Intellectual tools

INTRODUCTION
Definition: soft skills and instruments that aid us in thinking effectively. They are
analogous to the hard skills and tools required in manual/physical works
classification of intellectual tools
They are classified relative to the three categories of goal directed thinking: cognitive,
contemplative and deliberate
We have
intellectual tools of analysis – most useful in cognitive thinking
Intellectual tools of evaluation - useful in contemplative thinking
Intellectual tools of transformation – useful in deliberative thinking
Intellectual tools

OBJECTIVES
By the end of this lecture, the student should be able to discuss:
1. The elements of thinking/ intellectual tools of analysis
2. The standards/intellectual tools of evaluation
3. The intellectual virtues/ intellectual tools of transformation
4. The relationship between the elements of thinking and the
standards of thinking
Intellectual tools of analysis

Skill of analysis: mental process by which complex concepts/ideas/thought

systems are broken down for purposes of clarity and understanding. This is
important in cognitive thinking
 Related to this are tools of analysis, in other words known as elements or parts
or components of thinking.
 They are simplest parts into which complex ideas/thought systems/beliefs are
broken down for understanding and clarity
 As such, they constitute the structure of thinking
 NB: Distinguish between components of thinking and components of critical
thinking)
Tools of analysis include:
Tools of analysis

I. Purpose-as an end /goal /aim / or target of thinking

 Thinking is not random, but selective, based on goals, desires, needs
and values.
 To understand reasoning / thinking we must understand the purpose
that it serves
 The purpose should be significant (not trivial) and realistic, and be
clearly and precisely stated.
II. Problem/issue/ question
 This is what one attempts to figure out; be it a problem to solve, a
question to answer or an issue to resolve.
Tools of analysis
 To improve thinking, we must learn how to pose the problems, questions, and
issues as these also affect the focus.
 These should be clearly and precisely stated. One should identify if the question,
or a problem or issue has one right answer, whether the answer is a matter of
opinion or requires reasoning from more than one point of view.

III. Point of view / perspective

 This is the focus or orientations of reasoning or thinking
 It is the angle from which the thinking or reasoning is focused on something.
Points of view can change.
 To understand thinking we must understand its perspective e.g., political,
scientific, philosophical, religious, secularly etc., or a combination of different
perspectives.
 One should be fair-minded in evaluation of all points of view. One should see
other points of view and identify their strengths as well as their weakness.
IV. Concepts / theories
 To conceptualize is to have a mental picture.
 These are general categories or ideas by which one’s thought is shaped and
expressed.
 In other words, they are categories or ideas by which we interpret, classify,
and group information used in thinking.
 Each discipline has its own set of concepts, technical vocabulary and theories
that facilitate its thinking (e.g. justice-a philosophical concept)
 The key concepts / ideas should be clearly and precisely explained to avoid
ambiguity and confusion. This promotes understanding.
Tools of analysis
V. Information /data / evidence /facts
 This is material upon which we base our reasoning i.e., that which support our
conclusions.
 To improve our reasoning, we must search and assess both the supporting and
opposing information
 Information that supports our reasoning should be clear, accurate and relevant to the
question/issue/problem at hand.

VI. Assumptions - as pre-supposition of thinking

This is the point of departure of reasoning. It is what is accepted or taken almost
for granted by the speaker or writer, usually not explicitly stated, on the basis
of which we figure out something. It may be unstated premise or belief.
Tools of analysis
 They are like premises or hypothesis upon which one’s study is grounded, and
which the research proceeds in his endeavours to establish the truth (they can be
proved true or false by the study or subsequent experience)
 They must be warranted or justifiable assumptions (have reasons to take them as
point of departure for your reasoning)

VII. Implications / consequences

 This is the entailment of either assumptions/ hypothesis confirmed true or false.
It means that to which our thinking is leading.
 For example, if you call yourself a capitalist you imply that you are in favor of
an economic system that embraces competition, seeks to maximize profits and
minimize expenses. OR if you make a promise you imply that you intend to keep
Tools of analysis
VIII. Conclusion / inference
 This is a step of the mind or an intellectual act by which one figures
something extra on the basis of something we know (which we
believe we know).
 It is a mental judgment that something is so in the light of something
else being so or seeming to be so.
 To infer is to make a conclusion on basis of what is given.
NB: intellectual tools of analysis and tools of evaluation are related in
that the latter evaluates the former. This is the relationship I wish you
understand in our next topic
Intellectual tools of evaluation
Skill of evaluation: mental process by which the worthiness or unworthiness of
ideas/thought systems/philosophies are determined. The basic question: is my
thinking good? Are my beliefs rationally justified? Is my argument good? Etc.
Skills of evaluation is important in contemplative/evaluative thinking
Related to this skill are intellectual tools of evaluation, in other words, universal
intellectual standards
They are criteria against which goodness or badness of thought is determined.
They are conditions/factors that any thinking worth the title ‘good thinking’
must meet
They include:
Tools of evaluation cont.
I. Clarity
 This determines whether the point at hand is clearly understood
without any confusion.
 This is a gateway standard; we cannot say anything about a
statement that is unclear because we do not know yet what it is
saying.
 In seeking clarity, we ask such questions as: could you elaborate on
the point? Could you put it in another way? Could you give an
illustration or an example?
 Clarity can be hindered by laziness, carelessness or lack of skills e.g.
intellectual tools of analysis
Tools of evaluation conti.
II. Accuracy
 To be accurate is to represent something in accordance with the way
it actually is.
 People often misrepresent or falsely describe things especially when
they have vested interest e.g. advertisers.
 Good thinkers must question whether the information /data upon
which they base their thinking are true, accurate and timely.
 Decision for instance should be accurately informed as much as
possible.
 The Question is: how could we check on that? How could we find out
if that is true? How could we verify or test that
Tools of evaluation conti.
III. Precision
 it’s the exactitude of meaning of one’s thought or statement as
opposed to vagueness or ambiguity
 There should be no confusion or different way in which propositions
can be understood. For the sake of precision, details are needed in
some instances for someone to understand exactly what is meant.
 In some situations, specifics are essential for good reasoning yet in
others they may not.
 For example, we ask; could you be more specific? Could you give
more details? Could you be more exact?
Tools of evaluation conti.
IV. Relevance
 something is relevant when it is directly connected with or bears upon
the issue at hand.e.g., when it is related or applicable to a problem
you are trying to solve
 One should stay focused on ideas and information that is relevant,
that is, that which is connected to the question, problem or the issue at
hand.
 Thus, we ask; how is the idea connected to the question? How does it
bear on the issue? How is it related to this other idea? How does your
question relate to the issue we are dealing with?
 Thinking that is relevant remains on track.
Tools of evaluation
V. Completeness / depth
 This entails dealing with something comprehensively, entirely and totally. As such, it
involves going into details of the most significant factors as opposed to
superficiality.
 This consists in getting beneath the surface of an issue or problem, to identify the
complexities inherent in it and deal with those complexities in an intellectually
responsible way.
 Extremely complex issues should be treated in depth rather than in superficial way.
 Thus, we ask; what factors make this a difficult problem? What are some of the
complexities of this question? how does your answer address the complexities in
the question? What are some of the difficulties we need to deal with? How are you
taking into account the problem in question? How are you dealing with the most
significant factors in the problem?
Tools of evaluation conti.
VI. Breadth (broad thinking)
 This entails considering an issue from every relevant point of view and not
just recognition of the insights of one side of the question.
 A line of reasoning can satisfy all the standards considered above but lack
breadth
 When multiple points are relevant to an issue yet we fail to give due
consideration to those perspectives we think shortsightedly or narrowly;
we do not consider alternative or opposing point of view.
 The question is: do we need to consider another point of view? Is there
another way to look at the issue or problem?
 humans are frequently myopic for many reasons: limited education,
sociocentrism, selfishness, self –deception, intellectual arrogance
Tools of evaluation conti.
•Consistency (internal and external)
 There must be agreement between what people say, and or what
they say and do. There should be no contradictions.
 Since critical thinkers prize truth, they are on lookout for
inconsistencies both in their thinking and arguments, and in the
assertions of others.
Logical inconsistency
Practical inconsistency
Tools of evaluation conti.
VII. Significance
 The issue at hand should be worth effort to address rather than
being trivial.
 The issue should be noteworthy, important, momentous or major.
 For example, we ask: is this the most important problem to consider?
what weight does it bear? Is this the central idea to focus on? Which
of these facts are most important?
VIII. Fairness
 This is the ability to make unbiased judgment, the ability to be
impartial in one’s judgment.
Tools of evaluation conti.
• For example, we ask: do I have any vested interest in this issue? Am I
systematically representing the viewpoints of others? Is my thinking
justifiable in context? Are my assumptions supported by evidence? Is
my purpose fair given the situation? Am I using my concepts in
keeping with educated usage or am I distorting them to get what we
want?
Relationship: tools of analysis and tools of evaluation
Relationship btn tools of analysis &
evaluation
• These standards of thinking and the associated questions facilitate
better reasoning and assessment of the eight elements of thinking
discussed previously a critical thinker must apply these standards to
the elements of reasoning. For example, one can ask, ‘am I clear,
precise, accurate about the problem or question or issue. Is the
information relevant, adequate or myopic? Are the assumptions or
inferences clear, accurate, precise, fair and significant?