revision lecture Flashcards
critical thinking
a method of evaluating information and argument’s, analyzing them logically and making a reasoned judgement
why is critical thinking important?
it is vital in all aspects of life, particularly in kin, to make evidence-based decisions in sports science and health
key concepts for critical thinking
1: evaluating arguments and their logic
2: recognizing biases that may distort reasoning
beliefs
- can be true or false
- when expressed in a declarative sentence, it becomes a claim
claims (the two types)
1: objective claim
2: subjective claim
objective claim
true or false, independent of personal feelings
(ie.the sky is blue)
subjective claim
true or false based on personal opinions or feelings (i.e. pizza is the best meal”)
arguments
- consist of premises leading to a conclusion
cognitive biases
- biases affect conclusions and reasoning, driven by external (cultural, social) and internal influences (emotional, psychological)
- importance of recognizing biases like confirmation bias, anchoring, etc.. in research and practice
ethics in kinesiology
- deals with questions of good, right, duty, obligation, and virtue.
- focus on making defensible ethical decisions based on impartially applied reasons.
situational issues
application of critical thinking when evaluating sports techniques, training programs, or nutritional recommendations
real-world application
analyzing the validity of different training methods based on evidence
- ethical considerations in sports, such as fair play and doping
Aristotelian virtue of ethics
1: focus on virtues as habits for a flourishing life
2: virtues are the mean between two extremes
3: eudaemonia (flourishing) as the ultimate human goal
deontological ethics (Kantian)
1: morality based on rules and duties
2: actions are judged by their adherence to categorical imperatives
3: treat individuals as ends, not means
(is an ethical framework that emphasizes the importance of duty, rules, and principles in determining the morality of an action.)
utilitarianism (Mill’s)
1: right actions maximize happiness and minimize suffering
2: evaluation based on consequences of actions
existentialism
1: emphasizes individual freedom and responsibility
2: authenticity and good faith as central values
ethical theories
1: Aristotelian virtue of ethics
2: deontological ethics (Kantian)
3: utilitarianism (Mills)
4: existentialism
5: formalism
formalism
1: focus on adherence to established game rules
2: efficiency is sacrificed for the challenge provided by rules
conventionalism
- importance of unwritten, agreed-upon norms or conventions within sports
- these conventions shape how rules are interpreted and applied
broad internalism (interpretivism)
- viewing sports as a mutual quest for excellence through challenges
- emphasizes underlying purposes and values of the game
what are the types of arguments
1: deductive
2: inductive
deductive argument
premise provide conclusive proof for the conclusion if true
inductive argument
premises support the conclusion but do not ensure it
unstated premises and conclusions
awareness of implicit elements within arguements
what are the means of persuasion?
1: ethos = credibility
2: pathos = emotional appeal
3: logos = logical reasoning
the 4 principles by Beauchamp and childress
1: respect for autonomy
2: non-maleficence
3: beneficence
4: justice
vagueness
occurs when a word or phrase’s meaning is unclear about what it includes or excludes
importance of vagueness
critical in law, everyday communication, and setting precise standards (eg. speed limits)
intentional use of vaugeness
sometimes used to avoid giving a precise answer in sensitive situations
ambiguity
occurs when a word, phrase, or sentence has multiple meanings
types of ambiguity
1: semantic = multiple meanings of words
2: syntactic = structure causes confusion)
Generality
refers to how broadly a term can be applied, often lacking specificity
what are examples of generality?
- terms like “fair play” and “sportsmanship” are both vague and general
3 types of purposes of definitions
1: lexical
2: precising
3: persuasive
lexical
ordinary meaning
precising
more precise in a specific context
persuasive
to influence emotions nad opinions
the importance of defining words
clear definitions can prevent misunderstandings and manipulation
credibility
- evaluation of claims should consider both the content of the claim and the credibility of the source
credible and non-credible claims
evaluating the content of claims
- claims should not conflict with established knowledge or credible sources
- analysis of how personal observations and general knowledge can impact the acceptance of a claim
the credibility of sources
- impact of the sources background, experience, and potential biases on credibility
- distinction between interested parties (biased) and disinterested parties (unbiased)
critical thinking in media and advertising
- understanding the role of media ownership and advertising in shaping information
- recognizing bias and manipulative strategies in media and advertising
logical fallacies
common logical fallacies in arguments is crucial to understand.
- fallacies disrupt the logic of an argument, leading to invalid or weak conclusions
types of logical fallacies
1: ad hominem fallacy
2: straw man fallacy
3: false dilemma
4: begging the question
ad hominem fallacy
attacking the person rather than the argument
3 types:
1: poisoning the well
2: guilt by association
3: genetic fallacy
straw man fallacy
misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
- arguers create a distorted version of the opposing argument, making it easier to contend against
false dilemma
presenting two options as the only possibilities, when more may exist
- limiting options unfairly, presenting a situation as having only two possible outcomes
begging the question
a circular argument where the conclusion is included in the premise
poisoning the well
apart of ad hominem fallacy
- discrediting what a person might say by attacking their credibility beforehand
guilt by association
apart of ad hominem fallacies
- dismissing someone’s argument by associating them with an unpopular group or idea
genetic fallacy
apart of ad hominem fallacies
- dismissing an argument based on its source rather than its merits
what are common fallacies?
1: affirming the consequent
2: denying the antecedent
3: undistributed middle
4: equivocation
5: amphiboly
example of affirming the consequent
if A, then B. B is true, therefore A is true (incorrect inference)
example of antecedent
if A, then B. A is false, therefore B is false (invalid conclusion)
composition
attributes of individual parts are erroneously applied to the whole
division
attributes of the whole are erroneously applied to individual parts
example of composition
just because individual politicians are popular does not mean the entire government is popular
division example
believing that if a team is excellent, each player must also be excellent independently.
equivocation and example
using a word in different meanings in an argument
ie. using “bank” to mean both the side of the river and a financial institution in an argument
amphiboly and example
ambiguity arising from poor sentence structure
ie. “flying plans can be dangerous” is it dangerous to fly planes or are planes that are flying dangerous?)
ethical considerations in anti-doping for sport
- WADA’s criteria for banning substances: potential for enhancement, potential for harm, violation of the spirit of sport
- ethical implications of procedural justice and transparency in anti-doping practices
categorical logic
studies relationships of inclusion and exclusion among categories or classes
deductive reasoning
relies on given premises to reach a definitive conclusion, proving it beyond doubt.
categorical claims
1: A- claims: all S are P (universal affirmative)
2: E-claims: No S are P (universal Negative)
3: I-claims: some S are P (particular affirmative)
4: O-claims: Some S are not P (particular negative)
venn diagrams
visual tool to represent categorical claims and their relationships
categorical syllogisms
deductive arguments with two premises and a conclusion, all in categorical form
components of categorical syllogisms
1: major term - appears in the predicate of the conclusion
2: minor term - appears in the subject of the conclusion
3: middle term = appears in both the premises but not in the conclusion
the square of opposition
analyze the logical relationship between different types of categorical propositions
(contraries, subcontraries, contradictories)
standard form translation
converting everyday language into precise categorical terms
contradictories
a statement and its contradictory cannot both be true, and they cannot both be false at the same time. one must be true, and the other must be false
rules for testing validity
rule 1: negative premises vs conclusion
rule 2: distribution of the middle term
rule 3: distribution in conclusion
value judgements and the 3 types
value judgements are assessments concerning merit, desirability, or praiseworthiness
1: moral judgements
2: nonmoral judgements
3: aesthetic judgements
moral judgements
pertaining to right or wrong, ethical considerations
nonmoral judgements
merchantability, usability, etc
aesthetic judgements
beauty, artistry, and taste
principles of moral reasoning
1: consequentialism
2: deontologism
3: virtue ethics
4: existentialism
consistency principle
treat similar cases similarly unless distinguished by a morally relevant factor
consequentialism
focus on the outcome for determining rightness
deontologism
emphasis on duties and obligations
virtue ethics
concentration on the virtues of the person involved
esistentialism
- emphasizes individual freedom and responsibility
- authenticity and good faith as central values
legal reasoning in kin
1: precedent (stare decisis): following previous judicial decisions
2: reasoning types
1: deductive reasoning: applying general rules to specific cases
2: inductive reaosning: forming general rules from specific incidents
rhetorical force
Refers to the persuasive power of language and argumentation used to influence readers opinion or attitudes
This may include using vivid language, emotional appeals (pathos), or rhetorical devices to make a claim more compelling or persuasive
probative weight
This refers to the value or strength of the evidence provided to support the claim in scientific writing.
Probative weight is determined by the quality, relevance, and reliability of the evidence presented, using experimental data, statistical analysis, peer-reviewed research, or logical reasoning.
Euphemism
The use of mild or indirect expressions used in place of harsh, unpleasant, or taboo words or phrases to soften the impact of the message or make it more socially acceptable.
what is this an example of “passed away” instead of “dead” or “died”
euphemism
dysphemism
Refers to the use of harsh, offensive, or derogatory language to describe someone or something, often with their intention of eliciting negative emotions or attitudes.
what is this an example of “junkie” instead of “person with a substance abuse disorder”
dysphemism
weasel words
Words or phrases that are intentionally vague, ambiguous, or misleading, often used to avoid making a direct commitment, assertion, or statement of fact.
Commonly used in persuasive writing, advertising, politics, and other forms of communication to manipulate perceptions or evade accountability
what would this be an example of “some people say” or “many experts agree”
weasel words
hyperbole
Figure of speech characterized by exaggerated or over-the-top language used for emphasis, or rhetorical effect.
It involves stretching the truth beyond literal accuracy to create a vivid or dramatic impression, often for humorous, dramatic, or persuasive purposes.
