|
|
|
||
Last update: Mgr. Barbora Šicnerová (18.09.2023)
Upon the completion of the course, the students should be able to analyse the structure of an argument, recognize its conclusion and premises, empirical and normative nature of propositions, strength of support for the conclusion, formal problems, logical fallacies, understand the psychological reasons for own and others’ fallibility, apply basics of scientific thinking, assess whether and how an empirical claim may be tested and the quality of scientific studies , be able to better evaluate uncertainty and reliability of information and have a better chance at recognizing misleadingly presented data, evaluate whether and how to attempt to refute someone’s incorrect belief. Furthermore, students will be able to write a thesis arguing for or against a particular thesis. No previous specific courses are required to enroll in Critical Thinking. |
|
||
Last update: Mgr. Barbora Šicnerová (18.09.2023)
1. The Critical thinking course is concluded with ana examination. 2. For successful completion of the course the student will receive 3 credits. 3. The exam is written and consists of an essay and two reviews of other students' essays. |
|
||
Last update: Mgr. Barbora Šicnerová (18.09.2023)
The course includes the following topics: - Introduction: What is critical thinking? - Argumentation - Argument maps - Psychology of fallibility - Psychology of reasoning - Scientific method - Scientific experiments - The practice of science - Bayes‘ theoremers the following topics: theorem - Media literacy - Data literacy - Psychology of attitude change |
|
||
Last update: Mgr. Barbora Šicnerová (18.09.2023)
Základní literatura: 1. Kahneman, Daniel. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux Ostatní literatura: 1. Kahneman, D., Slovic, S. P., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge university press. 2. Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Noise: a flaw in human judgment. Hachette UK. 3. Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS medicine, 2(8), e124. 4. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and brain sciences, 34(2), 57-74. 5. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological review, 84(3), 231. 6. Silver, N. (2012). The signal and the noise: Why so many predictions fail-but some don't. Penguin. 7. Wilson, T. D., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2008). The unseen mind. Science, 321(5892), 1046-1047. |