1. Clarity: Understandable, the meaning can be grasped; free from confusion or ambiguity; to remove obscurities.

Transcription

1 Intellectual Standards The criteria we use for judging the quality of our thinking 1. Clarity: Understandable, the meaning can be grasped; free from confusion or ambiguity; to remove obscurities. --Could you elaborate on what you are saying? Do I need to elaborate? --Could you give me an example or illustration of your point? --I hear you saying x. Am I hearing you correctly, or have I misunderstood you?

2 2. Precision: Being exact to the necessary level of detail; being specific. --Could you be more specific? --Could you specify your concerns more fully? --Could you give me more details about that?

3 3. Accuracy: Free from errors, mistakes, distortions, logical fallacies; true. --How could we check that to see if it s true? --How could we verify these alleged facts? --Can we trust the accuracy of these data given the source(s) from which they come?

4 4. Relevance: Bearing upon or relating to the matter at hand; implies a close logical relationship with, and importance to, the matter under consideration. --How does your question or comment relate to the issue we are dealing with? --How does this idea relate to this other idea? --Could you explain the connection between your question/comment and the question we are addressing?

5 5. Depth: Containing complexities and multiple interrelationships; implies thoroughness in thinking through the many variables in the situation, context, idea, question, etc. --Is this question simple or complex? Is it easy or difficult to answer well? --What makes this a complex question? --How do we deal with or respond to the complexities inherent in the question?

6 6. Breadth: Encompassing multiple viewpoints; comprehensive in view; wide-ranging and broadminded in perspective. --What points of view are relevant to this issue? --I have considered a liberal position on the issue. What would conservatives say? --Am I failing to consider this view from an opposing perspective because I am not open to changing my view? --Have I considered opposing views in good faith, or only enough to find flaws in them?

7 7. Logic: The parts make sense together; in keeping with the principles of sound judgment and reasonability. --Does what is being said follow from the evidence? --Does this really make sense? --At one point you said this and now you are saying that-i don t see how both can be true. What is your position? --Do these conclusions follow from those premises?

8 8. Significance: Having importance, being of consequence; having considerable or substantial meaning. --Which of these concepts or ideas is the most important? --Which of these questions is the most significant? --What is the most important information we need to address this issue? --How is that fact important in this context?

9 9. Fairness: Free from bias, dishonesty, favoritism, selfish-interest, deception or injustice. --Am I empathetically representing the viewpoints of others? --Are these laws justifiable and ethical, or do they violate someone s rights? --Does a particular group have a vested interest in this issue that causes them to distort other relevant viewpoints? --Are concepts/standards being used justifiably (by this or that group)? Or is some group using concepts/standards unfairly in order to manipulate (and thereby maintain power, control, etc.)?