant to the discussion. For instance, determining the compatibility of “religious values” with human rights requires a clear explanation of what is precisely meant by both terms.
2. Scientific development – The progress of science entails introducing new theories and concepts. Providing adequate definitions for these concepts is essential to understand how they can be employed in scientific explanations and predictions.
3. Societal norms – In the context of societal organization, rules and regulations are vital for coordinating behavior. Well-formulated rules should be expressed clearly to prevent and resolve disputes, ensuring that people understand what is expected of them.
4. Communication skills – Effective communication skills encompass the ability to convey messages with accurate meaning and understand the meaning behind what has been said or left unsaid.

Literal meaning is a characteristic of linguistic expressions. In broad terms, the literal meaning of a complex sequence of words is established by its grammatical properties and the meanings conventionally assigned to those words (Lau and Chan 2004-2024). It’s important to differentiate the literal meaning of a statement from its conversational implicature — the information implicitly conveyed in a specific conversational context, separate from the literal meaning of the statement.

For instance, let’s say we inquire if Liliana wants to go to the movies, and she responds with, “I am very tired.” Naturally, we would deduce that Liliana does not wish to go to the movies. However, this inference is not part of the literal meaning of her statement; instead, the information that she does not want to go is implicitly conveyed. Similarly, consider if we hear Marissa say, “Tyrone likes cars.” We might assume Marissa is indicating that Tyrone enjoys driving. However, this is solely a conversational implicature and not inherent in the literal meaning of the statement. It could be the case that Tyrone dislikes driving and appreciates cars only as an aesthetic and sound investment. Nevertheless, even if this is true, Marissa’s assertion remains accurate.

Definitions

This example highlights a crucial point — when determining the truth of a statement, claim, or social problem, it is the literal meaning that should be considered, not its conversational implicature. This distinction is particularly vital in legal contexts. The substance of a contract is typically defined by the literal meaning of its terms. In case of a dispute, the resolution often involves examining the literal meaning of the terms, not relying on implicit implications perceived by either party.

Ambiguity in meaning can impede sound reasoning and impede effective communication. Employing definitions is one method to enhance clarity in meaning. A definition consists of two components: a definiendum and a definien. The definiendum is the term being defined, while the definien comprises the group of words or concepts in the definition intended to convey the same meaning as the definiendum. For instance, in defining “bachelor” as “an unmarried man,” “bachelor” serves as the definiendum, and “an unmarried man” serves as the definien.

Reportive definition

A reportive definition, sometimes referred to as a lexical definition, reports the existing meaning of a term. This encompasses examples like the “bachelor” definition mentioned earlier or the definition of a “prime number” as any integer divisible only by 1 and itself. A reportive definition aims to accurately represent the usage of the term being defined.

Determining the correct meaning of a term raises the question of relying on a dictionary as an authoritative guide for reportive definitions. However, this notion is a misconception for various reasons.

Firstly, certain words in the language are challenging, if not impossible, to define. This includes color words acquired through examples, where a dictionary might describe “red” as the color of ripe tomatoes. Yet, this description fails to capture the essence of what “red” truly means. Additionally, many words, especially color terms, are learned through examples rather than precise definitions. Explaining ‘red’ as ‘a certain shade of color’ falls short in distinguishing red from other colors.

Secondly, general dictionaries often aim to provide enough guidance on a word’s main usage for practical everyday application. Due to space limitations, these definitions may not fully capture the nuanced meanings of words. For instance, the Oxford Dictionary defines “religion” as “belief in a superhuman controlling power.” However, this definition might not encompass cases where belief in such a power does not involve worship or submission, as illustrated by a scientist discovering superhuman aliens on Mars.

Lastly, technical terms like “microwave,” “hyper-inflation,” and “a priori” have specialized meanings and are used in specific contexts. General language dictionaries may not provide accurate definitions for such terms, making it necessary to consult specialized dictionaries within the relevant discipline.

Stipulative definition

A stipulative definition diverges from explaining the current meaning of a term; instead, it serves to assign a new meaning to a term, regardless of its existing connotations. Upon acceptance of the stipulative definition, the term is employed according to the newly prescribed meaning. For instance, consider a stipulative definition suggesting that “MBA” should denote “married but available.” Upon adopting this definition, we can then use the term to characterize individuals as MBAs.

Precising definition

A precising definition can be seen as a blend of both reportive and stipulative definitions. Its purpose is to render the meaning of a term more specific for a particular objective. For instance, consider a scenario where a bus company aims to provide discounts to elderly individuals. Merely stating that old people qualify for discounts could lead to disputes due to the lack of clarity on what constitutes being “old.” To address this, one might define “old person” as any individual aged 65 or above, offering a precise criterion among various possibilities.

Another example involves a disagreement over whether animals like birds or apes possess language. To resolve this dispute, precision is needed in defining what is meant by “language.” If “language” refers to any communication system, then birds and other animals certainly use languages. However, if “language” implies a system with combinatorial syntax and semantics enabling communication about nonexistent objects or situations distant in time and space, some animal communication systems may not qualify as languages. This highlights the use of precising definitions to settle disputes related to key concepts with unclear meanings.

Persuasive definition

A persuasive definition is one that imparts an emotional, favorable, or derogatory meaning to a term, even if it lacks such connotations. For instance, an individual opposed to abortion might present the definition of “abortion” as the murder of an innocent person during pregnancy. This definition carries a negative tone, as the term “murder” implies wrongful killing, and it presupposes that the aborted fetus is already considered a person. While such a definition may serve as a rhetorical tool, it is not suitable for a fair debate on the moral legitimacy of abortion.

Evaluating Definitions

The criteria for assessing definitions depend on the type of definition under consideration. In the case of a reportive definition, it is crucial that the provided definition accurately reflects the usage of the term being defined. Specifically, the definition should strike a balance, avoiding both excessive breadth and undue narrowness.

A definition is deemed too wide if the definien encompasses things to which the definiendum does not apply. In simpler terms, the definition includes entities it should not cover. For instance, defining a chair as a piece of furniture for sitting is too wide because a bench, although a piece of furniture for sitting, is not a chair.

Conversely, a definition is considered too narrow if the definien fails to include entities to which the definiendum legitimately applies. For example, defining religion as any belief system that involves worshiping a god who created the universe is too narrow, excluding religions like Jainism and certain versions of Buddhism and Daoism that do not postulate a creator.

It’s noteworthy that a definition can be both too wide and too narrow, as exemplified by the definition chair — a piece of furniture for sitting which has four legs.

In the context of stipulative definitions, as they introduce a new meaning, concerns about being too broad or too narrow do not arise. However, it remains important that the definien avoids circularity, inconsistency, and obscurity.

An instance of a circular definition is exemplified by stating that temperature is the physical quantity measured by a thermometer. While this definition aids in understanding the term “temperature” in English, it is circular because explaining what a thermometer is inherently involves the concept of temperature.

Below are some examples demonstrating the significance of critical thinking to understand meaning and evaluate definitions.

1. On January 11, 2006, in Phoenix, a judge ruled that fetuses do not qualify as passengers for determining eligibility to use the carpool lane. Candace Dickinson, fined $367 for improper carpool lane use, argued that the fetus in her womb allowed her to use the lane. The usual requirement for carpool lane uses during weekday rush hours is to have at least one passenger. Municipal Judge Dennis Freeman dismissed Dickinson’s argument, applying a “common sense” definition that considers an individual as someone occupying a “separate and distinct” space in a vehicle. Freeman clarified that the law is intended to fill empty space in a vehicle. Sgt. Dave Norton had pulled over Dickinson’s car on November 8, and when asked about the number of people in the car, Dickinson, pointing to her obvious pregnancy, claimed two individuals. – ©The Associated Press
2. During Bill Clinton’s tenure as U.S. President, he faced accusations of lying under oath regarding his involvement with Monica Lewinsky. Specifically, he was accused of falsehoods related to engaging in sexual relations with Monica, particularly when receiving oral sex in the White House office. Clinton justified his denial by referencing a specific court case’s definition of “sexual relations,” which states: “A person engages in ‘sexual relations’ when the person knowingly engages in or ca.es contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.” Clinton’s argument rested on the assertion that, as the recipient of oral sex, the contact involved only the lips of another person, not meeting the criteria specified in the definition.

Verbal Disputes

Verbal disputes are often distinguished from factual disputes, where disagreements revolve around differing opinions on facts rather than meanings. For instance, if someone asserts that Sydney is the capital of Australia and others hold a contrary view, the disagreement is factual.

There are two primary methods to resolve a purely verbal dispute once the divergent meanings of a key term are identified. Firstly, the parties involved may opt to agree to disagree regarding the usage of the term. The second method to resolve a verbal dispute involving two definitions is by opting to adopt a specific definition, carefully considering the intended function it is supposed to serve.

The concepts of necessary and sufficient conditions aid in comprehending and elucidating various types of connections between concepts, as well as how different states of affairs are interconnected.

Necessary & Sufficient Conditions

Stating that X is a necessary condition for Y implies that it is impossible to have Y without X, meaning the absence of X ensures the absence of Y. Another term for a necessary condition is “a necessary condition.” Examples include:

• Having four sides is necessary for being a square.
• Being brave is a necessary condition for being a good soldier.
• Not being divisible by four is essential for being a prime number.

To demonstrate that X is not a necessary condition for Y, one can identify a situation where Y is present without X. Examples include:

• Being rich is not necessary for being happy, as a poor person can also be happy.
• Being Chinese is not necessary for being a Hong Kong permanent resident, as a non-Chinese individual can become a permanent resident after residing in Hong Kong for seven years.

The notion of a necessary condition is commonly employed in daily life, even if different terms are used. For instance, stating “life requires oxygen” is equivalent to asserting that the presence of oxygen is a necessary condition for life.

A specific situation may have more than one necessary condition. For instance, to be a proficient concert pianist, having good finger techniques is a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient. Another necessary condition is being skilled at interpreting piano pieces.

Stating that X is a sufficient condition for Y means that the presence of X guarantees the presence of Y, indicating it is impossible to have X without Y. If X is present, Y must also be present. Here are some examples:

• Being a square is sufficient for having four sides.
• Being divisible by four is sufficient for being an even number.

To illustrate that X is not sufficient for Y, one can present cases where X is present, but Y is not. Examples include:

• Loving someone is not sufficient for being loved. A person who loves someone might not be loved, possibly because of being a very unpleasant person.
• Loyalty is not sufficient for honesty, as one might need to lie to protect the person to whom they are loyal.

Phrases like “If X then Y” or “X is enough for Y” can also convey the idea that X is a sufficient condition for Y. Some states of affairs can have more than one sufficient condition. Being blue is sufficient for being colored, and being green or red is also sufficient for being colored.

Four possibilities

When considering two conditions, X and Y, there are four possible ways in which they may be interrelated:

1. X is necessary but not sufficient for Y.
2. X is sufficient but not necessary for Y.
3. X is both necessary and sufficient for Y (or “jointly necessary and sufficient”).
4. X is neither necessary nor sufficient for Y.

This classification proves valuable when seeking to clarify the relationship between two concepts. Here are some examples:

1. Having four sides is necessary but not sufficient for being a square (as a rectangle also has four sides but is not a square).
2. Having a son is sufficient but not necessary for being a parent (since a parent can have only one daughter).
3. Being an unmarried man is both necessary and sufficient for being a bachelor.
4. Being a tall person is neither necessary nor sufficient for being a successful person.

Types of possibility

The concepts of necessary and sufficient conditions are linked to the notion of possibility. Stating that X is necessary for Y implies that it is not possible for Y to occur without X. Conversely, stating that X is sufficient for Y implies that it is not possible for X to occur without Y. However, various meanings of “possibility” exist, and corresponding to these meanings, different types of necessary and sufficient conditions emerge.

Consider the following statements:

1. It is impossible to be a tall man without being tall.
2. It is impossible to dissolve gold in pure water.
3. It is impossible to travel from Hong Kong to New York in less than ten minutes.
4. It is impossible to visit the army barracks without a permit.

The term “impossible” carries different meanings in each statement. In the first statement, logical impossibility is referred to, signifying something contradictory or against the laws of logic. For example, a round square is a logical impossibility, and it is logically impossible to be a tall man without being tall.

In the second statement, the impossibility of dissolving gold in water is not due to logical constraints but stems from the laws of physics and chemistry in our universe. This type of impossibility is termed empirically or nomologically impossible.

The truth of the third statement lies in technological impossibility. Although the laws of physics might not prevent traveling from Hong Kong to New York in under ten minutes, current technology does not provide the means to achieve this. Overcoming technological obstacles could make such a trip possible in the future.

Lastly, visiting the army barracks without a permit is logically, empirically, and technologically possible. The impossibility in this case is legal, signifying that it is against relevant regulations or illegal to enter the barracks without a permit. This is referred to as legal impossibility.

Different types of necessity and sufficiency

In alignment with various understandings of possibility, different concepts of necessary and sufficient conditions arise. Examples include:

1. Having four sides is logically necessary for being a square.
2. Being a father is logically sufficient for being a parent.
3. The presence of oxygen is causally necessary for the proper functioning of the brain.
4. Passing current through a resistor is causally sufficient for the generation of heat.
5. Being an adult of over 18 years old is legally sufficient for having the right to vote.
6. The presence of a witness is legally necessary for a valid marriage.

It’s important to note that there may be other forms of necessity and possibility. For instance, a father advising his son to treat his sister well involves a sense of “must” that is not based on legal necessity, as the law does not mandate treating siblings well. Instead, this necessity pertains to moral conduct. Conversely, if the son is instructed to treat his boss well, the “must” may signify a requirement guided more by prudential rules than moral considerations.

Obscurity

 Language can be employed to mislead and create confusion or to portray ideas as more profound than they truly are. A crucial aspect of critical thinking involves recognizing and addressing these linguistic pitfalls. Let’s begin by examining the first major pitfall – obscurity.

In this context, obscurity refers to unclear meaning, which can arise for various reasons. One reason is ambiguity, where a concept or linguistic expression has more than one meaning. Another reason is vagueness, where a term lacks a precise boundary, making it indeterminate in certain cases. Additionally, a term might have an unclear meaning due to incompleteness. Let’s explore these cases individually.

Ambiguity

Ambiguity refers to a situation where a word, phrase, statement, or concept has multiple meanings or interpretations, leading to uncertainty or confusion about its intended significance. Ambiguous language can arise due to lexical ambiguity (multiple meanings of a single word), referential ambiguity (uncertainty about what a pronoun or quantifier refers to), or syntactic ambiguity (more than one way to interpret the grammatical structure of a sentence). Ambiguity can create difficulties in communication and understanding, as it may lead to misinterpretation or confusion about the intended message.

1. Lexical ambiguity – A single word or term has multiple meanings in the language. For instance, “deep” can denote profundity or physical depth.
2. Referential ambiguity – It is unclear which thing or group is being referred to. This often occurs with pronouns or quantifiers, leading to confusion about the subject.
3. Syntactic ambiguity – More than one meaning arises due to multiple interpretations of the grammatical structure.

The remedy for dealing with ambiguous language is to clarify its meaning, often achieved through disambiguation, where all possible interpretations are laid out.

Vagueness

A term is vague if it possesses an imprecise boundary, making it indeterminate in certain cases. Examples include terms like “dark,” “bright,” “heavy,” “mountain,” “clever,” and “cheap.” Vagueness should be distinguished from ambiguity, as a term can be vague even without multiple meanings. While vague terms have utility in everyday language, precision becomes essential in contexts requiring clarity.

Incomplete meaning

A term has an incomplete meaning if the property or relation it expresses depends on some unspecified parameter in the context. Terms like “useful,” “important,” “similar,” and “better” fall into this category. Clarity is crucial for evaluating the truth of such statements.

The avoidance of vagueness is recommended when aiming for precision, as it enhances the informational content of a claim. Expressions that rely on vagueness can make a statement impossible to confirm or disprove. However, individuals might exploit vagueness strategically to remain non-committal or imprecise.

Distortion

In a general sense, distortion involves using words in a way that deviates from their standard meaning inappropriately. Instances of distortion occurs when inappropriate emotive connotations are applied. Many expressions in language carry positive or negative connotations, and it is crucial to assess the appropriateness of these connotations. Examples include:

• Defining “religion” as a superstitious belief in the existence of God.
• Labeling abortion as “murder” in a debate about its morality.
• Describing an event as a “valuable learning opportunity” when the term “mistake” would be more accurate.

In scientific discourse, an effort is made to use factual, value-neutral language. Terms like “black hole,” “ethanol,” and “DNA” lack positive or negative connotations. In contexts like news reporting, it is essential to differentiate between factual descriptions and personal value judgments. While completely avoiding terms with connotations can be challenging, maintaining awareness of the connotations in one’s language is crucial.

The use of weasel words is another form of distortion. These words involve changing the ordinary meaning of a term inappropriately during a discussion, often in response to counterexamples or objections. Consider the following exchange:

Teacher: You did not get an “A” in the course because you were not hardworking.

Student: But I was studying all the time and slept for only 5 hours a day!

Teacher: No. If you were hardworking, you would have an “A.”

Here, “hardworking” is the weasel word. The teacher implies that being hardworking necessitates receiving an “A,” distorting the term’s ordinary meaning and rendering the initial statement empty. Essentially, the teacher equates “hardworking” with “a person who could get an A,” making the first statement equivalent to: “You did not get an ‘A’ because you were not a person who could get an ‘A’.”

Reification

The term “reify” originates from the Latin word “res,” meaning thing. Reification involves treating an abstract idea or property as if it were a tangible, physical object.

For instance, a slogan from a popular TV program declares, “The truth is out there.” This treats truth as if it were a physical object with a location either “in here” or “out there.” However, truth is an abstract property of claims and theories and doesn’t have a specific location. This serves as an example of reification. Although we can infer the intended meaning – something along the lines of “the truth about a certain issue is discoverable with sufficient effort” – it demonstrates the use of reification. Another example is the claim that “History is just.” While a person or set of rules can be just or unjust, justice is not inherently a property of history. Yet, the speaker likely intends to convey a message like “over time, people will form a correct and fair opinion on the matter under discussion.”

These examples illustrate that reification itself is not necessarily objectionable; it often enhances dramatic impact and is common in poetry and metaphors. However, when the goal is to convey information clearly and simply, it might be prudent to avoid reification. If a statement involving reification holds a meaningful and informative claim, expressing it in simpler language without reification is usually possible. Difficulty or impossibility in translating the statement without losing clarity is an indication that the original statement lacks a clear meaning. Therefore, unless aiming for dramatic impact, it is advisable to minimize the use of reification. If necessary, ensure a clear understanding of the intended message.

Category mistakes

Inappropriate applications of reification serve as instances of category mistakes. A category mistake involves erroneously attributing a characteristic to something in one category that only applies to another, or more broadly, misrepresenting the category to which something pertains. Take the well-known sentence “colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” While grammatically correct, this sentence encompasses several category mistakes, as green ideas cannot be deemed colorless, and ideas are not entities capable of sleep.

Philosophical arguments and distortion of meaning

Distortion often contributes to the seeming plausibility of many flawed philosophical arguments. For instance, a not uncommon argument goes as follows: “Everyone is selfish, including people who help others. This is because everyone does what he or she wants to do.” Implicitly, the argument assumes that a selfish person is defined as someone who does what he or she wants. However, this distorts the typical meaning of “a selfish person,” which is more accurately described as “someone who wants to do only those things that are to his or her advantage.” A person might desire to do something to assist others, not solely for personal advantage.

Empty Content

An empty statement is one that claims to convey information, but, in the given conversational context, imparts no meaningful information whatsoever.

In typical scenarios, tautologies or tautological statements fall into the category of emptiness. A tautology is a statement that holds true by the very definition of the logical connectives used within it, such as “not,” “and” “or” “if… then…,” “there is,” “every,” “none,” and similar terms.

For instance, if Monica inquires whether Jose will attend the party, and Jose responds, “If I come, I will come,” this constitutes a tautology because it is inherently true based on the meaning of “if then.” However, the statement fails to provide any information regarding Jose’s actual attendance at the party, rendering it an empty statement.

Similarly, the statement “either it will rain tomorrow, or it will not” is also a tautology. While tautologies have their place in logic and can serve as reminders of potential courses of action (e.g., “Either we get married, or we don’t”), they are unsuitable for conveying meaningful information about the world. Although not entirely devoid of utility, tautologies should be used judiciously in contexts where clear and informative communication is desired. It’s worth noting that tautologies are a subset of analytic statements—those true solely by virtue of their meaning. While all tautologies are analytic truths, the reverse is not always true. Analytic truths, including tautologies, hold their validity based on meaning, independent of empirical facts.

Argument Analysis

Critical thinking involves recognizing, formulating, and assessing arguments. While in everyday language, the term argument may refer to a dispute, in the context of logic and critical thinking, it denotes a series of statements where one is the conclusion and the rest serve as premises or assumptions.

Presenting an argument involves providing a set of premises to justify the acceptance of a conclusion. It doesn’t necessarily entail attacking or criticizing someone; arguments can also be used to bolster others’ perspectives.

Consider the following example: “If you want to secure a good job, you should work hard. You do want to find a good job. So, you should work hard.” In this case, the initial two sentences serve as the premises, while the last sentence forms the conclusion. Offering this argument entails presenting the premises as reasons to support the conclusion.

Several key points to highlight:

• Dogmatic individuals often assert opinions without providing reasons. When criticized, they frequently struggle to offer arguments in defense of their viewpoints.
• Enhancing our critical thinking skills involves cultivating the habit of furnishing compelling arguments to substantiate our opinions.
• When defending an opinion, consider whether you can provide multiple arguments to reinforce it. Additionally, contemplate potential objections or counterarguments. A proficient thinker evaluates arguments from both sides of an issue.

Identifying arguments

How can we discern arguments in real-life situations? Identifying them often relies on contextual cues, as there are no straightforward mechanical rules. However, certain indicators, such as premise or conclusion indicators, can facilitate this task. For instance, when someone makes a statement followed by “this is because …,” it is likely that the initial statement serves as a conclusion supported by subsequent statements. Various words in English, like “since,” “firstly,” “for,” “assuming that,” “follows from,” and others, may signal the introduction of premises. Nevertheless, the interpretation of these words as premises depends on the context. For instance, the word “since” functions differently in “I have been here since noon” compared to “X is an even number since X is divisible by 4.”

Conversely, conclusions are often heralded by words like “therefore,” “so,” “hence,” “consequently,” and expressions like “suggests,” “proves,” “demonstrates,” “entails,” or “implies.”

Here are examples of passages that lack arguments:

• “When people sweat a lot, they tend to drink more water.” (A single statement without sufficient elements to form an argument.)
• “Once upon a time, there was a prince and a princess. They lived happily together and one day decided to have a baby. However, the baby grew up to be a nasty and cruel person, and they regret it very much.” (A chronological description lacking premises or conclusions.)
• “Can you come to the meeting tomorrow?” (A question devoid of an argumentative structure.)

Presenting arguments

When analyzing and evaluating an argument, it proves beneficial to label the premises and conclusion, arranging them on separate lines with the conclusion positioned at the bottom. This format, termed a presentation in the standard format, aids in clarity. Here are two additional arguments presented in this format:

Argument 1: “We should not inflict unnecessary pain on cows and pigs. After all, we should not inflict unnecessary pain on any animal with consciousness, and cows and pigs are animals with consciousness.”

(Premise 1) We should not inflict unnecessary pain on any animal with consciousness.

(Premise 2) Cows and pigs are animals with consciousness.

(Conclusion) We should not inflict unnecessary pain on cows and pigs.

Argument 2: “If this liquid is acidic, the litmus paper would have turned red. But it hasn’t, so the liquid is not acidic.”

(Premise 1) If the liquid is acidic, the litmus paper will turn red.

(Premise 2) The litmus paper has not turned red.

(Conclusion) The liquid is not acidic.

In the standard format, premises and conclusions are distinctly identified. Sometimes, sentences are rephrased for clarity, as seen in the second premise of the second example. It’s noteworthy that a conclusion may not always appear at the end of an argumentative passage, as demonstrated in the first example. Occasionally, the conclusion might be implied, as in the case of a rhetorical question:

Original: “How can you believe that corruption is acceptable? It is neither fair nor legal!”

Reconstructed in the standard format:

(Premise) Corruption is not fair and it is not legal.

(Conclusion) Corruption is not acceptable.

Engaging in the practice of reconstructing arguments in the standard format enhances reading and comprehension skills. The skill of presenting arguments serves not only as a means of defending one’s opinion but also contributes to a deeper understanding of others.

Definition of validity

A desirable characteristic of arguments is that the conclusion should logically follow from the premises. To illustrate this concept, let’s examine two arguments:

Argument #1: Jessica is over 90 years old. So, Jessica is over 20 years old.

Argument #2: Jessica is over 20 years old. So, Jessica is over 90 years old.

Intuitively, the conclusion of the first argument logically stems from the premise, whereas the conclusion of the second argument does not inherently derive from its premise. To explain this difference more precisely, consider the following thought: in the first argument, if the premise is true, then the conclusion cannot be false. However, in the second argument, even if the premise is true, there is no assurance that the conclusion must also be true. For instance, Jessica could be 30 years old.

To define the notion of a deductively valid argument, or valid argument, we can use this idea: 

“An argument is valid only if there is no logically possible situation where all the premises are true, and the conclusion is false simultaneously.”

This concept of validity provides a more precise explanation of what it means for a conclusion to follow from the premises. Applying this definition, we can determine that the first argument is valid because there is no possible situation where Jessica can be over 90 but not over 20. Conversely, the second argument is not valid because numerous possible situations exist where the premise is true, but the conclusion is false. For example, envision a situation where Jessica is 25 or one where she is 85. The existence of these possible situations demonstrates the invalidity of the argument.

Validity and truth

Consider an argument with more than one premise. Take the following example:

“All pigs can fly. Anything that can fly can swim. So, all pigs can swim.”

Despite both premises of this argument being false, it is, in fact, a valid argument. To assess its validity, consider whether it is possible to conceive of a situation where all the premises are true, yet the conclusion is false (not questioning whether there is a situation where all statements are true). The answer to this question is ‘no.’ If pigs can fly, and anything that can fly can also swim, then it logically follows that all pigs can swim.  This example highlights an important point: the premises and the conclusion of a valid argument can all be false.

It’s crucial to realize validity is not contingent on the truth or falsity of the premises or the conclusion. Validity pertains to the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. A valid argument is one in which the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. However, validity does not assert that the premises are, in fact, true. Validity simply indicates that if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.

Invalid arguments

Now, consider this argument:

Raul loves Taylor. Taylor loves Sydney. So, Raul loves Sydney.

This argument is not valid because it is possible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. For instance, Raul might love Taylor but not want her to love anyone else, resulting in Raul actually hating Sydney. The mere possibility of such a situation demonstrates the argument’s lack of validity. We refer to these situations as invalidating counterexamples to the argument. Essentially, a valid argument is defined as one without possible invalidating counterexamples. To enhance your ability to evaluate arguments, it is crucial to discover and construct such examples.

It’s important to note that a counterexample doesn’t have to be real in the sense of representing an actual situation. Even if Raul, Taylor, and Sydney are family members who love each other, the argument remains invalid because the constructed counterexample is a possible situation, even if not actual. What matters for a counterexample is that the situation is coherent, where all premises are true, and the conclusion is false. Therefore, keep in mind:

An argument can be invalid even if the conclusion and premises are all true.

Consider another invalid argument with a true premise and a true conclusion:

“Paris is the capital of France. So, Rome is the capital of Italy.” It is invalid because Italy could change its capital (e.g., to Milan) while Paris remains the capital of France.

Another important point is that a valid argument can have a true conclusion even when all its premises are false. Here’s an example:

“All pigs are purple in color. Anything that is purple is an animal. So, all pigs are animals.”

Before proceeding, ensure you understand why these claims are true and can provide examples of such cases:

1. The premises and the conclusion of an invalid argument can all be true.
2. A valid argument should not be defined solely as an argument with true premises and a true conclusion.
3. The premises and the conclusion of a valid argument can all be false.
4. A valid argument with false premises can still yield a true conclusion.

The concept of validity offers a more precise explanation of how a conclusion logically derives from the premises. As this stands out as one of the most crucial concepts in this course, it is imperative to ensure a thorough understanding of the definition. In providing our definition, a clear distinction is made between truth and validity. In everyday language, “valid” is often used interchangeably with “true” (likewise with “false” and “not valid”). However, in this context, validity is specifically reserved for arguments and not statements, while truth is a characteristic of statements and not arguments. Therefore, refrain from making statements such as “this statement is valid” or “that argument is true” in this context.

Soundness

By now, it should be evident that validity pertains to the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. Being informed that an argument is valid does not provide insight into the truth or falsity of the premises or the conclusion. The only assurance is the existence of a logical connection, where the premises entail the conclusion.

Even when presented with a valid argument, caution is necessary before accepting the conclusion since a valid argument could still harbor a false conclusion. Further scrutiny is required to verify the truth of the premises. If an argument is valid, and all the premises are true, it earns the designation of a sound argument. According to this definition, a sound argument must also be true. In a valid argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false, as it cannot have true premises and a false conclusion. Therefore, if a sound argument is determined to be valid with true premises, its conclusion must also be true. Consequently, if you establish that an argument is sound, you can confidently accept the conclusion.

Conversely, an argument lacking soundness is termed an unsound argument. An unsound argument may be invalid, possess at least one false premise, or exhibit a combination of both shortcomings.

Hidden assumptions

When individuals present arguments, certain assumptions are at times left implicit. Take, for instance:

“Cloning human beings is wrong because it is unnatural.”

As it stands, this argument is not valid. Presumably, the person making this argument implicitly assumes that whatever is unnatural is wrong. Once this assumption is articulated, the argument becomes valid.

Upon recognizing this implicit assumption, we can consider its meaning and assess its justification. Numerous things are considered “unnatural” but are not commonly regarded as wrong, such as wearing sunglasses or undergoing surgery. Consequently, those who accept the initial argument must either abandon it or introduce a different hidden premise. Identifying hidden assumptions in an argument facilitates deeper thinking.

In everyday life, the arguments we encounter often feature implicit assumptions. A crucial aspect of critical thinking involves the ability to identify such hidden or implicit assumptions.

How do we go about identifying hidden assumptions? The process involves two main steps. Firstly, determine the validity of the argument. If the argument is valid, the conclusion logically follows from the premises, and the assumptions needed to derive the conclusion are explicitly stated. In such cases, no hidden assumptions are involved. However, if the argument is not valid, carefully examine what additional premises should be added to render it valid. These additional premises are the hidden assumptions. Subsequent questions may include: (a) What do these assumptions mean? (b) Why would the proponent of the argument accept such assumptions? (c) Should these assumptions be accepted?

This technique of uncovering hidden assumptions is also valuable for identifying overlooked factors in causal explanations of empirical phenomena. For instance, if someone lights a match and an explosion occurs, the lighting of the match is essential in explaining the explosion but is not a causally sufficient condition since situations exist where lighting a match does not result in an explosion. To offer a more comprehensive explanation, it is necessary to identify factors that, together, are sufficient for the occurrence of the explosion or at least demonstrate a high probability of its happening. This may involve factors like the presence of a high level of oxygen in the environment.

Inductive arguments

Inductively strong arguments suggest that the conclusion is highly likely to be true if the premises are true. While the premises of an inductively strong argument don’t logically necessitate the conclusion, they offer substantial inductive support for it.

There exist at least three primary distinctions between an inductively strong argument and a valid argument. First, in a valid argument, the conclusion logically follows from the premises, which is not necessarily the case in an inductively strong argument. It remains logically possible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. Second, deductive validity is binary—it’s either present or absent in an argument. However, the degree of inductive support varies depending on the likelihood of the conclusion being true given the premises. The last important point to consider is that inductive strength can be undermined, unlike validity. When we say validity is not defeasible, we mean that adding new premises to a valid argument will not render it invalid.

Inductive reasoning plays a significant role in everyday life and scientific endeavors. Many of our beliefs are formed based on limited evidence. Although this evidence doesn’t logically ensure the accuracy of our beliefs, they can still be considered reasonable.

Analogical arguments

Analogies are frequently employed in arguments. To argue by analogy is to assert that because two things share similarities, what is true of one is also true of the other. Such arguments are termed “analogical arguments” or “arguments by analogy.” Analogical arguments hinge on analogies, and a crucial point to acknowledge about analogies is that any two objects are inevitably similar in some aspects while differing in others. For instance, a sparrow is vastly dissimilar from a car, yet they share the commonality of being able to move. Similarly, a washing machine differs significantly from society, but both entail components and generate waste. Therefore, when employing analogical arguments, it is imperative to explicitly specify the ways in which two things are presumed to be similar. This clarification allows for an assessment of whether the two entities are indeed similar in the relevant respects and whether these aspects of similarity substantiate the conclusion.

So, how do we assess the strength of an analogical argument that lacks deductive validity? Consider the following relevant factors presented in Table 2.

Table 2.  Assessing analogical arguments

_{Source: Lau, Joe and Jonathan Chan. 2004-2024. Critical Thinking Web. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.}

Analogical arguments are pervasive in discussions within the realms of law, ethics, and politics. In a renowned article titled “A Defense of Abortion,” penned in 1971, philosopher Judith Thomson advocates for a woman’s right to undergo an abortion in the context of an unwanted pregnancy. Thomson constructs an analogy wherein someone wakes up to discover an unconscious violinist attached to her body to sustain the violinist’s life. She contends that the individual has the right to detach the violinist, even if it results in the violinist’s demise. Drawing parallels, Thomson asserts that a woman similarly possesses the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy in specific situations.

Persuasive arguments

One motivation for delving into the study of arguments is undoubtedly the ability to persuade others, pinpoint their errors, and potentially alter their perspectives.

Therefore, when faced with disagreements, it becomes crucial to articulate your reasons with utmost clarity. Are there objections to the provided definitions? Do certain assumptions appear to be inaccurate? Or, is the reasoning itself being rejected?

It’s essential to recognize that disagreements can escalate into emotional and confrontational situations. Maintaining composure is key to discerning the validity of different viewpoints. Moreover, the possibility of discovering one’s own mistakes should always be acknowledged. Engaging in a constructive dialogue is an art that necessitates not only a comprehension of logic but also empathy, self-control, and a profound understanding of human psychology.

Philosopher Daniel Dennett (2006) offers valuable advice in this regard, serious argumentation relies on mutual respect, which can be challenging to foster in the face of vehement disagreements:

Anatol Rapoport, a social psychologist and game theorist, once outlined rules for writing a successful critical commentary on an opponent’s work. According to Rapoport,

1. Attempt to re-express your opponent’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your opponent says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
2. List any points of agreement, especially if they are not matters of general consensus.
3. Mention anything you have learned from your opponent.

Only after adhering to these steps are you permitted to present rebuttals or criticisms.

Criteria for a good argument

Criterion #1: A good argument must have true premises.

This implies that an argument with one or more false premises is not considered a good argument. The rationale behind this condition is the desire for a compelling argument that can convince us to accept the conclusion. Without all true premises, there would be no justification for accepting the conclusion.

Criterion #2: A good argument must be either valid or strong.

While many good arguments are valid, it is not a strict requirement. For example, an argument can be strong even if it is not valid. Validity is not necessary for a good argument, but inductive strength is presumed. If an argument is inductively weak, it cannot be considered a good argument as the premises fail to provide sufficient reasons for accepting the conclusion.

Criterion #3: The premises of a good argument must not beg the question.

Avoiding circular reasoning is essential for a good argument. Even if an argument is sound, circular arguments, where the conclusion appears as a premise, are not considered good arguments. Independence and providing independent reasons for supporting the conclusion are crucial aspects.

Criterion #4: The premises of a good argument must be plausible and relevant to the conclusion.

Plausibility involves having good reasons to believe that the premises are true, while relevance ensures that the subject matter of the premises is related to that of the conclusion. This additional criterion is necessary because claims or theories can be true without sufficient evidence. A good argument, being one that a rational person should accept, must meet this criterion to be persuasive and convince others of the correctness of the conclusion.

Rationality & Logic

The term “logic” originates from the Greek word “logos,” which is translated variously as “sentence,” “discourse,” “reason,” “rule,” and “ratio.” However, these translations do not fully encapsulate the specialized meaning of “logic” as used in contemporary contexts.

In essence, logic can be defined as the study of the principles governing correct reasoning. This definition, though somewhat broad, serves as a foundational understanding for the subject matter to be explored in this tour. It is important to note that logic is distinct from the psychology of reasoning. While logic concerns itself with the principles of correct reasoning, the psychology of reasoning looks into the empirical study of actual reasoning habits, including errors, without dictating how individuals should reason.

The main focus of logic revolves around principles governing the validity of arguments, determining whether specific conclusions logically follow from given assumptions. For instance, the argument forms known as “modus ponens” exemplify this concept:

1. If P, then Q.
2. P.
3. Therefore, Q.

Logic, however, extends beyond the realm of argument validity. It encompasses the study of consistency, logical truths, and properties of logical systems like completeness and soundness. Despite this breadth, these concepts remain closely intertwined with the core concept of validity.

An additional characteristic of logic is its topic-neutrality, as illustrated by “modus ponens.” This principle can be applied across diverse topics, showcasing the universal nature of logical principles that transcend specific domains like biology or economics.

Another attribute of the principles of logic is their non-contingency, indicating that they are not reliant on specific, accidental features of the world. Empirical sciences like physics explore the actual state of the world, and their theories might be contingent – subject to change if certain features had been different. For instance, the speed of light limitation is a result of the current laws of physics; however, had these laws been different, this limitation might not have held true. Similarly, the study of dolphin communication is contingent on the existence of dolphins, and a different evolutionary course might have led to their non-existence.

In contrast, the principles of logic are derived through reasoning alone, and their validity is independent of any contingent features of the world. For instance, logic dictates that any statement in the form “If P then P.” is necessarily true, representing a principle studied by logicians. This principle asserts that a statement like “if it is raining, then it is raining” must be true, regardless of the current weather conditions. Importantly, even if the laws of physics or weather patterns were to change, the truth of this statement would persist. This distinction emphasizes that logical truths are necessary, while scientific truths (excluding mathematics) are contingent. Once again, this underscores the divergence between logic and empirical sciences such as physics, chemistry, or biology.

At times, a distinction is drawn between informal logic and formal logic. The term informal logic is frequently synonymous with critical thinking or refers to the examination of reasoning and fallacies within the context of everyday life. On the other hand, formal logic primarily deals with structured logical systems. These systems are specially designed for conducting proofs, featuring precisely defined languages and rules of reasoning.

The study of formal logic serves various purposes. One notable reason is that it aids in recognizing patterns of sound reasoning and identifying patterns indicative of poor reasoning, guiding individuals on which patterns to adhere to and which to avoid. Consequently, delving into basic formal logic can enhance critical thinking skills. Linguists leverage formal systems of logic to analyze natural languages, while computer scientists utilize these systems in research related to Artificial Intelligence. Additionally, many philosophers prefer employing formal logic when addressing complex philosophical issues to render their reasoning more explicit and precise.

Statements

In logic, discussions often revolve around the logical properties of statements and their interrelations. So, what exactly constitutes a statement?

In English, there are three primary sentence types:

1. Declarative sentences, used for assertions, e.g., “He is here.”
2. Interrogative sentences, used to pose questions, e.g., “Is he here?”
3. Imperative sentences, employed for making requests or issuing commands, e.g., “Come here!”

For our discussion, we will consider any declarative sentence as a statement. A declarative sentence is a complete and grammatical expression that makes a claim. Here are some examples of statements in English:

• Snow is white.
• The moon is made of green cheese.
• Everyone is here.
• Whatever will be, will be.
• The data and information provided on this web page are for informational purposes only and are not intended for trading or commercial purposes, unless the user obtains written prior permission from the author. However, the author will not be liable for any errors or delays in the content or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

As evident, statements can be either true or false, and they can vary in complexity. However, they must always be grammatical and complete sentences. The following are not considered statements:

• The United Nations (a proper name but not a sentence)
• Bridge over troubled waters (not a complete sentence)
• Come here right now! (a command that is not a complete sentence making a claim)
• Will you be available on Tuesday or Wednesday? (a question)
• HJGAS&*^@#JHGKJAS*&^*!@GJHGAA*&S (ungrammatical)

A straightforward test to determine whether something is a statement in English is to add “it is true that” to the front of a sentence (φ). If the resulting expression is grammatical, then φ is a statement; otherwise, it is not.

For example, consider φ as “bridge over troubled waters.” Adding “it is true that” results in “it is true that bridge over troubled waters,” which is not grammatical. Hence, “bridge over troubled waters” is not a statement. Conversely, “I am like a bridge over troubled waters” is a statement because “it is true that I am like a bridge over troubled waters” is grammatical.

Fallacies

Fallacies refer to errors in reasoning rather than factual inaccuracies. If I miscounted the number of people in the room, that would be a factual mistake. However, believing in the existence of round squares indicates an inconsistency in reasoning, constituting a fallacy. Such errors arise when one accepts something inconsistent, contrary to sound reasoning.

In discussions, a fallacy is often considered an undesirable form of argument or inference. Some define it as an “unreliable inference,” but this definition is seen as narrow. Mistakes of reasoning, even if not explicitly presented as arguments, can be regarded as fallacious. For instance, making a contradictory claim or posing a question with an inappropriate presupposition may be considered fallacies, despite not being arguments. In both cases, individuals err in their reasoning by violating principles of correct thinking.

The study of fallacies applies the principles of critical thinking, helping individuals recognize and avoid them. Familiarity with common fallacies enables one to identify and explain mistakes made by others. Fallacies can be broadly classified into four types:

1. Fallacies of inconsistency, involving proposals or acceptances of something inconsistent or self-defeating.
2. Fallacies of inappropriate presumption, where assumptions or questions presuppose something unreasonable in the conversational context.
3. Fallacies of relevance, involving the invocation of irrelevant reasons or the disregard of relevant ones.
4. Fallacies of insufficiency, where the evidence supporting a conclusion is insufficient or weak.

The subsequent section will assess these categories of fallacies.

Inappropriate presumption

Fallacies of inappropriate presumption occur when we explicitly or implicitly make assumptions that are unreasonable in the relevant context. Here are some examples:

• The common inquiry about whether human nature is inherently good or evil presupposes the existence of a fixed human nature and insists on it being exclusively good or bad. However, questioning these assumptions is crucial. What if human nature is neither inherently good nor bad? Or, what if the concept of good or bad nature applies only to individual human beings?
• Consider the question, “Have you stopped being an idiot?” Regardless of whether you answer “yes” or “no,” it implies an admission of being, or having been, an idiot. This question contains a false assumption, as most individuals would likely prefer not to make such an admission.
• The argument against same-sex marriage, stating that it should not be allowed because, by definition, marriage should be between a man and a woman, assumes that only a heterosexual conception of marriage is valid. This assumption begs the question against those supporting same-sex marriages and is inappropriate when debating this issue.

Fallacies of inconsistency

Fallacies of inconsistency occur when something inconsistent, self-contradictory, or self-defeating is put forth. Here are some instances:

• “One thing that we know for certain is that nothing is ever true or false.” – If there is something we know for certain, then there is at least one truth that we know. Therefore, the assertion that nothing is true or false is untenable.
• “Morality is relative and it is just a matter of opinion, and so it is always wrong to impose our opinions on other people.” – However, if morality is relative, the question of whether we should impose our opinions becomes a relative matter as well. If refraining from imposition is deemed right, it contradicts the initial claim that morality is purely a matter of opinion.
• “All general claims have exceptions.” – This statement itself is a general claim. If it holds true, it must have an exception, implying that not all general claims have exceptions. Therefore, the claim exhibits inconsistency.

A self-defeating statement is one that, strictly speaking, is not logically inconsistent but is close enough to being so that it becomes obviously false when asserted. Consider the following examples:

• Very young children often say, “I am not here” while playing hide-and-seek. The statement is not logically inconsistent, as it is possible for the child not to be where they claim. However, it becomes impossible for the statement to be true when uttered (unless used, for example, in a telephone recorded message).
• Someone stating, “I cannot speak any English.”
• An actual example involves a TV program in Hong Kong that criticized the Government. When asked about it, the Hong Kong Chief Executive, Mr. Tung, responded, “I shall not comment on such distasteful programs.” While Mr. Tung’s remark is not logically inconsistent, as it describes a possible situation, it is self-defeating because labeling the program as “distasteful” constitutes passing a comment.

Fallacies of irrelevance

Considering irrelevant factors involves supporting a conclusion by relying on reasons that are unrelated, such as inappropriate appeals to pity, popular opinion, tradition, authority, etc. For instance, if a student fails a course and requests a passing grade, citing that “his parents will be upset,” it is an irrelevant appeal. Grades should be based on performance, and the reason provided is not pertinent.

Similarly, criticizing the Democratic Party’s call for direct elections in Hong Kong by asserting, “These arguments supporting direct elections have no merit because they are advanced by Democrats who naturally stand to gain from it,” is fallacious. The issue of whether the person advocating for direct elections stands to gain is distinct from the question of whether direct elections should be implemented.

Neglecting relevant considerations is a common occurrence, such as ignoring or minimizing justified criticisms simply because we dislike them. There are instances when hasty decisions are made under the assumption that they are the best, without thorough investigation or proper research into the situation.

It’s important to note that if we overlook a relevant fact due to ignorance, this lack of knowledge does not amount to a fallacy.

Fallacies of insufficiency

Fallacies of insufficiency occur when there is inadequate evidence presented to support a claim. This category includes most common fallacies.

Sampling limitations are evident in these instances:

• Momofuku Ando, the creator of instant noodles, passed away at 96, claiming to eat them daily. The conclusion drawn is that instant noodles cannot be detrimental to health. However, additional data, such as studies showing the longevity of many other instant noodle consumers, is necessary to adequately support this conclusion.
• Encountering a black cat in the morning and experiencing a traffic accident in the afternoon leads to the belief that black cats are unlucky. While these observations are relevant, a more comprehensive dataset, like studies indicating a higher likelihood of accidents for those encountering black cats, is needed to substantiate the conclusion.

The fallacy of appeal to ignorance is evident in the following example:

• “We lack evidence proving his innocence, so he must be guilty.” While it may be challenging to find evidence of innocence if someone is guilty, the absence of evidence in either direction does not serve as sufficient proof of guilt.

The naturalistic fallacy is illustrated in the following example:

• “Many children find enjoyment in playing video games, so we shouldn’t prevent them from playing.” This type of fallacy often involves insufficient reasoning. Empirical facts alone are not adequate to support normative conclusions, even when they are pertinent.

Various other instances of the fallacy of insufficiency exist. Table 3 provides examples of common fallacies.

Table 3. Common fallacies

_{Source: Lau, Joe and Jonathan Chan. 2004-2024. Critical Thinking Web. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.}

Cognitive Biases

Cognitive biases refer to specific prevalent patterns of thinking that can jeopardize objectivity and result in errors in reasoning. Despite their common occurrence, these biases are often challenging to eliminate. Psychologists find cognitive biases intriguing as they provide insights into human nature and the organization of the brain. Moreover, cognitive biases have implications in various fields, including economics, management, advertising, education, and politics.

Cognitive bias doesn’t necessarily equate to a fallacy. Here are some examples of cognitive biases:

• Confirmation Bias which is the inclination to seek information that supports existing preconceptions, leading to a higher likelihood of disregarding data that contradicts one’s beliefs. For instance, when comparing ourselves to others, we are more likely to recall their mistakes and less likely to consider our own.
• Framing Bias or the tendency to be swayed by how a problem is presented, even when it should not impact the solution. For example, a patient’s decision to undergo surgery can be influenced by whether the procedure is described in terms of success rate or failure rate, despite both providing the same information.
• Overconfidence Effect (Above-Average Effect) occurs when many individuals tend to overestimate their abilities. Surveys across various domains reveal that more than half of people believe they are better than the other half in each expertise. For instance, over 50% of the population may think they have above-average intelligence, but not all can be correct. This reflects a tendency to overestimate abilities and lack insight into actual performance.

Numerous cognitive biases are associated with judgments and reasoning concerning probability and statistics. Consider the following examples:

• Clustering Illusion or the inclination to attribute patterns and underlying causes to random events, even in their absence.
• Gambler’s Fallacy is the mistake of believing that a random event can be influenced by past random events. For instance, thinking that because a specific number recently appeared in a lottery, it is less likely (or more likely) to appear in the next round.

Being aware of cognitive biases empowers individuals to navigate decision-making complexities, enhancing judgment, communication, and problem-solving skills. This awareness enables critical evaluation of information and perspectives, leading to improved choices and the promotion of accuracy in thought processes. Recognizing biases aids in navigating potential misunderstandings, fostering clearer communication. It also encourages an open and objective approach to problem-solving. Understanding biases facilitates conflict resolution through empathy and finding common ground. Moreover, it prompts individuals to question their assumptions, fostering intellectual growth, and adaptability. Overall, this understanding contributes to ethical decision-making, promoting responsible and moral behavior.

Scientific Methodology

Upon assessing the critical thinking skills required for comprehending and analyzing social problems, it becomes crucial to acquire the tools and methods for gathering information, data, and facts related to the societal issues at hand.

Thorough research serves as a crucial instrument in comprehending the origins, dynamics, and repercussions of social problems, along with exploring potential solutions. This segment provides a concise overview of the primary methods sociologists employ to gather information about social issues. Table 4. “Major sociological research methods,” outlines the advantages and disadvantages associated with each method.

Table 4. Major sociological research methods

_{Source: University of Minnesota Libraries. 2016. Social Problems: Continuity and Change. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing.}

Surveys

Surveys are the primary tool sociologists use to collect data. The Gallup poll is a famous example, using questionnaires to gather information from participants. While Gallup is a private organization, sociologists, the government, and various groups conduct their own surveys. Many surveys employ random sampling, where participants are selected randomly, ensuring a representative sample. With random sampling, everyone in a population, whether it’s the entire U.S. population, a state or city, or students in a college, has an equal chance of being included. The advantage of random sampling is that it allows us to generalize findings from the sample to the larger population. Thus, understanding the behavior and attitudes of just four hundred randomly chosen individuals can provide insights into the entire U.S. population.

Certain surveys involve face-to-face interactions, where interviewers meet respondents to ask questions. This approach can gather substantial information as interviewers usually spend around an hour posing questions, resulting in a high response rate. A high response rate is crucial for generalizing the survey’s findings to the whole population. However, this method can be expensive and time-consuming to execute.

Due to these challenges, sociologists and researchers are increasingly utilizing telephone surveys with many Gallup polls conducted over the phone. Computer systems employ random digit dialing to select a random sample of telephone numbers. While telephone surveys may have lower response rates and fewer questions compared to face-to-face surveys since individuals can easily hang up or let their answering machine take the call, their convenience and affordability are making them more popular.

Additionally, internet surveys are gaining traction due to their ability to reach a wide audience at minimal cost. However, a significant limitation of web surveys is that their results may not be applicable to the entire population since not everyone has internet access.

Surveys play a crucial role in studying social issues by gathering data on people’s behaviors and attitudes toward various problems. For instance, surveys often inquire about alcohol, tobacco, and drug usage, as well as experiences with unemployment or poor health. Throughout this book, you’ll encounter evidence collected from surveys conducted by sociologists, governmental agencies, private research firms, and organizations concerned with public interests.

Experiments

In the natural and physical sciences, experiments reign as the primary research method, but within the social sciences, they are primarily prominent in psychology. Nonetheless, some sociologists still utilize experiments, recognizing them as a potent tool for social research.

The principal advantage of experiments, whether in the natural and physical sciences or the social sciences, lies in establishing a cause-and-effect relationship due to the experiment’s structured setup. Although various experimental designs exist, a typical experiment comprises an experimental group and a control group, with subjects randomly assigned to each. The researcher manipulates a variable for the experimental group while keeping the control group unchanged. If the two groups display differences in a specific variable later, it suggests the condition applied to the experimental group caused the resulting difference.

While most experiments occur in laboratory settings—often featuring one-way mirrors for psychologists—some take place in the field or natural environments (field experiments). In the early 1980s, sociologists in Minneapolis, Minnesota, engaged in a widely discussed field experiment sponsored by the federal government. Their objective was to assess whether arresting individuals for domestic violence reduced the likelihood of repeat offenses. The researchers implemented various interventions upon police arrival at domestic dispute scenes, including arrest, separation, or warnings without arrest or separation. Subsequent analysis revealed that those arrested exhibited the lowest rate of recidivism (Sherman and Berk 1984). This seminal finding prompted many jurisdictions in the United States to adopt mandatory arrest policies for domestic violence suspects. However, replications of the Minneapolis experiment in other cities yielded varying results, indicating that arrest sometimes decreased recidivism but in certain cases, increased it (Sherman, Schmidt, and Rogan 1992).

As demonstrated by the Minneapolis study, a key limitation of experiments is the limited generalizability of their results beyond the specific subjects studied. Most participants in psychology experiments, for instance, are college students, who diverge from the average American populace in age, education level, and socioeconomic status. Despite this constraint, experiments across psychology and other social sciences have provided valuable insights into the origins of attitudes and behaviors. Scholars investigating social issues are increasingly employing field experiments to evaluate the efficacy of diverse policies and programs aimed at addressing societal challenges. Subsequent modules will probe the findings of several such experiments.

Observational studies

Observational research, known as field research in sociology, holds a prominent place in the discipline. Sociologists have a longstanding tradition of immersing themselves in various social settings to observe people, resulting in numerous detailed descriptions and analyses of behavior within environments such as juvenile gangs, bars, urban street corners, and entire communities.

Observational studies encompass both participant observation and nonparticipant observation, distinguished by their level of researcher involvement. Participant observation involves the researcher becoming part of the group under study, spending time with its members, and sometimes even residing with them. Many classic studies on social issues adopt this approach, often focusing on urban neighborhoods (Liebow 1967; Liebow 1993; Whyte 1943). Nonparticipant observation, however, entails the researcher observing a group without actively engaging with its members. For instance, observing whether individuals walking with children appear happier than those without children at a local shopping mall constitutes nonparticipant observation.

While observational studies, like experiments, cannot be directly extrapolated to different contexts or populations, they offer a deeper understanding of people’s lives compared to surveys. Consequently, they remain a valuable research method for studying social problems.

Existing data

At times, sociologists opt not to collect their own data but rather analyze existing data collected by others. For instance, the U.S. Census Bureau collects comprehensive data relevant to various aspects of American life, and many sociologists examine census data concerning social issues like poverty, unemployment, and illness. Sociologists focusing on crime and the criminal justice system might scrutinize data obtained from court records, while medical sociologists frequently analyze patient records from hospitals. This type of analysis, known as secondary data analysis, offers sociologists the advantage of utilizing data that has already been compiled without the need for additional time and resources. However, a drawback is that the dataset under analysis may lack information on certain topics of sociological interest or may measure certain topics in ways that may not align with the sociologist’s preferences.

Objectivity and the Scientific Method

This section underscores the importance of conducting thorough research in the examination of social problems. But what exactly constitutes sound research? At its core, sound research adheres to the principles of the scientific method. As you likely learned in high school or college science courses, these principles—including formulating hypotheses, collecting and analyzing data, and drawing conclusions—are designed to ensure that research produces the most accurate and dependable findings possible.

A fundamental tenet of the scientific method is the imperative for researchers to maintain objectivity throughout their work. While researchers may possess a deep passion for their subjects, it is crucial for them to guard against allowing their preconceived expectations or desires to influence their research process. This means avoiding any actions or biases that could potentially skew the results in favor of expected outcomes. Unconscious biases can inadvertently seep into research, and the scientific method serves to mitigate this risk to the greatest extent possible.

This risk is arguably more pronounced in the social sciences compared to the natural and physical sciences. The political or ideological perspectives of chemists and physicists typically have minimal impact on how experiments are conducted or the interpretation of their outcomes. Conversely, researchers in the social sciences, particularly within sociology, often hold strong convictions about the subjects they investigate. Consequently, their personal beliefs may inadvertently shape the execution and interpretation of their research. Adhering to the scientific method helps mitigate the influence of such biases in social science research.