Richard Swinburne has given a defense of arguments for the existence of God (and in particular of teleological arguments) in his book "The Existence of God" (1979/1991). This paper argues that such theistic arguments fail, and poses some general problems for theistic arguments. Swinburne's use of a principle of simplicity is not given adequate justification and, if justified, works against theism. There are adequate rebuttals to Swinburne's arguments that depend upon there being few particles of basic physics, universal laws of (...) nature, cogent cosmological argument, and temporal order in the universe. Theistic arguments falter on malleability, on going well beyond evidence, on anthropomorphism, on treating consistency as if it were evidence or explanation, on selective and inconsistent use of principles, and on a lack of any serious attempt to disprove hypotheses. All of this serves to support the conclusion suggested by Hume's posthumous theological writings that theistic arguments are so malleable, profligate, overreaching, equivocal, anthropomorphic, selective, inconsistent, and uncritical as to be inept. (shrink)

This paper examines the content of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal exam (1980). Our report is not a statistical review. We find the content of this exam defective in a number of areas. The exam consists of five “tests” of 16 questions for a total of 80 questions. Of these, we cannot recommend test 1, test 2, test 4, and test 5; and, we cannot recommend questions 4, 5, 14, 16, 37, 45, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, and 67. As (...) shown in this report, the exam creates confusion and makes basic errors in critical thinking in a number of areas, and therefore, lacks content quality in these areas. Hence, no statistical results pertaining to the administration of these areas to students can be informative. We find the remaining areas acceptable as to content. But until the problems are corrected, we can only recommend that those who may use the exam remove the defective parts from test administration or from data collection and reporting. We recommend the former, because of the wasted time involved in the latter. This would amount to administering only 14 questions, i.e. test 3 with questions 37 and 45 eliminated.We also find the scope of the exam to be quite limited, but allow that this may be unavoidable for any instrument designed to be completed in about an hour. We further recommend the use of several tests, rather than one; and, that any such results be understood only as a measure of minimal competency (below which remediation likely is needed) for the skills tested, but not as an adequate measure of critical thinking. (shrink)

This paper examines the content of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal exam (1980). Our report is not a statistical review. We find the content of this exam defective in a number of areas. The exam consists of five “tests” of 16 questions for a total of 80 questions. Of these, we cannot recommend test 1, test 2, test 4, and test 5; and, we cannot recommend questions 4, 5, 14, 16, 37, 45, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, and 67. As (...) shown in this report, the exam creates confusion and makes basic errors in critical thinking in a number of areas, and therefore, lacks content quality in these areas. Hence, no statistical results pertaining to the administration of these areas to students can be informative. We find the remaining areas acceptable as to content. But until the problems are corrected, we can only recommend that those who may use the exam remove the defective parts from test administration or from data collection and reporting. We recommend the former, because of the wasted time involved in the latter. This would amount to administering only 14 questions, i.e. test 3 with questions 37 and 45 eliminated.We also find the scope of the exam to be quite limited, but allow that this may be unavoidable for any instrument designed to be completed in about an hour. We further recommend the use of several tests, rather than one; and, that any such results be understood only as a measure of minimal competency (below which remediation likely is needed) for the skills tested, but not as an adequate measure of critical thinking. (shrink)

This paper applies the Sonoma Model of Critical Thinking to visual arts in an educational setting. The analysis produces insights into the functioning of the model, insights into visual arts, and pragmaticconclusions regarding relationships among art historians, visual artists, and others. We summarize the Sonoma Model of critical thinking and apply it to thinking about art history and visual arts. We use these insights to apply the Sonoma Model to thinking critically about visual arts in an educational environment. One application (...) of the model for visual artists and art historians is in appreciating these disciplines, something that is often lacking among and between them. We find further insight in the application of the elements of the model to themselves, and close with practical affective conclusions for applications of the model by faculty and administrators. (shrink)

This paper examines the content of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal exam. (1980) Our report is not a statistical review. We find the content of this exam defective in a number of areas. The exam consists of five “tests” of 16 questions for a total of 80 questions. Of these, we cannot recommend test 1, test 2, test 4, and test 5; and, we cannot recommend questions 4, 5, 14, 16,37, 45, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, and 67. As shown (...) in this report, the exam creates confusion and makes basic errors in critical thinking in a number of areas, and therefore, lacks content quality in these areas, Hence, no statistical results pertaining to the administration of these areas to students can be informative. We find the remaining areas acceptable as to content. But until the problems are corrected, we can only recommend that those who may use the exam remove the defective parts from test administration or from data collection and reporting. We recommend the former, because of the wasted time involved in the latter. This would amount to administering only 14 questions, i.e. test 3 with questions 37 and 45 eliminated.We also find the scope of the exam to be quite limited, but allow that this may be unavoidable for any instrument designed to be completed in about an hour. We further recommend the use of several tests, rather than one; and, that any such results be understood only as a measure of minimal competency (below which remediation likely is needed) for the skills tested, but not as an adequate measure of critical thinking. (shrink)

This paper examines the content of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal exam. (1980) Our report is not a statistical review. We find the content of this exam defective in a number of areas. The exam consists of five “tests” of 16 questions for a total of 80 questions. Of these, we cannot recommend test 1, test 2, test 4, and test 5; and, we cannot recommend questions 4, 5, 14, 16,37, 45, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, and 67. As shown (...) in this report, the exam creates confusion and makes basic errors in critical thinking in a number of areas, and therefore, lacks content quality in these areas, Hence, no statistical results pertaining to the administration of these areas to students can be informative. We find the remaining areas acceptable as to content. But until the problems are corrected, we can only recommend that those who may use the exam remove the defective parts from test administration or from data collection and reporting. We recommend the former, because of the wasted time involved in the latter. This would amount to administering only 14 questions, i.e. test 3 with questions 37 and 45 eliminated.We also find the scope of the exam to be quite limited, but allow that this may be unavoidable for any instrument designed to be completed in about an hour. We further recommend the use of several tests, rather than one; and, that any such results be understood only as a measure of minimal competency (below which remediation likely is needed) for the skills tested, but not as an adequate measure of critical thinking. (shrink)

People disagree. Along with doubt, modesty and curiosity, disagreement is one of the most valuable assets reasoning beings can have. Disagreements give us alternatives. Sometimes we need to decide among alternatives. This paper is for such times; it addresses the development of a rational model for the resolution of disagreement. The goal is to reach rational agreement, or to reach the stage at which disagreement can be clearly described and turned over to rational consensus theories. A rarely noticed problem with (...) all such rational consensus models is that they do not provide for generating either rational agreement or clearly described disagreement before turning to procedures designed to produce consensus. One purpose of this paper is to close that gap. (shrink)