2. Partial 360 Degree View - Joseph Lewis Aguirre
Direct reports
Scott Stilligner - Koohs Ball®
Inventor
Joan Cui- runs here $16M busines
in China
Rolf Stenberg - EMEA Managing
Director
Bert Forniciari, The Web Guy
Cindy Reese, Oracle’s Worldwide
Procurement VP
Greg Podshadley
Mike Phillips
Worked with,
tutored by National
Luminaries
Ben Wegbreit
CMU’s ED Swierk,
Gordon Bell
Worked with
Michael Ramsay - TiVo foundeer
Steve Blank, E*Piphany
Drew Hoffman - AristaSoft
Eric Hahn, Collabra/Netscape/AOL
Shari Nolan/Jeff ConvergeNet/Dell
Bobby Johnson, Foundry Networks
Robert Van Naarden, Authentidate
Palm's CEO Jon Rubinstein
Coulomb's Richard Lowenthal
Kubota, Shiragami-San
Kubota, Abe Jiro
Bruce Birden
Amplifynet, Ray Hou
Counterpoint, Fred Kiremidjian
MasterView, Jon Hui
Brocade, Greg Reyes
Telcontar, Eric Carlson
Jack Cleary
Bruce Razban
Axsun Technologies, Jack Kay
Aptec's Gary McCalpine
MAG, Vincent Kao
Steve Vollum, Tektronix
William Wang, MAG, Vizio
Alpah WU, AmTRAN
Tom Moir, Aptec
Greg Baum, Aptec
Pauline Alker/Raymond Hou,
Amplifynet
Allen Michels, Convergent,
Verdasys
Pauline Alker Counterpoint/Acer
Richard Lowenthal, Mayor City
of Cupertino
Ben Wegbreit, Ardent/E.piphany
Worked
For/Mentored by
CrossPoint Ventures, Bob Lisbonne
Silicon Valley Funding, Les Boes
IFC, Ravi Vish
Olympic Capital, Michael Ting
SunSino Ventures, Wei Jung Chang
Chia Heri Group, Peter Hou
Neal Dempsey, Bay Partners
Thomas Rosch, Interwest Partners
Pacific Century, Harish Counsel
Venture Capital
SGI, Mark Miller
Mitsubishi, Dale Manu
Mitsubishi, Kaz Hayakawa
Sun, Tom Fussy
IBM, Susan Luerich
Apple, Paul Alvarez
Apple: Dr. Way Ting
Dell's Dennis Selman
HP, Glenn Dougherty
HP, Diane Urrutia
Clients
3. The Evil Triplets
1) Agony and Ecstasy
2) The triple constraint: TSL, Tech, Content
3) Triple Threat: 60/20/20
WS1: The Evil Triplets
Scope
TSL
Comm
Content
3-threatContent
Logic
Mechanics
6. Course objectives
WS1 - Basics of Critical Thinking
•Describe the importance of critical thinking to the decision-
making process.
•Differentiate among types of reasoning and critical thinking.
•Explain common cognitive biases.
WS2 - Problem Identification and Formulation
Identify the processes involved in identifying, formulating, and
solving business problems.
Apply concepts of critical thinking to identifying and
formulating problems.
Identify common rhetorical devices and fallacies
7. Course objectives
WS3 - Creativity
•Describe various methods for enhancing creativity and
innovation in a business setting.
•Identify opportunities in which to apply critical thinking to
innovation.
•Identify methods for formulating original and creative
responses to opportunities and problems.
•Identify potential barriers to applying creative thinking to
business decision making.
WS4 - Decision Making
•Evaluate the credibility of claims and their sources for
making decisions.
•Apply a decision-making technique to a business situation.
•Identify the factors, resources, and actions most often used
to implement business decisions and change
8. Course objectives
WS5 - Critical Thinking and Decision-Making
Outcomes
•Apply appropriate critical-thinking methods, tools, and
techniques to various business situations.
•Evaluate the ethical implications of implementing decisions
in business.
9. WS1DQ1 Critical thinking
Most educators probably agree that a person
who jumps to conclusions or makes
illformed, indefensible, knee-jerk decisions
has not thought critically
Critical thinking involves thinking about
thinking;
10. WS1DQ2 Attributes of
critical thinking
•How well does a person determine what
information is or is not pertinent;
•distinguish between rational claims and emotional
ones;
•separate fact from opinion;
•recognize the ways in which evidence might be
limited or compromised;
•spot deception and holes in the arguments of
others;
•present his/her own analysis of the data or
information;
11. WS1DQ2 Attributes of
critical thinking
•recognize logical flaws in arguments;
•draw connections between discrete sources of
data and information;
•attend to contradictory, inadequate, or ambiguous
information;
•construct cogent arguments rooted in data rather
than opinion;
•select the strongest set of supporting data;
•avoid overstated conclusions;
•identify holes in the evidence and suggest
additional information to collect;
12. WS1DQ2 Attributes of
critical thinking
•recognize that a problem may have no clear
answer or single solution;
•propose other options and weigh them in the
decision;
•consider all stakeholders or affected parties in
suggesting a course of action;
•articulate the argument and the context for that
argument;
•correctly and precisely use evidence to defend
the argument;
•logically and cohesively organize the argument;
13. WS1DQ2 Attributes of
critical thinking
•avoid extraneous elements in an argument’s
development;
•present evidence in an order that contributes to a
persuasive argument?
<http://www.aacu.org/peerreview/pr_sp07_analysi
s1.cfm>
14. WS1DQ3 Critical thinking -
Why bother?
The ultimate objective in thinking critically is to
come to conclusions that are correct and to
make decisions that are wise.
The purpose of thinking critically is to come to
correct conclusions; the method used to achieve
this objective is to evaluate our thinking by the
standards of rationality. Of course, we can also
evaluate someone else’s thinking, though the
objective may be different
15. WS1DQ4 Objective and
subjective claims
An objective claim is independent of whether
people think it is true or false.
Subjective claims. Whether a subjective claim
is true or false is not independent of whether
people think it is true or false
16. WS1DQ5 Argument,
premise, conclusion
A reason for accepting a claim is expressed in
something called a premise; the claim itself is
called the conclusion.
An argument consists of two parts; one part of
which (the premise or premises) is intended to
provide a reason for accepting the other part
(the conclusion).
Critical thinking happens when we evaluate the
thinking we or someone else has used in
coming to a conclusion on an issue
17. WS1DQ6 Cognitive biases
Belief formation is affected by unconscious
features of human psychology. Psychologists
refer to these features as cognitive biases.
Cognitive biases skew our apprehension of reality
and interfere with our ability to think clearly,
process information accurately, and reason
objectively.
18. WS1DQ7 Inductive &
Deductive arguments
Deductive Arguments
The premise of a good deductive argument, if
true, proves or demonstrates its conclusion.
An argument is valid if it isn’t possible for the
premise to be true and the conclusion false.
Inductive Arguments
The premises of good inductive arguments don’t
demonstrate their conclusions; they support them.
19. WS1DQ8 Most important
type of reasoning
A case can be made for
balance of considerations reasoning
as the most important kind of reasoning we do
Balance of considerations reasoning typically
contains both deductive and inductive
elements.
20. WS1DQ9 - IBE
Inference to the best explanation- (IBE.)
Sometimes this type of reasoning is also referred
to as “abduction.”
Why won’t the car start? The best explanation is
that the battery is dead
An IBE is actually an inductive argument, which is
to be evaluated as strong or weak in varying
degrees.
21. WS1DQ10 - IBE
characteristics
The criteria for appraising IBEs differ from
those applied to other inductive arguments.
Given competing explanations of a
phenomenon, the best explanation is the one
that
(a) explains the phenomenon most adequately,
(b) leads to the most accurate predictions,
(c) conflicts least with other well-established
explanations, and
(d) involves the fewest unnecessary
assumptions
22. WS1DQ11 - Not premises,
conclusions arguments
Not everything that might look like an argument,
or like a premise or a conclusion, is one.
Pictures are not premises, conclusions, or
arguments. Neither are movies - Movies and
pictures can be moving, compelling, beautiful,
complex, realistic, and so forth—but they cannot
be either true or false.
If it doesn’t make sense to think of a thing as
“true” or as “false,” then that thing cannot be a
premise or a conclusion. And if it doesn’t make
sense to think of it as valid, invalid, or sound, or
as in varying degrees of strong or weak, it cannot
be an argument
23. WS1DQ12 - List of facts -
argument
Identity theft is up at least tenfold over last year.
More people have learned how easy it is to get
hold of another’s Social Security number, bank
account numbers, and such. The local police
department reminds everyone to keep close
watch on who has access to such information.
The number of people who have learned how to
steal identities has doubled in the past year. So
you are now more likely to become a victim of
identity theft than you were a year ago.
24. WS1DQ13 - Spot the
argument
l) “Mike is in his swim suit because he was
swimming.”
r) “Mike was swimming because he’s in his swim
suit.”
These two sentences have the same form, “X
because Y.”
The sentence on the leftexplains why Mike is
wearing a swim suit.
The sentence on the right offers an argument
that Mike was swimming. Only the sentence on
the right is an argument.
25. WS1DQ14 - Specious
reasoning and persuasion
Indeed, the individual who does not think critically
is precisely the person who is persuaded by
specious reasoning.
People notoriously are unfazed by good
arguments while finding even the worst
arguments compelling.
If you want to persuade people of something, try
propaganda. Flattery has been known to work,
too
26. WS1DQ15 Persuasion-
LEP
Logos - the speaker may persuade us by
using information and arguments.
Ethos - We can be persuaded, by such
things as a person’s background, reputation,
accomplishments, expertise, and similar
things.
Pathos - a speaker can persuade us by
connecting with us on a personal level, and by
arousing and appealing to our emotions by a
skillful use of rhetoric.
27. WS1DQ16 Structure of the
argument
1. Find the conclusion—the main point or
thesis of the passage.
2. Locate the reasons that have been
offered for accepting the conclusion—that
is, to find the premises.
3. Fin the reasons, if any, offered for
accepting these premises.
Requires to learn both to spot premises
and conclusions when they occur and to
understand the interrelationships among
these claims—that is, the structure of the
argument
28. WS1DQ16 Structure of the
argument
1 [I don’t think we should get Carlos his own
car.] 2 [He is not responsible] in view of the fact
that 3 [he doesn’t care for his things.] And
anyway, 4 [we don’t have enough money for a
car], since 5 [even now we have trouble making
ends meet.] 6 [Last week you yourself
complained about our financial situation],
and 7 [you never complain without really good
reason.]
31. WS1DQ18 - Vagueness
When a claim is not to vague to convey
appropriately useful information its level of
vagueness is acceptable
32. WS1DQ19 Vagueness Vs
Ambiguity
A word or phrase is said to be ambiguous
when it has more than one meaning
1. Wingo, the running back, always lines up
in the right side
2. Jessica is cold
3. Aunt Delia never uses glasses
33. WS1DQ20 - syntactic
ambiguity
“To travel to Canada you will need a birth
certificate or a driver’s license and other
photo ID”
A [You will need a birth certificate or a
driver’s license] and [other photo ID” ]
B [You will need a birth certificate} or {a
driver’s license] and other photo ID” ]
1. You will need a birth certificate or a
driver’s license and you will also need an
additional other photo ID
2 You will need a birth certificate} or both a
driver’s license and an additional photo ID
34. WS1DQ21 - Purpose of
definitions and Types
Purpose
•Lexical definitions
•Stipulative definition
•Precising definition
•Rhetorical definitions
Types
1. Definition by example
2. Definition by synonym
3. Analytical definition
35. WS1DQ22 Components of
argumentative essay
Primary aim of argumentative writing is
to support a position on an issue:
1. A statement of issue
2. A statement of one’s position on that
issue
3. Argument that supports one’s position
4. Rebuttals of arguments that support
contrary position
5. Conclusion that 3 is greater than 4
Most educators probably agree that a person who jumps to conclusions or makes illformed, indefensible, knee-jerk decisions has not thought critically.
You might say that critical thinking involves thinking about thinking; we engage in it when we consider whether our thinking (or someone else’s) abides by the criteria of good sense and logic.
the ultimate objective in thinking critically is to come to conclusions that are correct and to make decisions that are wise. Because our decisions reflect our conclusions, we can simplify things by saying that the purpose of thinking critically is to come to correct conclusions; the method used to achieve this objective is to evaluate our thinking by the standards of rationality. Of course, we can also evaluate someone else’s thinking, though the objective there might simply be to help the person.
An argument consists of two parts; one part of which (the premise or premises) is intended to provide a reason for accepting the other part (the conclusion).
Critical thinking happens, then, when we evaluate the thinking we or someone else has used in coming to a conclusion on an issu
Unfortunately, belief formation is also affected by unconscious features of human psychology. Psychologists refer to these features, some of which are unexpected and surprising, as cognitive biases. Cognitive biases skew our apprehension of reality and interfere with our ability to think clearly, process information accurately, and reason objectively.
Deductive Arguments
The premise (or premises) of a good deductive argument, if true, proves or demonstrates (these being the same thing for our purposes) its conclusion. However, there is more to this than meets the eye, and we must begin with the fundamental concept of deductive logic, validity. An argument is valid if it isn’t possible for the premise to be true and the conclusion false. This may sound complicated, but it really isn’t. An example of a valid argument will help:
Premise: Jimmy Carter was president immediately before Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush was president immediately after Bill Clinton.Conclusion: Jimmy Carter was president before George W. Bush.
Inductive Arguments
Again, the premise of a good deductive argument, if true, demonstrates that the conclusion is true. This brings us to the second kind of argument, the inductiveargument. The premises of good inductive arguments don’t demonstrate their conclusions; they support them. For example: A woman has been found murdered. The husband is known to have threatened her repeatedly. That fact certainly does not demonstrate that the woman’s husband murdered her. By itself, the fact barely even supports that conclusion. But it does support it slightly. It raises the probability slightly that the husband was the murderer. Certainly the investigators should question the husband closely if they learn he repeatedly threatened his wife before she died
Should I get a dog? Cut class to attend my cousin’s wedding? Vote for Obama? Get chemo? Much everyday reasoning involves weighing considerations for and against thinking or doing something. Indeed, a case can be made for balance of considerations reasoning as the most important kind of reasoning we do
Balance of considerations reasoning typically contains both deductive and inductive elements. When Jamela predicts she can take care of little Priglet (we hope you readChapter 1), she has been reasoning inductively. On the other hand, when she concludes that one consideration outweighs another consideration, she has been reasoning deductively based on the relative values she has assigned the two considerations. Assigning values to considerations can be difficult, of course, but doing so is not hopelessly arbitrary, as perhaps we convinced you in Chapter 1. In Chapter 12 of this book we discuss the frameworks within which moral evaluations are made; you will see there that such reasoning involves deductions from one or more guiding moral principle
Another exceptionally common type of reasoning is what philosophers refer to as “inference to the best explanation,” or for short, IBE. Sometimes this type of reasoning is also referred to as “abduction.” Why won’t the car start? The best explanation is that the battery is dead. Why does my back hurt in the morning? The best explanation is that my mattress is too soft. Why is the dog scratching at the door? The best explanation is that it has to tend to business. Aficionados of the stories of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle will be aware that this is the type of reasoning Sherlock Holmes specializes in—and what his sidekick Dr. Watson inaccurately refers to as “deduction.” An IBE is actually an inductive argument, which is to be evaluated as strong or weak in varying degrees.
The criteria for appraising IBEs differ from those applied to other inductive arguments. In Chapter 11 we go into things in more detail, but the general idea is this: Given competing explanations of a phenomenon, the best explanation is the one that (a) explains the phenomenon most adequately, (b) leads to the most accurate predictions, (c) conflicts least with other well-established explanations, and (d) involves the fewest unnecessary assumptions
ARGUMENTS
We hope you’ve noticed, when we use the word “argument,” we are not talking about two people having a feud or fuss about something. That use of the word has nothing much to do with critical thinking, though many a heated exchange could use some critical thinking. Arguments in our sense do not even need two people; we make arguments for our own use all the time. And when we evaluate them, we think critically.
Speaking of what arguments are not, it’s important to realize that not everything that might look like an argument, or like a premise or a conclusion, is one.
Pictures
Pictures are not premises, conclusions, or arguments. Neither are movies. Your iPhone can do lots of things, but it can’t create a premise, a conclusion, or an argument. Sorry. Arguments have two parts, a premise part and a conclusion part, and both parts are propositional entities, which means (to repeat) that both parts must be expressible in a declarative, true-or-false sentence. Movies and pictures can be moving, compelling, beautiful, complex, realistic, and so forth—but they cannot be either true or false. Is that movie true? The question does not make literal sense. If it doesn’t make sense to think of a thing as “true” or as “false,” then that thing cannot be a premise or a conclusion. And if it doesn’t make sense to think of it as valid, invalid, or sound, or as in varying degrees of strong or weak, it cannot be an argument. The things listed previously not only are not premises or conclusions, they are not arguments, either.
Lists of Facts
Though the following might look like an argument, it is nothing more than a list of facts:
Identity theft is up at least tenfold over last year. More people have learned how easy it is to get hold of another’s Social Security number, bank account numbers, and such. The local police department reminds everyone to keep close watch on who has access to such information.
Although they are related by being about the same subject, none of these claims is offered as a reason for believing another, and thus there is no argument here. But the following passage is different. See if you can spot why it makes an argument:
The number of people who have learned how to steal identities has doubled in the past year. So you are now more likely to become a victim of identity theft than you were a year ago.
Here, the first claim offers a reason for accepting the second claim; we now have an argument.
These two sentences have the same form, “X because Y.” But the sentence on the leftexplains why Mike is wearing a swim suit. The sentence on the right offers an argumentthat Mike was swimming. Only the sentence on the right is an argument. Put it this way: What follows “because” in the sentence on the left is the cause. What follows “because” in the right-hand sentence is evidence.
ETHOS, PATHOS, AND LOGOS
When he was a young man, Alexander the Great conquered the world. Alexander was enormously proud of his accomplishment and celebrated by renaming cities after himself. Alexander’s teacher, the Greek philosopher Aristotle, had no cities named after him; nevertheless, his imprint on civilization turned out to be even more profound than Alexander’s.
Aristotle, who now is regarded as the father of logic, biology, and psychology, made enduring contributions to virtually every subject. These include (in addition to those just mentioned) physics, astronomy, meteorology, zoology, metaphysics, political science, economics, ethics, and rhetoric.
Among Aristotle’s contributions in the last field (rhetoric) was a theory of persuasion, which famously contained the idea that there are three modes by which a speaker may persuade an audience. Paraphrasing very loosely, Aristotle’s idea was that we can be persuaded, first of all, by a speaker’s personal attributes, including such things as his or her background, reputation, accomplishments, expertise, and similar things. Aristotle referred to this mode of persuasion as ethos. Second, a speaker can persuade us by connecting with us on a personal level, and by arousing and appealing to our emotions by a skillful use of rhetoric. This mode of persuasion Aristotle termedpathos. And third, the speaker may persuade us by using information and arguments—what he called logos.
TECHNIQUES FOR UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS
If an argument has been offered to us, before we can evaluate it we must understand it. Many arguments are difficult to understand because they are spoken and go by so quickly we cannot be sure of the conclusion or the premises. Others are difficult to understand because they have a complicated structure. Still others are difficult to understand because they are embedded in nonargumentative material consisting of background information, prejudicial coloring, illustrations, parenthetical remarks, digressions, subsidiary points, and other window dressing. And some arguments are difficult to understand because they are confused or because the reasons they contain are so poor that we are not sure whether to regard them as reasons.
In understanding an argument that has been given to us, the first task is to find the conclusion—the main point or thesis of the passage. The next step is to locate the reasons that have been offered for accepting the conclusion—that is, to find the premises. Next, we look for the reasons, if any, offered for accepting these premises. To proceed through these steps, you have to learn both to spot premises and conclusions when they occur in spoken and written passages and to understand the interrelationships among these claims—that is, the structure of the argument.
Next, bracket each premise and conclusion, and number them consecutively as they appear in the argument. So what we now have is this:
1 [I don’t think we should get Carlos his own car.] 2 [He is not responsible] in view of the fact that 3 [he doesn’t care for his things.] And anyway, 4 [we don’t have enough money for a car], since 5 [even now we have trouble making ends meet.] 6 [Last week you yourself complained about our financial situation], and 7 [you never complain without really good reason.]
Then we diagram the argument. Using an arrow to mean “therefore” or “is intended as evidence [or as a reason or as a premise] for,” we diagram the first three claims in the argument as follows:
