The Casey Anthony trial could be viewed as an example
to demonstrate the importane of critical thinkng to assess flaws in
arguments.The prosecution goofed by going for first degree murder without
evidence of who commited the crime,when,where,and how the crime was
commited.Although material evidence could be associated with the defendant
,this assumed guilt by association fell flat on its feet and dissipated.The
prosecutors began to sound as if they were teaching
a Psychology 101 Motivation course.Although motivation may propel
behavior,motivation is not
equivalent to identifying behavioral specificity.
On the other hand,the Defense attorneys(led by Puerto Rican Jose Baez)
would seem to ablde by noted guidelines for critical
thinking re the evaluation of evidence.If I recall from my Wade and Tavris text
some of these guidelines are : ask questions-be willing to wonder,define your
terms,avoid oversimplification,consider other interpretations,avoid assumptions
and biases,examine
the evidence,avoid emotional reasoning, and (my favorite) tolerate
uncertainty."Not guilty" seems to be
the appropriate verdict from those critical thinking guidelines.And one final
note: there are times when
what might appear to be just could be unjust.
Michael "omnicentric" Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=11306
or send a blank email to
leave-11306-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
