Introduction to Critical Thinking: M2 Essay

Introduction to Critical Thinking: M2 Essay
Write a one-page essay explaining why some people think that anyone with a good sense of humor is healthier than those who do not have a good sense of humor. Describe why some people would think that that this is just a matter of opinion.

Explain your position and support it with evidence, references, and links.

A Theory of Truth and its Consequences

There are many philosophical theories about truth. Relativists will suggest that there is no objective truth and that truth is merely constructed, either by community consensus or by the individual. Meanwhile, other theories suggest that the truth is what relates to an objective world. Whether or not there is an objective world around us is another philosophical question beyond the scope of this class. For purposes of operating in this course, we shall assume that there is an objective world and a statement is true when it coincides with this objective reality.

Why should we accept this definition? There are several reasons to adopt the belief in an objective reality. One reason is based on our use of language and that it cannot exist solely on subjective experience. It suggests that when we use language, there is an agreed way in which terms should be used. We shall refer to this as a criterion of correctness. When communicating with others there has to be a consensus on what is true. If not, we could not agree on the terms we use. Our language then breaks down and is no longer useful. Whatever our language is, there must be a minimal criterion of correctness in order for us to communicate. This foundation would need to be something objective that its speakers can agree on in order for the language to be a means of communication. To this extent, we can minimally assume that this standard can be considered an objective reality that is independent of the speaker.

If you are not convinced by this argument, there is a more pragmatic argument for accepting the objectivist definition of truth for this course. If there is no objective reality and truth is subjective, then truth will be based on a fictional objective reality. Since the course uses this fiction as a foundation for determining truth, it would be advantageous for you to adopt it in order to succeed in the course. If truth is subjective, either you can redefine it to meet your needs or some other force determines what is true, such as a collective of minds. If you can redefine truth to meet your needs, there would be no need to take the course. Naturally, you will have a lot of explaining to do to account for why you permit events that you would rather not have occur. More developed relativists would suggest that some other force also determines what is true. If this is the case, it can be treated almost identically to an object reality and suggests adopting our theory of truth has merit. So, for whatever practical reason you may want, it is most wise for purposes of succeeding in this course to accept that the truth of a statement is how well it reflects an objective reality.
It is important to note that sometimes people state that something is ‘true for them’. However, this wording is deceptive. When reflecting on this statement, they are merely saying that they believe it to be true. This does not actually mean that the statement is true in an objective sense. For example, I may say that “it is true for me that the moon is made of cheese.” However, how many people would actually think that if I was given a piece of the moon I would ingest it with the sensation of tasting gouda? This is also the case for the term “reality.” People often use the word to reflect what they believe, and then make the ontological assumption that it reflects what is? Throughout this course, you will discover that there are several cases where people can misleadingly use words. It is one of our goals of this course to enable you to identify these cases.

Principles of Critical Thinking

The following principles are ideas that have proven trustworthy over years of rigorous testing. They are good rules of thumb when evaluating statements or proposals.

The Principle of Contradiction

Statements cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same way.

This may seem obvious, but sometimes there are instances where we may get confused.
To illustrate this example, we can examine the statement, “My sister is completely bald.” With this statement, we can assume that either my sister has no hair, or that the statement is not true. While some may quibble over the exact amount of hair baldness entails, being completely bald suggest having no hair on top of one’s head. If she has a full head of hair, the statement is false. We can also agree that it is nonsensical to be both completely bald and have a full head of hair at the same time.

When evaluating statements or claims, it is important to ensure that your evaluation is sensitive to the context that surrounds the statement. This is critical for clearly expressing our thoughts and avoiding disagreement based on semantic differences. It also illustrates that the claim being evaluated must be taken in the same way.

For example:

“Jane is richer than Bob.”

This statement could be both true and false depending on the context. Bob may have access to vast amounts of financial wealth while Jane is penniless. This would imply that on a financial level, the statement is false. However, one might argue that Jane has children and marital happiness, while Bob does not. If Bob life is unfulfilled because of this, Jane may have a different kind of wealth that Bob lacks. Thus, it is important to evaluate that statement in the same way. This requires that we verify what context surrounds the claim.

Context can determine a lot about a simple sentence. There are several possible meanings to statements and the context is critical in our understanding of the statement. There are several meanings to even familiar statements, such as, “Mary had a little lamb.”
Notice how the following three sentences can radically change this meaning of the statement.

“Mary had a little lamb.”

“Its fleece was white as snow.”
“It was very tasty with mint jelly.”
“Everyone in the delivery room was shocked.”

Thus when evaluating the truth of a statement, we must make sure that we are assessing it in the same way as it was intended.

Principle of Fallibility

Everyone is fallible – even the experts.

While some do not like to admit it, for the most part everyone can be wrong. In fact, a key aspect of the scientific community, where critical thinking is highly valued, is the acceptance that theories we hold can always be wrong and replaced with new and better theories. Accepting fallibility is not a bad thing. You may find it liberating, as it allows you to explore, modify, and improve your understanding.

Since experts are human, like you, they too may be wrong. While their opinion on areas in their field should be given more weight, this does not mean they cannot be mistaken. A few classic examples include:

• In the early 1900s, the president of the British Royal Society claimed that X-rays were a hoax.
• Learning of a band concept, a successful musician stated that it would take off like a lead balloon. The band then took the name “Led Zeppelin” and was remarkably successful.
• In 1955, Variety Magazine predicted that rock and roll was a fad that would end by the middle of the year.
• In the mid 1970s, philosopher of mind and artificial intelligence critic Herbert Dreyfus claimed that no computer could beat a person at Chess.

There are two specific points to be made about his principle.

1. An expert in a field of study does not necessarily represent the whole field. Often there are many experts in the field and hand picking the one to help evaluate a statement is not a critical evaluation.
2. Merely having the possibility of being wrong does not mean that one is wrong. All things considered equal, experts in a field have an advantage for understanding that area of study. So, while the race is not always won by the swiftest horse, it still might be the safest way to bet.
Principle of Examination

Ideas can be examined without being accepted.

Some people may refuse to examine certain ideas because of their convictions. Often this occurs when addressing issues of politics or religion. Such behavior prevents a deeper understanding of issues and is antithetical to critical thinking. If an idea should be rejected, then through critical thinking we can assess the statement and demonstrate that the idea is not worth keeping. By refusing to examine ideas that we do not agree with, we are actually doing ourselves a disservice by censoring the idea.

In his book, On Liberty, John Stuart Mill suggested that ideas in themselves do not do harm, but the actions based on those ideas may. If we view our community as a marketplace for ideas, censoring bad ideas may give credence to those ideas by illustrating that we are afraid to address why they have no merit. Further, people are often attracted to things they cannot have, and our desire to censor others from these ideas only makes these ill-ideas more intriguing. Instead, Mill suggests we should not censor ideas, but instead debate them. If we are correct and they are not good ideas, they will surely not pass critical evaluation.

An example of this is the Holocaust Denial Movement. Often people attack Holocaust deniers by attacking the supporters of this position as Nazis and dismissing them without addressing their arguments. The Holocaust deniers then argue that they are being censored unfairly and this offers support to their conspiracy theory that suggests the Holocaust is a hoax developed to give Jews international sympathy and more political power.

Mill would suggest that a better way to address the Holocaust deniers’ hurtful ideas is to examine such ideas and refute them. A quick look at their arguments reveals claims that there is no physical evidence that the Nazis systematically killed Jews in detention camps. (They claim these camps were mere holding areas where some Jews died of starvation.)

There are several resources that offer physical evidence to directly refute this claim. First, hundreds of written documents exist supplying a convergence of evidence for the Holocaust. Second, eye witness testimony of survivors, such as the Sonderkommandos and high ranking Nazis, collaborate the event. The camps themselves have several incriminating machines, such as working bone crushing machine in the Janowska concentration camp in Poland. Third, the large purchase orders of Zyklon – B cyanide gas and area photos of how it was used in ventilation shafts in the camps. The amount used alone was far too high to be used for just delousing, as some Holocaust deniers suggest. Finally, where did everyone go without packing? The large amount of physical evidence collaborates the conclusion that there was a Holocaust. It is thus just an academic exercise to illustrate this point.

By addressing unpopular ideas and demonstrating their faults, you will be in a much stronger position than if you choose to ignore them. It is important to be fair when critically evaluating an idea. This means that the idea must be addressed without bias, even if it is an unacceptable idea.

Of course, critical evaluation also applies to ideas we believe in. It is easy to be critical of ideas you do not agree with. However, being neutral to ideas you hold and assessing them fairly is even more difficult. When examining an idea, it is important to do so fairly and without bias.

Principle of Reasoned Thought

Feeling is not a substitute for thinking.

People often pit feeling against thinking, or frame this as intuition versus reason. However, feelings are not the same as thinking. Thinking involves gathering reasons to support your beliefs. When a belief has a lot of evidence supporting it, it is reliably more accurate. This is one of the strengths of critical thinking.

I may have an intuition, or a deep feeling, that my boss is planning to have me fired. Nevertheless, this intuition or feeling in itself is not as reliable as having evidence or reasons for this feeling or intuition. Evidence might include having a videotape of my boss talking to another employee about my poor work. Reasons might include knowing that my boss is downsizing my department. Critical thinking involves drawing on evidence and reasons in order to draw a conclusion or to believe something.

Intuition is often inappropriately associated to explain feelings. Instead, intuition is a special case when we believe something and cannot explain the reasons. This is called intuition or “a feeling.” However, frequently our intuition is a case of when we apply clues supplied from the environment to unreflectively influence our judgment. For example, you may notice that an individual is acting uncomfortably and you suspect they are not truthful. You cannot explain why their statement is not true, but their behavior is giving you this impression.

To the unreflective individual, these may be just feelings. With further reflection of the matter, there may be several clues that may lead to the intuition. By critically examining our intuitions we may be able to further justify our first intuition. Returning to our example, when you learn more about identifying traits people display when they are not truthful, you can then use these to further justify your intuition. Of course, reflection may also discover that your intuition is misplaced. For this reason, while intuition may have reason to support it, those reasons become more effective when you know what they are to support the intuition with critical analysis. This in turn will allow you to have a more accurate and reliable set of intuitions. It is through critical thinking and not feelings that this is accomplished. Thus, the rule for critical thinkers holds that feelings are not a substitute for critical thought.

Opinions and Facts
An opinion can be either an expression of taste or a conjecture statement based on less evidence than an accepted fact. As a statement, it lacks sufficient evidence to be accepted by a community of experts on the topic, or to be considered a fact. This is not to state that it is not true, but that it has not been confirmed as a fact. Conversely, a fact is an idea that is clearly stated and affirmed by experts.

While these definitions may seem simple, determining fact from opinion can be very difficult. On several occasions a statement of fact is not factual. For example, people could lie or simply be mistaken. Even an expert could be fooled by a forgery. For over a hundred years art historians thought Man in a Golden Helmet was painted by Rembrandt. While a statement may be presented as a fact, there are always circumstances that could demonstrate it to be otherwise. It is important to remember this, as it applies to the principle of fallibility.

Another issue with identifying facts from opinions is that often people express opinions as if they were fact. For example, consider the statements, “Poor parenting is the cause of child delinquency,” or “Legalizing marijuana would benefit the country with the taxes that could be collected.” These statements may be said with conviction, yet informed people may disagree on them. Thus, these statements are opinion.

Further, sometimes determining if a statement is a fact or opinion can be difficult because most people may hold an opinion contrary to informed experts. To illustrate, consider the following:

Statement: Hitler was the first to orchestrate a holocaust using 20th century technology.

Analysis: Most recall the Holocaust that Hitler help orchestrate. However, in 1915 the Turkish government allowed its officials in the Committee of Union and Progress to systematically orchestrate the extermination of 1.5 million Armenians. Their behavior meets every definition of ‘a holocaust’. Most Americans are not aware of this.

Statement: Camel hair brushes are not made of hair from a camel.

Analysis: This may seem outrageous, but camel hair brushes today are made of Siberian squirrel hair.

Statement: Today, doctors use leeches to treat patients.

Analysis: Because leeches are often associated to failed medical practices of Medieval Europe, many people would dismiss this statement. However, leeches have specific medicinal purposes that include draining blood from swollen faces, limbs and digits after reconstructive surgery.

Thus a statement may not be common knowledge, but it could still a fact. Also what is common for on set of people may not be so for others. It is important to know the audience that the argument is addressing.

Guidelines for Determining if a Statement is a Fact of Opinion

The following guidelines may assist you in determining whether a statement is fact or an opinion:

1. Statements that are common knowledge are considered fact and do not need to be supported with evidence. This is not to say that they could not be wrong. However, the burden of proof to illustrate that people incorrectly hold the statement to be true rests on its disproof. For example, the theory of gravity is common knowledge and any claims against it must supply evidence. Further, the amount of evidence needed to disprove a statement of common knowledge is directly related to the degree of how spectacular the claim disproving the statement would be.
2. Any statement that is not common knowledge but is confirmed as accurate is considered a fact. The source that confirmed the statement should be supplied, such as a medical journal to verify that the statement is a fact.
3. Any statement that is neither common knowledge nor confirmed as a fact is an opinion. It should be supported with as much evidence (reliable information) as possible.
4. When in doubt if a statement is a fact or an opinion, consider the statement as an opinion. It is best to err on the side of caution.

Having an Opinion
Previously we mentioned having an opinion is either a conjecture statement without much evidence or a matter of taste. In critical thinking we focus on opinions that refer to matters of judgment. Overall it is not wise to try to think critically about matters of taste. Whether you find straight hair or curly hair more appealing is more an issue of personal preference, and best left outside the scope of critical thinking. The rule is to express these matters of taste as such. For example, one could state their wine preference deceptively, such as “Zinfandel is a better wine than shiraz.” Instead, it is more clear and honest if the sentiment is expressed as, “I prefer white zinfandel to a shiraz.”
On occasion people refer to the special case of taste to apply it to holding a conjecture. Likewise, may suggest that they have the right to an opinion regardless of the lack of evidence supporting it. It is important to note that while we can be neutral to statements and we can respect a person’s right to an opinion, this does not mean that opinions that are not a matter of taste are not subject to critical thinking. It is best to remember this rule:

Having a right to an opinion does not mean that your opinion is right.

We respect people who hold informed opinions. These opinions have evidence and are well reasoned.
Evaluating Evidence

Evidence is reliable information that supports an opinion. A reason is the basis for thinking or doing something and is the most common kind of evidence. We can sometimes identify a reason with key words, such as “because”. Other times the term “because” is implied rather than explicitly stated.

For example, “I will be honest about how my wife looks in skinny jeans. Once I was honest with her and she did not talk to me for a week afterwards.”

or,

“I would never buy a car from him. He has a unibrow.”

Upon reflection of these examples you will discover that some reasons are better than others. Further, some reasons are not good at all. Angering your wife with brutal honesty may not be a wise method for maintaining a happy marriage. However, a man’s facial hair does lend little evidence to his integrity as a car dealer.

Even if the reason may be good, it may not be sufficient justification for a position. For a claim to be accepted as true, the evidence must show that reason is sufficient in demonstrating the position.

For example, “Disregard this applicant for the Broadway show featuring authentic Argentine tango because he looks like he is from northern Europe.”

It may be true that many people from northern Europe are not familiar with how to authentically dance tango. However, famed Argentine tango dancer, Oliver Kolker, is naturally blonde; blue eyed and is from Argentina. The director may have just cut an authority figure on tango from his show.

READ ALSO : Academic help online

Determining whether reasons sufficiently justify a statement can be challenging, but it is even harder when the reasons are not stated. You will often find the latter to occur frequently because people regard their statement as self justifying or that there is no need to justify the opinion to the audience.

Sometimes the actual reason for a position is not even apparent to the person presenting the argument. To illustrate, many times people who smoke will suggest they do so because it is fun when in fact they are merely addicted to the nicotine.

As you can see, determining the reasons behind a statement may not be explicitly stated. They may not be stated at all or even be carefully disguised. As a critical thinker you may have to sleuth a little to discover what reasons are supporting certain claims. While this is difficult, we should use this as a lesson for when we present claims. Our evidence will support our claims better when we carefully, and often explicitly, state the reasons supporting the claim.
Use of Language

When using reason, we strive for dispassionate, calm reasons to support our conclusions. Earlier, we have mentioned that there are several different methods of persuasion and critical thinking is but one. Other methods for persuasion include rhetorical devices, such as misinformation or irrelevant data. This section will review specific linguistic expressions that rely on an emotive force as for persuasion. These include:

• Euphemisms
• Stereotyping
• Hedging Your Bets
• Emotionally Charged Language
• Innuendo
• Loaded Questions

By identifying these devices, a critical thinking can identify the faulty reasoning or rhetorical device.

Euphemisms

Euphemisms are words that are used as a substitute to sound more pleasant. Sometimes they may be used with the best intentions, i.e., to avoid potentially embarrassing situations or to make a situation easier for an individual. Other times euphemisms are used to either hide the situation or to evoke an emotional response that may otherwise not occur with neutral language.

Examples of Euphemisms:

Well intentioned:

She is full figured. (Instead of overweight.)

Hiding unpleasant truths:

The troops are tactically re-employing. (They are retreating.)

The Nazis employed the final solution. (The systematic murdering of six million people.)

Evoking a response:

The senator has another tax and spend plan. (The senator wants to increase taxes to increase infrastructure spending to allow for safer highways in an attempt to stimulate the economy.)

Stereotyping

Stereotyping occurs when one applies a generalization about a group of individuals to an individual without sufficient evidence for that descriptor. Some stereotypes are offensive and hurtful, while others are not. Nevertheless, all cases assume certain characteristics of a person based on no other evidence than a property of that person that does not necessitate those characteristics. This usually ignores relevant properties the person has and applies negative associations that the stereotype may apply.

Hedging Your Bets

People hedge their bets by using qualifiers that protect their statement from potential criticism. While there is nothing wrong with using qualifiers to demonstrate that the statement is not absolute, the bet hedger is one who will add enough qualifiers to ensure that their statement cannot be disproved by also may mislead people to their position. This can occur by manipulating the data. To illustrate, one can hedge their bet by using a poll that shows only 51% of the people prefer Pepsi to Coke, and stating that, “the majority of people polled prefer Pepsi to Coke.” Of course this is not false, but it may fail to illustrate that this is a marginal number and only 100 people were polled.

Other ways to hedge your bets would be to suggest that, “some people say”, “it appears”, “I feel that”. All of these expressions lessen the force of the statement and this makes it harder to disprove,

The general rule to remember about qualified statements is that the more qualified it has, the less force it has.

Emotionally Charged Language

Emotionally Charged Language occurs when one uses terms that are specifically intended to incite others without reasons. The terms exaggerate the situation in an attempt to persuade the audience towards one position.

Example:

“It is typical of those femi-nazis to want to take our freedom, and force their godless agenda on our children.”

When the exaggeration becomes distorted, the actual message may be lost. This can create further obstacles for critical thinking, as it becomes even harder to evaluate without clarity.

Innuendo

An innuendo is the using of language to insinuate a message without literally stating that message. Often one executes an innuendo by the accent the place on a term.

For example,

Bill does have some good qualities.
(Here the emphasis can suggest that there are very few of these.)

Oh, I would say Ken is one of the people who is slacking.
(Why was Ken singled out? Depending on the tone, this could be implying that Ken is slacking.)

I am sure the DAs evidence tampered and Michael Jackson was just playing with the kids at the Neverland Ranch.
(Implying he was a pedophile.)

Innuendos can very dangerous as, when done subtly; they leave very little evidence of personal attacks.

Loaded Question

A Loaded Question occurs when one asks a question that is laden with assumed content. No matter how you answer the question, you have accepted the implicit message within the question.

For example,

“Bill, have you stopped beating you wife?”

There is no way for Bill to answer this question if he never has beaten his wife. An affirmation of the question suggests that he previous had beaten his wife while by answering, “no,” Bill has suggested that he still beats her.

Clarity in Thought and Expression
Language has many uses. Poets use it artistically to evoke emotion. Language can bind a contract in a ceremony, such as saying, “I do,” at a wedding. It can also be for persuasion. This can be accomplished through a myriad of ways. Language can invoke fear or anger to stir a crowd. It can also persuade using unimpassioned reasons, such as when we use it for critical thinking.
When using language for critical thinking, we strive to be as precise as possible when making statements. One part of accomplishing this precision is by detaching our emotional attachment to the statement so that we can objectively evaluate the statement. Another part is that when we use our language we seek to avoid any ambiguities or confusion in a term or phrase’s meaning.
Semantic Ambiguity
A Semantic Ambiguity occurs with confusion over the meaning of a certain term, word, or phrase. For obvious reasons, these are sometimes called ambiguities of meaning.
Most words in the English language and most ever naturally occurring language have multiple meanings. In this sense, it is actually quite impressive that we communicate as well as we do. A simple look at a dictionary for a seemingly simple term, such as ‘cat’, will easily produce several different meanings, including “a gossipy woman.” These multiple meanings can escalate to create confusing expressions. For example:
“Eat at Joe’s and get gas.”
This expression has an ambiguity in the term ‘gas.’ The term could be referring to petrol or a rather unpleasant gastro-intestinal experience brought about from Joe’s food.
Often and ambiguity in a term can make a technically true sentence seem nonsensical. For example:
“Blackberries are green when they are red.”
One way to avoid the issue of ambiguities in terms is to create a specialized vocabulary to communicate specific concepts. This is called jargon. Often the sciences and other professions employ jargon so theory laden concepts can be communicated more efficiently. Technically, we are using jargon in this course, as each reading is carefully defining the specific meanings of terms used when we participate in critical thinking.
The drawback of using jargon is that it often makes communication to large groups difficult. What some professions have gained in internal communication is lost as they find an impenetrable language barrier when try to discuss to the public. Ironically, in the pursuit of clarity, jargon can actually make communication harder. For this reason, it is always best to be able to explain our thoughts precisely without the help of professional jargon. We can then use jargon only as a short hand when discussing to audiences who are also fluent with these terms.
Another way to cut down on confusion from multiple meanings of terms is to be specific about the context of the words. The more precise the context, the easier it is for others to understand the meaning. When there may be a case where there is more than one clear meaning of a term, you should avoid using the term or specifically illustrate what meaning you are intending.
Relative Words
We use relative words to express a relationship within a defined range. These are quintessentially a case requiring attention to the context that the expression is in. Without a context, we are not sure how to assess the terms. Confusion arises when we use a relative term that has a set meaning in one context outside of that context.
For example:
“We should get special trucks to accommodate our new cargo of jumbo shrimp.”
While jumbo shrimp may be larger than most shrimp, they are still quite small compared to humans.
Syntactic Ambiguity
A Syntactic Ambiguity occurs when the structure of the sentence implies two or more distinct meanings. Often these arise from poor grammar structure.
Examples of syntactic Ambiguities include:
1. “The King was weary of the dragon terrorizing his kingdom, so he ordered a knight to destroy it.”
2. “Reading the news today, I was curious about the headline, ‘Police Help Dog Bite Victim.’”
In the first example you cannot help but wonder if the knight will destroy the kingdom or the dragon. Likewise, many comedians have had newspapers help their careers with ambiguous headlines. Above conjured up either sympathetic police helping the man or holding the man down so Rover can get a good bite.
Grouping Ambiguity
A grouping ambiguity occurs when a class is confused with the individuals that make up the class.
For example:
“Since public employees make millions of dollars a year, you will become rich if you get a job as a public employee.”
Here we should note that even though collectively public employees may make several million dollars a year, individually it is not clear how well paid a public employee is. To avoid these instances, when you refer to a group or class of individuals, make sure that your meaning cannot be misunderstood to refer to each individual in the group.
Vagueness
Being vague is the opposite of being ambiguous, yet is not desirable for critical thinking as well. Unlike an ambiguity, where a term or sentence may have multiple distinct meanings, a sentence is vague when it is imprecise, indefinite, or unclear. A vague statement has no distinct meaning.
For example,
“I am a ‘family values’ candidate.”
While it seems like every politician makes this claim, this is a reason why it has no meaning. Without further explanation, this claim leaves the listened to wonder just what ‘family values’ are. Does it include family planning? Does it include reducing drug law penalties for minors so they can be with their family? Does it include increasing welfare payments to help poor families?
Other examples of vague statements include:
“That was an interesting play.”
“The company’s harassment guidelines are rather dated.”
“There was a number of errors in the report.”
Definitions
One way of clarifying meanings of terms is to offer a definition of the term. Dictionaries offer a start for understanding a term. Often dictionaries offer only a cursory definition that allows individuals to use the term. However, there are times when a specific technical understanding of a term is necessary for communication. Offering a definition can help convey this meaning.
There are four types of definitions, they are:
1. Analytical: Identifying classes of objects or properties and their relationships allows us to illustrate the defining features of some terms by these relationships using subtypes and supertypes. A subtype is a member of a supertype or class of objects. By understanding that relationships an object has with various classes, we can better define what the term refers to. For example, a Honda civic is a member(subtype) of the class (supertype) or small sized cars. It is also a subtype of Honda cars which is a subtype of automobiles. These classes allow us to better understand where they belong among cars.
2. Connotative: Illustrating the meaning of a word can often be accomplished by presenting several synonyms and common characteristics of a word. You will often see dictionaries connote the meaning of a term with several definition entries to illustrating common characteristics of the term.
3. Denotative: Offering examples can illustrate complex concepts that are difficult to define with words. Many times terms represent a broad class that words do a poor job illustrating. One only need to look at understanding an art movement to know that seeing several of the typical members of an artistic movement, such as surrealism, helps train people to identify work that belongs to the movement. Sometimes, denotative definitions are called definitions by example because the use examples to help illustrate the meaning of a term.
4. Analogical: We can use analogies to define a concept by comparing it to something that helps illustrate an abstract concept. These definitions can be very powerful at conveying understanding of abstract concepts. The analogy relies on salient features that both the item being defined and the analogy share. The stronger the shared features are, the better the use of the analogy for explanation. For example, because a solar system relies on gravitational forces, it is a better analogy for Bohr’s model of the atom than several cars on expanding racetracks with a house in the center. Note: Analogical definitions can be misleading is the appropriate features are not identified. As a rule, you should only use analogical definitions along with another definition to ensure clarity.
Some general rules for good definitions are similar to Goldilocks and the Three Bears. They are:
• Do not make the definition too broad. It may become vague. Does the definition include items that do not belong?
• Do not make the definition too narrow. If this occurs, members of the class will be excluded from the definition. For example, a definition of a chair that requires four legs would exclude bean bag chairs.
• Make the definition just right. Make sure that the definition fits all appropriate examples and does not accept examples that do not belong. One of the best ways to test your definition is to see if you can find a counter-example.
A good definition must state essential properties that should be necessary for being a member of the class being defined. It should focus on fundamental properties of the class. While hearts make noise, this is not a defining feature of the organ. Creating noise is an accidental feature of being a pump. A satisfactory definition of a heart should explain what is essential for being a heart.
Finally, be sure that the definition is not circular. The definition cannot already assume you know what the concept of the defined term is. Instead, the definition needs to explain what the concept is.