Critical Thinking Research Paper

Football was and is a very popular sport in America and has always been a favorite. Erik Fisher plays football because he is great at the sport, hence page 27, “Dad had brought Erik to meet Coach Warner earlier in the summer. Dad had knelt down and held the ball for Erik to drill fifty-yard field goals, one after another, while according to Dad, the Coach’s jaw had dropped lower and lower.” But, Erik played football primarily for and because of the fame. He had never cared about whether he had to hurt someone in order reach the top of the “Erik Fisher Football Dream”. On September 5 (pages 50-94), when Mike Costello dies of lightning, Paul finds Erik and Arthur laughing about how Mike’s hair was singed off. Paul was disgusted. Though Erik and Arthur didn’t kill Mike, their laughter reflects their inner evil and selfish selves. Paul then reflects on his own self and decides to walk a path of truth, unlike Erik. In continuation, Ray Lewis had once said, “Don't walk through life just playing football. Don't walk through life just being an athlete. Athletics will fade. Character and integrity and really making an impact on someone's life, that's the ultimate vision, that's the ultimate goal-bottom line.” Erik never had any character or integrity, whether he played sports or not. On the other hand, Paul did have character and integrity. Paul noticed Erik’s evil actions to get higher and higher up the Erik Fisher Football

The brain is considered the most complex organ in the body. It is responsible for controlling motor function, the body’s ability to balance and the ability to translate information sent to the brain by sensory organs. The mind is described as the faculty of consciousness and thought. It’s where our feeling and emotions originate from and defines who we are as a person. The brain is composed of the visual cortex, which is responsible for processing visual information. In blind individuals the feature that makes up visions still exists in the visual cortex. These features are now used to process information received from the other senses. However, blind individuals are able to view the images because what’s in their mind.

In this study, the professor asked 15 students in his Introductory Psychology class to volunteer to take the smart pill at the start of the semester. The other 15 students in the class who did not volunteer did not take the pill. This was not random assignment because this subject was not an unbiased division, and the professor didn’t create equal groups; therefore, it could affect the result. In general, volunteers do better than non-volunteers because volunteers have more motivation than the people who didn’t volunteer. For example, in the “tutoring study”, people who signed up for tutoring were doing much better than the people who did not sign up for tutoring because the people who sign up care about their grade; on

While in middle school and high school, many of our teachers use to teach us about adolescents and warn us about our hormones and sex, but they never really touch on the topic about our mental change and how moral reasoning would change in such an unnoticeable manner. I honestly believed that I still had the same mind set from high school, until I learned about moral reasoning and watch the video of the three different age groups and it showed each mind set and their moral reason for the situation that was given. After watching that video, I reflected on the memories of middle and high school and realized, that I made a lot of dumb choices that I’m not proud of.

The Stanley Milgram experiment was a great test on how people react to authority. The experiment tested peoples willingness to follow orders. Basically the test consisted of the Teacher, the Learner, and the Experimenter. The Teacher was the subject of the test and he administered shocks to the Learner for incorrect answer. The shocks increased in increments of 15 to a high of 450 volts. More than 50 percent of their test population administered the highest possible shock. These shocking results make you questions why is there such an absence of critical thinking and moral responsibility.

Libertarians support the view that people have free will and so we are free to make moral decisions. For a Libertarian, the key evidence for this is the act of decision making in our daily lives. Hume states that “experience is what we see to be true”, each human being experiences the feeling of being free to make a decision. If experiencing any other action constitutes it to be true, then why not the same for free will? Libertarians argue that we have awareness of the choices we make; we can choose to do anything that we are capable of. Though we are influenced by our environment and experiences, ultimately we can make our own decisions, nothing is

As the athlete fell to the ground, no one knew what was wrong with him. The athlete had torn the meniscus in his knee and would possibly not be able to play for the rest of his college career. Although college athletes risk getting hurt every practice and game, I believe they should not be paid money for playing the sport they love. College athletes play their sport because of their passion for it, not because they want to get paid. Opponents claim that if you put yourself at risk for injury or if you train for as many hours as college athletes do then you should get paid.

Terrell Owens was traded to about seven teams during his time in professional football and each team had their own share of woes with him. As the Dallas Cowboys wide receiver, Owens gained the most attention on the field as well as off of the field. He had never been shy of the limelight and almost encouraged the media to ask questions, relevant or not. One reporter went as far to say, “He [Owens] is one of the few players I can think of that I would say talked too much for his own good. From a reporter’s perspective, however, it was gold.” Owens made himself available to the media during the week and just talk about anything at all. Questions would be presented in different ways and he would continue to answer as if it was the first time he heard it. He often got in trouble with his organization for talking too much and too long. Unlike Beckham and Lynch, Owens did not have one interview that stuck out. While a Dallas Cowboy, every interview he did was as long and drawn out as the first. He would jump around from topic to topic. Often times, he would answer the question at hand, but then add on a sentence or so about something else that caught his attention. It seemed that he generally spoke like that to everyone. That is, unlike Lynch, he was not provoking the media. He simply was a scattered brained producer and receiver of language. His enthusiasm did die

3. Meaning/Purpose - In the biblical/Christian Worldview our purpose in life is to build a relationship with God through his son Jesus Christ. We are also to spread the message of Jesus to others so that they may be saved as well. As Buddhists do not believe in God, they believe our purpose in life is to eliminate our suffering and stop the cycle of reincarnation.

The NFL’s reasoning was that it was a uniform violation, explaining that it could open the door to other political statements. The authors then explained how this was not a political statement, but a form of respect. They also mention how it was far less political than what players did the previous Sunday. Appearing confused is a very good strategy, especially when arguing that an organization has a double standard.

When the Judge admonished the Jury, he told them they must reach a unanimous decision beyond a reasonable doubt. The "hero" of this movie appears to be Henry Fonda, the first juror to vote "not guilty". He kept challenging the evidence by saying "isn 't it possible?"...that the evidence was wrong. Do some critical thinking on this...using a good paragraph answer if "isn 't it possible?" is the same thing as "beyond a reasonable doubt." Start with a “yes” or “no” and then eleaborate.

[Question 4] Jamal’s therapist has suggested that Jamal should “act as if” he is confident, even though he feels insecure and shy. Which social psychological theory would best support this suggestion, and what might the therapist be hoping to achieve? Cognitive dissonance theory best supports the therapist’s suggest. According to the theory, if Jamal pretends to act confident (without really feeling confident), his behavior will not be consistent with his beliefs.

Critical thinking is the questioning of ideas. It is the process in which you take an argument and analyze it in order to conclude whether that argument is valid. Thinking critically is a good skill that can help others make intelligent decisions and helps them understand what to believe or not believe. Critical thinking is involved in our daily life. For example, every day we make decisions and before every decision we think critically if that is the right decision. We take into consideration the possible consequences of such decision and from that we reach a conclusion. Critical thinking involves disciplined thinking and it teaches you to think for yourself. It is personal growth and confidence that results from learning to exercise your mind to its fullest potential.

“ethical dilemmas are commonplace, complex, and require critical thinking skills that are honed through practice, and practice, and more practice. Airth-Kindree, N. M., & Kirk horn, L. C. (2016).

Now that both sides have been established, those stakeholders who favor and those who oppose the policy in question, each of their argument 's evidence and reasoning will be analyzed. The corresponding pages which follow will provide an understanding of each side through three developed sections: a critical analysis, moral reasoning, and a tentative solution. The critical analysis will thoroughly measure to what level an argument 's authoritative, accuracy, reliability, precision, applicability, and etc. is able to represent their claims. At the same time the critical analysis includes a judgement call on whether or not a side 'wins ' or 'loses ' each of their arguments based upon the strength and weakness of the argument 's claims and evidence. The moral reasoning section will then secondary the value of each side 's evidence, and focus on analyzing each side 's moral reasoning, or rather, evaluating what "values, obligations, consequences, and normative principles" present reasonableness to their position on morality. Following these two sections of analysis, a conclusion will be made on which of the two sides makes an overall stronger, more conclusive and moral argued solution to the normative question.