Quiz 1 Flashcards

Question

Critical Thinking

Answer 1

Critical = Conducting an analysis of the pros and faults of a piece of work - Don't think in terms of good or bad -Think interns of more or less rigorous and more or less calibrated - critical doesn't equal negative -critical = analytical - analytical doesn't equal unemotional

Answer 2

- The amygdala, the prefrontal cortex, the posterior cingulate and the anterior temporal cortex are involved in the origin, development, processing and application of biases. - Evolution has selected for neurological wiring that allows bias -Effective critical thinking involves using different parts of the brain (know which parts are particularly important)

Answer 3

-Decision making and emotional processing - instead of proceeding to the thalamus like other sensory systems, scent signals first travel to brain regions that process emotions and memory

Answer 4

- problem solving -emotional traits -Reasoning (judgement) -speaking -voluntary motor activity

Answer 5

-knowing right from left -sensation -reading -body orientation

Answer 6

-Vision -Color perception

Answer 7

-understanding language -behavior -memory -hearing

Answer 8

-breathing -body temperature -digestion -Alertness/sleep -swallowing

Answer 9

-Balance -coordination and control of voluntary movement -fine muscle control

Answer 10

-Reflexivity is the ability to reflect on your own assumptions, values, biases & perspectives & how they influence your research process and outcomes. Reflexivity helps you to acknowledge & address your positionality, power relations, ethical issues, & limitations in your research or thinking - Recognize your bias, calibrate accordingly -Reflective thinking turns experience into insight - most of your time spent in science will be reflecting on thinking about what people said, what you've read etc

Answer 11

-a belief or statement taken for granted without verification -It is a starting point for reasoning or decision making, often based on incomplete information -Assumptions can simplify complex situations but may also lead to inaccuracies if not validated

Answer 12

-False Consensus bias = People often overestimate the extent to which their beliefs, values or opinions are shared by others; naive realism -Gender bias = Individuals may make assumptions about someone's abilities based solely on their gender, often favouring one gender over another

Answer 13

The short cuts we take to come to a conclusion; we see lots of it around so it must be true

Answer 14

a mental shortcut that we use when making judgments about probability.

Answer 15

-The form that memory takes; set of neutrons that are linked and the network of neurons - The more you return to that information, the stronger they get - located around cortex

Answer 16

-A set of useful tools that can be helpful with learning how to recalibrate your thinking, avoiding jumping to conclusions and making decisions based on reality -happens unconsciously and quickly 7 steps: 1. Available data (This is the reality that we are able to observe) 2. Selected data (We select what we pay attention to based on our prior experiences and existing beliefs - we don't have the mental capacity to take in every piece of data available, so we have to make this selection) Question = What did I ignore or didn't pay attention to? Are there other sources of data I didn't consider? 3. Interpretations (we give facts meaning - we paraphrase what we see or hear to make sense of it) Question = Am I looking at the data objectively? What other meanings could they have? 4. Assumptions (Based on our interpretation, we make our own personal assumptions) Question = Are my assumptions valid? Why am I assuming this? 5. Conclusions (We draw conclusions from our analysis/data we derived) Question = Why did I conclude this> What are my assumptions there? 6. Beliefs (Our beliefs are then developed from the conclusions we make; modify) Question = What beliefs do I hold about this? What conclusions are they based on? 7. Actions (Finally, we take actions that are rooted in what we believe Question = Why do I believe this to be the right action? What are some alternative options?

Answer 17

Observable Data (Rung 1): 1.Mr. Smith's vital signs, including elevated blood pressure and heart rate. 2.Results from an electrocardiogram (ECG) showing abnormalities. 3.Lab results indicating elevated cholesterol levels. 4.Mr. Smith's medical history, including hypertension and diabetes. 5.The patient's description of chest pain and shortness of breath. Selecting Data (Rung 2): You and your team focus on the elevated blood pressure, abnormal ECG, and high cholesterol levels as the most relevant pieces of information Adding Meaning (Rung 3): You interpret these findings as potential signs of a heart problem, possibly a myocardial infarction (heart attack), given Mr. Smith's risk factors. Making Assumptions (Rung 4): Based on your interpretation, you assume that Mr. Smith's symptoms and test results are indicative of a cardiac issue, and you may suspect a blocked coronary artery. Drawing Conclusions (Rung 5): You conclude that Mr. Smith is likely experiencing a heart attack and needs immediate intervention, such as cardiac catheterization and possible stent placement. Developing Beliefs (Rung 6): Your opinion is that cardiac issues are the primary concern for Mr. Smith, and the focus should be on addressing this aspect of his health. Taking Actions (Rung 7): You communicate your conclusion and belief to the attending physician, recommending cardiac interventions and immediate action - However, the attending physician asks you to reconsider your conclusion and take a step back. After reviewing additional information and running more tests, it becomes clear that Mr. Smith's symptoms are due to a severe respiratory infection, not a heart attack. The initial assumption and conclusion based solely on the observable data led to an incorrect diagnosis. -review what you know, able to recognize to know what you don't know, able to find resources to close the gaps in your knowledge -

Answer 18

Placing Trust Into where the information is from affects how much we weigh that info

Answer 19

weakest to strongest: 1. Case reports, opinion papers and letters 2. animal trials and in vitro studies 3. cross sectional studies 4. case control studies 5. cohort studies 6. randomized controlled trials (gold standard but doesn't mean that all are done well) 7. meta analyses and systematic reviews

Answer 20

- Who's making the claim? -> do you trust this source? -Who is the cohort? -> Was the study done on a diverse group? -> who/what was the study done on? -Citations -> potential issues -> biased (e.g., self-citation) -Experimental design -> appropriate controls? ->reproducibility? -> proper technique? -> routine methodology or new technique? -How old the source is -> newer or older could weigh more depending on the topic -How well written is the article? -> What journal is the article published in? -> diff journals have diff criteria/standards -> some may be more or less strict with the material allowed to be submitted -Who's involved with the journal -> in house review or global review? -> Who funds the journal? -Journal impact factor -> proxy metric for journal quality; measure created by university librarians (SUPPOSED TO TELL US how good the quality of journal is by checking to see how many times the journal has been taken out but this method may not actually reflect quality)

Answer 21

-Logical thinking = the ability to put together arguments so they make sense and stand up to critical analyses by others skilled in critical thinking. - Skills needed – Analytical, communication, open-minded, self-awareness, broad thinking - Critical thinking is the ability to judge arguments (weigh evidence, determine if the arguments, explanations, etc are logical. Critical thinking is the analysis (analytical approach) to testing arguments or explanations - put forward by you or others - to determine rigour, check for sound reasoning (deductive/inductive), identify flaws & weaknesses and make reasonable conclusions.

Answer 22

-used to formulate hypothesis and theories (logic & reason) -involves moving from specific instances or observations to broader generalizations (e.g., the sun has risen every morning throughout history; therefore the sun will rise tomorrow.)

Answer 23

- used when applying them to specific situations (analysis of evidence & argument). -the information is already available, you just have to work out the conclusion…(weigh the evidence).

Answer 24

1. The evidence must be sufficient to establish the accuracy of a claim --> the person making the claim bears the burden of proof -> extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -> claims based on authority are never sufficient -> anecdotes are never sufficient 2. The evident must be relevant to the claim (irrelevant evidence can sound persuasive but needs to be relevant) -> can include logical fallacies such as -> appeals to emotion (strong emotions can be very convincing but it's not evidence) -> ad hominem attacks (shifts the focus away from the evidence and towards the person making the claim - your feelings towards the person is irrelevant to the accuracy of the claim) -> appeal to the masses (suggests that since everyone believes something, it must be true) or appeal to tradition (a claim must be true since people have believed it for a long time) -> red herring (when someone shifts the focus away from the topic being discussed) 3. the evidence must be comprehensive (does it build toward the claim?) -> you need to look at all of the pieces of evidence, not cherry pick pieces, otherwise you could miss the bigger picture 4. The evidence must be reliable -> How was the information gathered?

Answer 25

-is an argument (building the case on the basis of evidence, logic, reasoning, weight of evidence) well-reasoned? -Scientific arguments are logical descriptions of a scientific idea and the evidence for or against it -think like a lawyer is the argument for or against the evidence/accept or refute the evidence) - Sometimes a scientific idea precedes any evidence relevant to it, and other times the evidence helps inspire the idea

Answer 26

-An infodemic is too much information including false or misleading information in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak -It causes confusion and risk-taking behaviours that can harm health It also leads to mistrust in health authorities and undermines the public health response -An infodemic can intensify or lengthen outbreaks when people are unsure about what they need to do to protect their health and the health of people around them -With growing digitization - an expansion of social media and internet use - information can spread more rapidly -This can help to more quickly fill information voids but can also amplify harmful messages

Answer 27

-The systematic use of risk and evidence-based analysis and approaches to manage the infodemic and reduce its impact on health behaviours during health emergencies -Infodemic management aims to enable good health practices through 4 types of activities: 1. Listening to community concerns and questions 2. Promoting understanding of risk and health expert advice 3. Building resilience to misinformation 4. Engaging and empowering communities to take positive action

Answer 28

-That may be the social need to feel good about the group they belong to, the need to know the truth and have certainty, or the existential need to feel safe or feel a sense of control over what happens to us -And hardcore believers are adept at rationalizing away evidence that contradicts their beliefs. -Eyewitnesses who dispute the conclusions of even the biggest conspiracy theories are mistaken, according to believers — or part of the conspiracy.

Answer 29

1.Epistemic motives: These stem from the desire for knowledge, certainty, and truth. When people feel uncertain, particularly in the face of major events, they seek explanations. Those with lower education levels may lack tools to assess credible sources and thus turn to conspiracy theories for answers. 2. Existential motives: These refer to the need for safety, security, and control. When people feel powerless or out of control, conspiracy theories provide a sense of understanding or explain why they lack control, helping them cope with feelings of disillusionment. 3. Social motives: These relate to the desire to feel good about oneself and one's group. Believing in conspiracy theories can give individuals a sense of superiority or uniqueness, as they feel they possess information others don't. At the group level, conspiracy theories can reinforce group identity, portraying one's group as good while others are seen as evil. -These motives—epistemic, existential, and social—form the core psychological drivers behind conspiracy theory beliefs.

Answer 30

-Biomedical science is not a collection of isolated facts. -We were all forced to commit fragments of knowledge to memory and to regurgitate it all on our final exams. -Most scientists come to realize that science is not about facts;

Answer 31

-Deductive reasoning – proceeds from one or more general axioms (premises) and comes to a certain, specific conclusion using logic -Inductive (ampliative) reasoning – extends what we know to new areas (may require analogies and generalizations)

Answer 32

- Scientists may use: inductive reasoning to formulate hypothesis and theories (logic & reason) from observations & data & use deductive reasoning when applying them to specific situations (analysis of evidence & argument). Requires premises that must be true - Scientists may use: inductive reasoning to formulate (build) hypotheses, theories, arguments, case (logic & reason) and use deductive reasoning when to analyse specific situations, arguments, evidence, etc. (logic & reason) -Scientists may use: inductive reasoning (“bottom-up”) and use deductive reasoning (“top down”)’ But often they use Abductive reasoning – best educated guess, building upon observed phenomena and previous studies.” -Scientists use: inductive reasoning to formulate (build) hypotheses, theories, arguments, case (logic & reason) and use deductive reasoning when to analyse specific situations, arguments, evidence, etc *But what is an argument?

Answer 33

A reason or set of responses given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong -You are practicing doing this in the tutorials, in your assignments, etc. building the case, setting up the reasons, providing the evidence for a particular position or opinion, weighing the evidence, providing the reasons, persuading others, etc....... Being analytical while being self-aware

Answer 34

- Scientific arguments are logical descriptions of a scientific idea and the evidence for or against it. -Sometimes a scientific idea precedes any evidence relevant to it, and other times the evidence helps inspire the idea.

Answer 35

-Taken together, the expectations generated by a scientific idea and the actual observations relevant to those expectations form what we'll call a scientific argument -This is a bit like an argument in a court case - a logical description of what we think and why we think it - A scientific argument uses evidence (we need to be able to weigh the evidence) to make a case for whether a scientific idea is accurate or inaccurate -For example, the idea that illness in new mothers can be caused by doctors' dirty hands generates the expectation that illness rates should go down when doctors are required to wash their hand before attending births - when this test was actually performed in the 1800s, the results matched the expectations, forming a strong scientific argument in support of the idea, and hand washing - you can make predictions based on observations/evidence and people can end up not accepting it even if it's right

Answer 36

- these elements are always related in the same logical way, but in the process of science these elements may be assembled in different orders -sometimes the idea comes first and then scientists go looking for the observations that bear on it -sometimes the idea and the observations are already out there, and someone comes along later and figures out that the two might be related to one another

Answer 37

- you need to be able to distinguishh between correction and causation because if it is mixed up, it weakens your argument -A logical description of a scientific idea and the evidence for or against it -In everyday language, an argument usually means a verbal disagreement but here we use another meaning of the term: a reasoned case for or against a particular viewpoint - scientific arguments generally have a few basic components: What is the idea? If this idea were true, what would we expect to observe in a given situation? Is this expectation borne out? How does that reflect on the likelihood that the idea is accurate or inaccurate?

Answer 38

- A critical thinker will be able to deconstruct the argument, look at the evidence (convincing, compelling, weak?), the premises, determine the strength of the basis that the argument built on, look at the reasoning is being used, and ask is it valid, is it logical? -you become self-aware on how you use information and evidence to make decisions even in simple decisions - being able to see the thinking in your head and being aware as it happens - advanced thinking = making a hypothesis and holding a scientific argument when conducting experiments and making predictions instead of just saying "I'm going to do an experiment and see what happens."

Answer 39

-building blocks of previous work to support an argument

Answer 40

Discussion - abstract might briefly in discussion as well;

Answer 41

- Logical thinking is putting together arguments so they make sense (e.g. you are writing a paper in the biomedical sciences) - Logical thinking often used as a way to undermine people - Critical thinking is the ability to judge those arguments to determine rigour, sound thinking, reasoning, flaws, weaknesses and make reasonable conclusions (e.g. you critiquing something written or spoken about an issue in biomedical sciences). --> Assessing the arguments and being analytical but not ignoring your emotions - How are the authors using the data in support of their conclusions? Skills needed – self-awareness, analytical, communication, etc. (be a lawyer)

Answer 42

- abstract since it gives a short summary of the paper and states how the results support the paper, then look at the discussion and then see if the results support the claims

Answer 43

- Everyday arguments --> based on opinions, biases, feelings, emotions --> illogical - commits fallacies --> conflict is disrespectful and pesonal --> used to "win" and be "right" - Critical thinking arguments --> claim is supported by evidence --> logical - based on reason (is there sound logic?) --> Disagreements are respectful, not personal (you are aware of bias/be a lawyer and hold emotions consciously) --> collaborative, to find greater understanding (science allows us to move towards ever decreasing uncertainty) - knowing how to form good arguments helps us to think better, and prevents us from falling for bad arguments

Answer 44

- Should you five Dan some gum? - slippery slope fallacy = once one event occurs, other events will follow until you reach unwanted consequence (a chain of events) Key questions: - Is the claimed affect that bad? (the bottom of the slope) - are the claimed affects likely to follow? (how slippery is the slope really?) - Do the costs outweigh the benefits? (are there other releveant facts to consider)

Answer 45

- This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts Example: Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring course. In this example, the author is basing her evaluation of the entire course on only the first day, which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the author must attend not one but several classes, and possibly even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence on which to base a conclusion In biomedical sciences context – a hasty generalization might result from conclusions derived from very small sample sizes or few experiments. - The slippery slope fallacy – e.g. I don’t need to run a control for just this one experiment, set of experiments, subset of my thesis research/proposal, all of my dissertation, the whole research program. We never run controls in the lab

Answer 46

Be aware that there are various meanings of valid and invalid. Be aware that constructing and dissecting arguments is highly developed aspect of disciplines such as math and is routinely used in professions such as law and politics. What are the implications here for biomedical sciences?

Answer 47

Ad hominem anecdotal appeal to authority appeal to emotions appeal to nature appeal to tradition argument from ignorance bandwagon burden of proof false cause false equivalence hasty generalizations I'm entitled to my opinion red herring single cause slippery slope straw man

Answer 48

-people with low education more drawn in with conspiracy theories -should not be persuaded by someone overconfident (still use critical thinking to analyze what people say) - your identity is separate from your argument -step 2: are the premises true/accurate? --> argument

Quiz 1 Flashcards

(73 cards)