I. What is an argument? An argument is a group of statements (is a sentence that can be either true or false), one or more of which (the premises → evidence reasons) are offered to prove or support another statement (the conclusion) II. Deductive and Inductive arguments II. Common patterns of deductive reasoning: 1. Hypothetical syllogism: 1.1. Modus ponens:
CHAPTER INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING I Definition of Critical Thinking? - Critical thinking is cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions needed to: + effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims + to discover and overcome personal preconceptions (định kiến) and biases (thành kiến) + to formulate (xây dựng) and present convincing reasons in support of conclusions + to make reasonable, intelligent decisions about what to believe and what to II Critical thinking standards: Clarity: Language and thought - Could you express that point in another way? - Could you give me an illustration? - Could you give me an example? - Ex: What can be done about the education systems in Vietnam? → Clarity is the gateway standard Precision: Precise answers and precise questions - Could you give more details? - Could you be more specific? - Ex: Jack is tall → A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise Accuracy: Accurate and timely information - Is that really true? - How could we find out if that is true? - Ex: This chicken weighs over 300 pounds → A statement can be clear but not accurate ? khác precision and accuracy Relevance: Logical relevance of ideas and information - How is that connected to the question? - How does that bear on the issue? - Ex: She’s a famous educational expert, so I believe in the quality of formula milk she’s advertising → A statement can be both clear, accurate and precise, but not relevant to the question at issue Consistency: No conflicts in ideas and thought - Do you hold inconsistent beliefs? - Do you say one thing and another? - Ex: Logical incosistency: Morality is entirely relative Racism is always immoral (Tính khơng qn mặt logic: Đạo đức hồn tồn tương đối Phân biệt chủng tộc ln ln vô đạo đức.) Practical inconsistency: My family is more important than my work → Critical thinkers are constantly on the look out for inconsistencies, both in thinking and arguments Logical correctness: Well-founded conclusions - Does this really make sense? - Does that follow from what you said? - How does that follow? - When the combination of thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense in combination, the thinking is “logical” → Logic = the conclusion follows from the premises/ reasons/ evidence - Ex: It rains, so the streets are wet Premise TRUE Conclusion TRUE All wines are beverages Ginger ale is a beverage Therefore, ginger ale is a wine Premise TRUE Conclusion FALSE Completeness: Deep thinking - How does your answer address the complexities in the issue? - How are you talking into account the problems in the issue? - Is that dealing with the most significant factors? - Ex: The picture about “Say no to drugs” → A line of reasoning may be clear, accurate, precise and relevant, but lack completeness → Looking from multiple perspectives/ angles before reaching conclusion Fairness: - Open-minded, impartial thinking - Free of disporting biases and preconceptions → Fair-mindedness is an essential attribute of a Critical Thinker III The benefits of critical thinking: - Pass this course - Evaluate whether the teacher is teaching ‘right’ things - Write good argumentative essays - Be a good candidate for a job - Work with colleagues more effectively - Read news with caution (fake news is everywhere) IV Barriers to critical thinking: Egocentrism: Tự cho trung tâm “Think about myself first” “I am more important than anyone else.” - Self-interested thinking: + Accept people and things similar to me + Defend anything/anyone different from me - Self-serving bias: overrate oneself Sociocentrism: Group-centered thinking - Group bias: + My group is better than others + Vietnamese products are the best + America is the best place in the world + Some Japanese people use only Japanese products Unwarranted assumptions and stereotypes: - Assumption: A belief without sound evidence or proof + Wearing glasses - a nerd (mọt sách) + Wearing white blouses - a doctor + Being a student - not ask questions in lectures - Assumptions: Warranted (có bảo đảm) assumptions: beliefs based on some mutual agreement + Bringing an umbrella after watching a weather forecast + Buying a carton of milk before its expired date, it is assumed to not to be sour Relativistic thinking: - Relativism (Thuyết tương đối): truth is a matter of opinion - Subjectivism (chủ nghĩa chủ quan): What I believe is true, it is true - Cultural relativism: truth is a matter of social opinion + What my society believes is true, it is true - Moral (đạo đức) relativism: What I believe is morally right, it is right + A vegan believes eating fish is morally wrong - Cultural moral relativism (Chủ nghĩa tương đối đạo đức văn hóa): What my society believes is morally right, it is right Wishful thinking: - Believe in something that you want to be true You don't have any evidence for it, but you wish it were true, so it is true V Characteristics of a critical thinker: - Have a passionate drive for critical thinking standards - Be sensitive to what he sees, what he hears, what he reads, etc - Be skilled at understanding, analysing, and evaluating arguments - Reason logically and draw appropriate conclusions - Acknowledge his own strengths and weaknesses - Be open-minded CHAPTER RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS I What is an argument? - An argument is a group of statements (is a sentence that can be either true or false), one or more of which (the premises → evidence/ reasons) are offered to prove or support another statement (the conclusion) Ex: The accident was not my fault because she hit me from the rear and any time you get rear-ended it’s not your fault Ex: You shouldn’t stay up late because it’s not good for your skin and you often feel very tired the next day - What are arguments used for? + To persuade someone to something / to believe something Ex: Mom, I need a new laptop because mine is too slow to study + To reason or justify something (opinions, truths, or facts) Ex: I can’t swim because I’m scared of water + To explain things Ex: Students drink milk tea so often because it is cheap II What is not an argument? Report: - Report simply conveys information about a subject It does NOT convince you of any belief + Describing past events + No opinions of the author involved + No explanations included → Not arguments Ex: South Korea has the highest percentage of university graduates aged 25 to 34 The country has invested heavily in education, including financial support for preschool education regardless of parents’ income (From World Economic Forum) - Reporting another person’s argument is not an argument The writer does not put forward the argument as his own Ex: The most important reason by far for low-income households in America, according to sociologists, is a lack of work Most of these households have small children at home, and many are headed by single parents They are less likely to be employed and work fewer hours when they hold a job Unsupported Assertion: - Unsupported Assertions are statements of what a speaker or writer happens to believe - Assertions are parts of arguments only if they follow from, support other statements Ex: I believe that it is quite unacceptable for animals to be kept in zoos I think that it is kinder to allow a rare animal to die naturally in the wddd rather than to prolong its life artificially in a zoo Conditional Statements: Ex: If it rains, then the picnic will be canceled Antecedent consequent Ex: If Sam fails Critical Thinking, he’ll be placed on academic probation Sam will fail Critical Thinking So, Sam will be placed on academic probation Evidence / reasons Conclusion → AN ARGUMENT Illustrations: - Illustrations provide examples of a claim, but not prove or support it Ex: Many wildflowers are edible For example, daisies and daylilies are delicious in salads → The writer or speaker believes many wildflowers are edible because daisies and daylilies are delicious in salads Explanations: - Explanation: the speaker/ writer is trying to explain how/ why sth happened Ex: The Titanic sank because it hit an iceberg - Argument: the speaker/ writer is trying to persuade his or her audience that the conclusion is true Ex: Capital punishment should be abolished because innocent people may be mistakenly executed - tests: + The common knowledge test + The past-event test + The author’s intent test + The Principle of Charity test The Principle of Charity requires that we interpret unclear passages generously We should not interpret a passage as a bad argument when it would be reasonable to interpret it as a good explanation/ illustration Argument Unsupporte d assertion Including premises and a conclusion Lack of premises Report Conditional - Report a series of events, no conclusion It can only be part of argument as premise, lack of conclusion It just provides examples If…, then… For example/ … because… instance,… - Report another person's argument, not offering reasons as his own Premise I think/ markers believe… (because, for, since, as, for the reason that, …) Conclusion markers (so, therefore, hence, thus,…) According to… Illustration Explanation It just shows why something happened, not prove that CHAPTER BASIC LOGICAL CONCEPTS I Deduction and Induction: Deductive arguments Inductive arguments If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true If the premise are true, the conclusion is probably true The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises The conclusion follows probably from the premises It is impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false It is unlikely for the premises to be true and the conclusion false It is logically inconsistent to assert the premises and deny the conclusion; if you accept the premises, you must accept the conclusion Although it is logically consistent to assert the premises and deny the conclusion, the conclusion is probably true if the premises true certainly / definitely / absolutely / conclusively probably / likely It logically follows that It is plausible to suppose that It is logical to conclude that It is reasonable to assume that This logically implies that Chances are that This entails that II Common patterns of deductive reasoning: Hypothetical syllogism: 1.1 Modus ponens: (always valid - deductive arguments) Structure: If A then B A Therefore, B Example: If I want to get a scholarship, I’d better study hard I want to get a scholarship Therefore, I’d better study hard 1.2 Chain arguments: (always valid - deductive arguments) Structure: If A then B If B then C Therefore, if A then C Example: If I go to bed early, then my health is good If my health is good, then I could more things Therefore, if I go to bed early, then I could more things 1.3 Modus tollens: (always valid - deductive arguments) Structure: If A then B Not B Therefore, not A Example: If we are in Hanoi, then we are in Vietnam We are not in Vietnam Therefore, we are not in Hanoi 1.4 Denying the antecedent: (not always valid - generally deductive arguments) Structure: If A then B Not A Therefore, not B → The conclusion is true based on key information in the definitions Always deductive III Common patterns of inductive reasoning: Inductive generalization: - Most college students work at least part-time - Note: + An argument + A generalization is concluded based on information of particular cases + Statements include all or most as quantifiers + The generalization is probable, not certain → always inductive Predictive arguments: - Prediction: statement about what will happen in the future - Predictive arguments are a common pattern of inductive arguments Ex: It has rained heavily on Christmas day in the past years Therefore, it will probably rain heavily on Christmas day this year Not all predictive arguments are inductive A valid DEDUCTIVE argument (chain argument) Arguments from authority: My Tam said that drinking Tea Plus would make you feel light Therefore, drinking Tea Plus makes you feel light - Note: + Citing someone with some authority (public figures, politicians, someone reliable, etc.) + A conclusion from a claim of some ‘powerful’ person may not be true → Treated as inductive Not all arguments from authority are inductive Ex: Whatever the Bible teaches is true The Bible teaches that we should love our neighbours Therefore, we should love our neighbours → Deductive argument (conclusion follow necessarily from the premises) Causal arguments: - Smoking causes lung cancer Therefore, you shouldn’t smoke to avoid lung cancer - Educators train skilled workers The government should invest more money in education sector + We cannot be 100% sure what causes what → treat causal arguments as inductive + Not all causal arguments are inductive Ex: Whenever iron is exposed to oxygen, it rusts This iron has been exposed to oxygen Therefore, it will rust Statistical arguments: 95% of Vietnamese adults have motorbike riding licenses Trang is a Vietnamese adult Therefore, Trang probably has a motorbike riding license 90 percent of Vietnamese people are very friendly Ha is Vietnamese So, Ha is probably very friendly + Although statistical evidence may look valid, it is not 100% sure that the conclusion is true even if the statistical statement is true → treat statistical arguments as inductive + Statistical statements can be a part of deductive arguments Ex: If Rachel get 70% or higher of the questions correct, she will pass the exam Rachel does get 70% of the questions correct Therefore, she will pass the exam Arguments from analogy: This lotion works well on my skin Your skin is dry as mine Therefore, this lotion will work well on your skin CHAPTER 4: LOGICAL FALLACIES I What is logical fallacy: - A logical fallacy, or fallacy, is an argument that contains a mistake in reasoning - An argument is fallacious when it contains one or more logical fallacies - Types of logical fallacy: + Fallacies of relevance: are arguments in which the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion + Fallacies of insufficient evidence: are arguments in which the premises, though logically relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide sufficient evidence for the conclusion II The concept of relevance: - A premise is relevant to a conclusion if: the premise provides some reasons or evidence for thinking the conclusion is either true or false - A premise is irrelevant to a conclusion if: the premise provides no reason for thinking that the conclusion is true or false - Examples: + Althea is two years old So Althea probably goes to college => True P → False C: Negative relevant + Thousands of tobacco farm workers will lose their jobs if cigarette taxes are doubled Therefore, smoking does not cause cancer: P-C: irrelevant => True P → C (T or F): Logically irrelevant + Thousands of tobacco farm workers will lose their jobs if cigarette taxes are doubled Therefore, cigarette taxes should not be doubled => True P → True C: Positively relevant - Examples of Positively relevant (True P → True C): If we are in Hanoi, we are in Vietnam We are in Vietnam Hence, we are in Hanoi All mammals live in the ocean Whales are mammals Therefore, whales live in the ocean 95 percent of Vietnamese adults have a motorbike riding license Trang is a Vietnamese adult Therefore, Trang probably has a motorbike riding license Bethy is a human, and Bethy is pregnant Therefore, she is female - Examples of Negative relevant (True P → False C): Mary is a high-school senior Therefore, she probably has a Ph.D Jennie is two years old Hence, she possibly goes to college - Examples of Logically irrelevant (either true or false, if the premise is true) The earth moves around the sun Therefore, marijuana should be legalized A FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE: - Mistakes in reasoning in which premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion PERSONAL ATTACK (AD HOMINEM) - Reject someone’s argument by attacking his/ her character rather than the person’s argument or claim - Common pattern: X is a bad/imperfect person Therefore X's argument must be bad - Examples: Erika has argued for more emphasis on music in class to stimulate creativity But she does not always her homework, so I absolutely refuse to listen to her + Erika's claim: there should be more emphasis on music in class + Author's premise: She does not always her homework + Author's conclusion: absolutely refuse to listen to her → Line of reasoning does not focus on the main claim; rather it focuses on Erika -the person who made the claim Ron has argued that eating a lot of vegetables is good for our health However, Ron was a criminal, being imprisoned for 20 years Therefore, what Ron said is not true + The person giving this argument is attacking Ron personally, not considering his claim + The person giving this argument rejects Ron’s claim ATTACKING THE MOTIVE: - Is the error of criticizing a person's motivation for offering a particular argument or claim, rather than examining the worth of the argument or claim itself - Common pattern: X is biased or has questionable motives Therefore, X's argument or claim should be rejected - Examples: Professor Smith has argued that the book named Smart Thinking should be used for Critical thinking courses at his school However, Professor Smith himself wrote the book Smart Thinking Therefore, he of course should recommend the book he wrote + Criticizing Professor Smith’s motivation when he gave his argument + Not considering his argument itself LOOK WHO IS TALKING (TU QUOQUE): - Rejects an other person's argument or claim because that person fails to practice what he preaches - Common pattern: X fails to follow his or her own advice Therefore, X's claim or argument should be rejected - Examples: Mom: You should go to bed early It is bad for your memory when you keep staying up late Son: Mom, I’ll go to sleep at 10 if you so You are always going to bed late! → The son rejects his mom’s argument because his mom failed to what she advised him Mother: Smoking is bad for your health and expensive! I hope to never see you it Daughter But you did it when you were my age! Therefore, I can it too! Anna said I should stop spending too much money on clothes but I don’t care as she always buys many clothes too TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT: - Attempts to justify a wrongful act by claiming that some other act is just as bad or worse - Examples: Teacher: You cheated! Now your paper is invalid Student: I am not the only one who cheated She did, too → Student did a wrongful act (cheating), but attempted to justify it by showing another act which is just as wrongful P1: It is wrong to hit your friend P2: He punched me I did it in self-defense Some students didn’t come to the class yesterday Neither did I Why did I have to go to school when so many people didn’t it? SCARE TACTICS: - Threatens harm to a reader or listener if he or she does not accept the arguer's conclusion and this threat is irrelevant to the truth of the arguer's conclusion - Examples: Rachel said to Mary, “Allergy to peanuts is fatal This candy contains traces of peanuts Hence, if you eat it, you will die.” → Rachel threats Mary that if she eats that candy, she will die However, there is a ‘hole’ here We don’t know whether Mary is allergic to peanuts Son: Dad! Why did you steal mom’s money? What you made is not a good person I will tell her Dad: If you tell her, you’ll not be my son P1: We should find another Math teacher because this teacher didn’t give us many exercises to practice, he just taught us the course book P2: I think we shouldn’t because he will give us bad marks in class if we quit the class If you not graduate from university, you will live in poverty for the rest of your life Therefore, you have to get a degree APPEAL TO PITY: - Attempts to evoke feelings of pity or compassion from his listeners or readers - Examples: Chi Pheo committed a murder, but he had mental disorders and could not control his behavior Therefore, he should not be imprisoned for his crime Student: I know I missed all classes of Critical thinking I want to get involved, but I have to work at that time as well My mom is sick, and I have to earn money to cover tuition fees Therefore, could you please allow me to the text again? The police: You are punished for following the red light The boy: Please forgive me! This is the first time I break the rule because I have a very important interview and I can’t be late → Speakers try to evoke feelings of pity from listeners / readers Reasons given were not strong to justify the behaviors BANDWAGON ARGUMENT (hiệu ứng đám đông): - The arguer tries to convince the audience to or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does - Common pattern: Most people believe or X Therefore, you should believe or X, too - Examples: Everyone studies until midnight to get good scores for the final exam Therefore, you should stay up late to study, too Students who go to the library on Sunday are hard-working Therefore, you should go to the library to study on Sunday, to show that you are hard-working → Conformism is not necessarily a good thing People want to be appreciated, accepted, or valued This is utilised in bandwagon arguments Premises and its conclusion are not logically relevant An increasing number of people are turning to yoga as a way to get in touch with their inner-being Therefore, yoga helps one get in touch with their inner-being STRAW MAN: - Distorts an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack - Common pattern: X's view is false or unjustified but where X's view has been unfairly characterized or misrepresented] Therefore, X's view should be rejected - Examples: P1: I can’t help you to settle this case, because I’m catching cold P2: You don’t help me as you hate me, right? A: You look so stunning today! B: You mean that I look ugly the other days RED HERRING: - An arguer tries to sidetrack his audience by raising an irrelevant issue as a solution to the first issue - Common pattern: Topic A is under discussion Topic B is not relevant to topic A - Examples: Daughter: My world ended today I feel as if I was dead My boyfriend and I broke up Mom: Hey, think about children in Africa They don’t have anything to eat Breaking up with your boyfriend is nothing at all Son: Mommy, why rice every day? I am so bored eating rice every day Mom: Oh no, consider yourself lucky You know, at your age, I was fed by potatoes mixed with rice Rice was very expensive back then, so I didn’t have enough money to eat rice every day You’re much luckier than I am! 11 BEGGING THE QUESTION (lí cùn): - An arguer states or assumes as a premise the very thing he or she is trying to prove as a conclusion - Examples: Because bungee-jumping is unsafe, therefore, bungee-jumping is dangerous → Unsafe = dangerous, just morphologically different but semantically identical Students should not stay up late Also, students should finish work early Hence, students should not stay up late I am entitled to say whatever I choose because I have a right to say whatever I please B FALLACIES OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE: - Premises and conclusion are relevant - Premises not provide sufficient evidence for the conclusion INAPPROPRIATE APPEAL TO AUTHORITY: - The arguer cites a witness or authority that is unreliable/untrustworthy - Examples: My Literature teacher told me that mice are mammals Therefore, mice are mammals My Tam said drinking Tea Plus is good for your health Therefore, drinking Tea Plus is good for your health My hairdresser told me that extraterrestrials built the lost city of Atlantis So, it's reasonable to believe that extraterrestrials did ld the lost city of Atlantis FALSE ALTERNATIVE: - Poses a false either/or choice - Examples: All Americans either support Donald Trump or hate him Jefferson is an American, he doesn’t hate Trump Therefore, he supports him → Why only options? Jefferson could be non-political In reality, there are more than two possibilities A: I don’t have enough money to buy that dress for you B: Buy it for me or we break up LOADED QUESTIONS: - A question that contains an unfair or unwarranted assumptions - Examples: Are you still in love with that terrible man? (1): That man is terrible (2): She is in love with that man A Have you always been an alcoholic? B No, there was a time when I wasn't an alcoholic A Oh, so you admit that you used to be an alcoholic Nat: Are you still friends with that crazy guy Montana? Lauren: Yes Nat: Well, at least you admit he's crazy QUESTIONABLE CAUSE: 5.1 Post hoc fallacy: - The arguer claims, without sufficient evidence, that one thing is the cause of something else - Common pattern: because X precedes Y therefore X caused Y - Examples: I have a cold I drank a cup of ginger tea The day after, the cold was gone Therefore, ginger tea helps to cure the cold → What happens first does not necessarily cause what happens later Lack of evidence for the conclusion I never had a problem with my phone until after you touched it on the other afternoon This morning I met a pregnant woman in front of my house and I failed my oral exam Obviously, pregnant women bring bad luck 5.2 Mere correlation: - Assumes without sufficient evidence, that because A and B regularly occur together, A must be the cause of B or vice versa - Examples: Whenever I wear red shoes, it rains I hate rainy days Therefore, today I won’t wear red shoes Whenever I wear this T-shirt, I pass exams Today I have an important exam Therefore, I will wear this T-shirt → Correlation does not mean causation 5.3 Oversimplified cause fallacy: - Assume without adequate evidence, that A is the sole cause of B when, in fact, there are several causes of B - Examples: P: Tougher imprisonment policies are working C: Therefore, violent crime has declined steadily in recent years → Tougher imprisonment is considered the ONLY cause of the decline in violent crime Her skin is smooth and acne-free Obviously, she uses expensive cosmetics HASTY GENERALIZATION: - The arguer draws a general conclusion from a biased, or too small, sample - Examples: The first Dutch person I met was tall The second Dutch person I met was tall The third Dutch person I met was tall Therefore, all Dutch people are tall Norwegians are lazy I have two friends who are from Norway, and both of them never prepare for class, or their homework SLIPPERY SLOPE: - The arguer claims, without sufficient evidence, that a seemingly harmless action, if taken, will lead to a disastrous outcome - Common pattern: + The arguer claims that if a certain seemingly harmless action, A, is permitted, A will lead to B, B will lead to C, and so on to D + The arguer holds that D is a terrible thing and therefore should not be permitted + In fact, there is no good reason to believe that A will actually lead to D - Examples: If you are too easy on students, they will not respect you If they don’t respect you, you shouldn’t be a teacher Therefore, if you are too easy on students, you shouldn’t be a teacher If I eat a doughnut now, I will probably eat another one tomorrow If I eat another one tomorrow, I will gain a lot of weight Therefore, my diet will be ruined If you don't study hard, you cannot graduate If you cannot graduate, you cannot find any jobs If you have no job, your life will be miserable → A seemingly harmless action, if taken, is claimed to cause a disastrous outcome Lack of evidence P1: If you let children choose what movie they want to watch, they will expect you to let them choose what they want to eat P2: If they can choose what they want to eat, they can decide what they want to for their future P3: If they can decide what they want to for their future, they will destroy their future C: If you let children choose what movie they want to watch, they will destroy their future WEAK ANALOGY: - The arguer compares things that aren't really comparable - Common pattern: A has characteristics w, x, y and z B has characteristics w, x and y Therefore, B probably has characteristic z too - Examples: Guns are like hammers - they are both made from metal and could be used to kill people No one objects to a teacher doing a search on Google while teaching So, why students are not allow to google while they are taking exams? → Comparing things that are not really comparable Nobody would buy a car without first taking it for a test drive Why then shouldn't two mature high school juniors live together before they decide whether to get married - HOW TO EVALUATE A WEAK ANALOGY + List all important similarities between two cases + List all dissimilarities between the two cases + Decide whether the similarities are strong enough to support the conclusion INCONSISTENCY: - Two statements are inconsistent when they both can’t be true - Examples: Teacher: I am not biased I give higher marks for answers whose handwriting is beautiful Father: I think you are an adult now, you can whatever you want However, deciding to move out is a life-changing decision that you should ask me Therefore, you should ask me before you anything CHAPTER ANALYZING ARGUMENTS DIAGRAMMING SHORT ARGUMENTS Tips: Find the main conclusion first Look out for premise markers and conclusion markers One sentence can contain more than one statement Treat conditional statements and disjunctive statements (either or…) as single statements Do not put sentences that are not statements in the diagram Do not put irrelevant statements or redundant statements in the diagram ... Open-minded, impartial thinking - Free of disporting biases and preconceptions → Fair-mindedness is an essential attribute of a Critical Thinker III The benefits of critical thinking: - Pass this... will be canceled Antecedent consequent Ex: If Sam fails Critical Thinking, he’ll be placed on academic probation Sam will fail Critical Thinking So, Sam will be placed on academic probation Evidence... has argued that the book named Smart Thinking should be used for Critical thinking courses at his school However, Professor Smith himself wrote the book Smart Thinking Therefore, he of course should