This document provides instructions for 8 discussions on evaluating sources and reasoning. The initial posts must address specific questions and include citations from scholarly sources. For the first discussion, students choose a mural or monument that is controversial and analyze different viewpoints about how it should be handled. They are instructed to consider factors like the context of its creation and message. For the second, they research the Southern Poverty Law Center and evaluate a claim about it. Subsequent discussions involve distinguishing inductive and deductive arguments, examining opinion formation, comparing situations, and respectfully engaging with dissenting views.

1. Discussion Instructions:
· Due 1/14
· Please make sure ALL questions are answered
· Minimum of 2 scholarly sources cited for EACH discussion
unless stated in the initial post instructions. Please include a
link to EACH scholarly source(s) in your references.
· APA format for in-text citations and list of references
Discussion 2: Context, Meaning, and Value
Initial Post Instructions
Select one of the following options to research for this
discussion:
· Option 1: Google <California Washington mural>. You will
find numerous reports concerning a California school district
that voted to paint over a mural in the high school. The Life of
Washington was painted by Depression-era artist Victor
Arnautoff.
· Option 2: Google <Indiana University Thomas Hart Benton
mural>. You will find numerous articles on the controversy
surround a panel from Benton's A Social History of
Indiana (1933) murals.
· Option 3: Conduct research on a mural or statue or monument
in your town that is the subject of controversy.
Before you read the news articles, try to look at the artworks
through an image search in Google. Then, read the news articles
to see the different viewpoints about the murals.
For the initial post, address at least four (4) of the following
questions for the option you selected:
· What do you think should be done with the artwork (e.g.,
painted over, covered, destroyed, left as is in plain view, etc.)?
Why?
· Should the context in which the artwork was created (the
Great Depression of the 1930s in the case of the Benton and
Arnautoff murals) have an impact on the decision of what to do

2. with the artwork?
· Should the context in which people now view the artwork have
an impact on the decision of what to do with it?
· What message do you think the artwork conveys?
· Do you think there is ambiguity in the message?
· Do you think the message is vague?
· Does the artistic value of the artwork require that it be saved
regardless of message?
· Does the historic value of the artwork require that it be saved
regardless of message?
· Do you think the message of the artwork is sufficiently
important that the message alone requires that it be saved?
· Do you think the artists were biased or prejudiced? If yes,
explain specifics about the artwork that support your opinion.
Do you think viewers might be bringing bias or prejudice to
their opinions? Are you?
Discussion 3: Evaluating Sources
Introduction
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions – but not their own
facts." (Daniel Patrick Moynihan, cited in Vanity Fair, 2010,
para. 2)
We form opinions – and make our judgments – based on facts
we observe and values we hold. Our judgments are also
influenced by the opinions of others. In the section "An Expert
on Hate in America" in Chapter 6, one of the authors, Dr. Peter
Facione, renders an opinion on a non-profit civil rights
organization: Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Dr. Facione
is a leading advocate and one of the most influential voices in
the field of critical thinking.
His endorsement of the civil rights organization is unqualified.
It is also transparent: Dr. Facione reveals that he is a financial
supporter of the organization and has arranged speaking
engagements for its founder. This is Dr. Facione's invitation to
you, the reader:
Knowing where you can learn more about the SPLC for

3. yourself, and knowing about Dr. Facione's endorsement and
support of the Center's work, evaluate this claim made by Dr.
Facione: "The SPLC is an expert on hate in America" (p. 124).
The endorsement of the SPLC is contained in the most current
edition of the text, whose copyright date is 2016. Since that
time Morris Dees, co-founder and former chief trial counsel, has
been fired (Hassan, Zraick & Blinder, 2019). Previously, there
has been controversy about groups and individuals that are
listed by the SPLC as "hate groups" (Graham, 2016; Price,
2018). The organization, which has nearly a half-billion dollars
in assets, has also been criticized for how it spends these funds
(Robinson, 2019).
Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, address the following:
· Conduct additional researched on the SPLC. Did your opinion
alter in any way? Why?
Only after you have done some responsible research should you
begin to respond to the discussion prompt. The discussion is not
about the SPLC; it is not about Dr. Facione. It is about what you
have learned about forming opinions.
Your post MUST answer this question:
· How do you define the term "expert"?
Your post must also discuss at least two (2) of the following
questions:
· How important are facts in the process of forming an opinion?
Explain what you believe to be the purpose or function of facts
in making a judgment.
· How did you respond to the self-assessment question? Since
doing further research, have you re-thought the way in which
you assess credibility and reliability? What is the importance of
factoring the recency of a reference or opinion (i.e., how old is
it?) into an assessment of credibility and reliability?
· How would you evaluate Dr. Facione's claim "The SPLC is an
expert on hate in America" (p. 124). Does the SPLC fit your
definition of "expert"? Be specific in your answer.

4. Discussion 4: Distinguishing Inductive and Deductive
Reasoning
In deductive arguments, the speaker asserts that her premises
are true and, therefore, her conclusion must be accepted.
Remember that in a deductive argument, logical strength does
not depend on the literal truth of the premises. When we test for
logical strength, we assume the premises are true. Once we
determine that the argument is logically valid, we can then look
at the actual – not presumed – truth of the premises.
In inductive arguments, the speaker presents evidence that she
claims support the probable truth of her conclusion – that her
conclusion is the most likely true – and so you should accept it.
Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, address the following:
· Find and post examples of deductive and inductive arguments.
· For each example, evaluate its logical strength, using the
concepts and ideas presented in the textbook readings, the
lesson, and any other source you find that helps you to evaluate
the validity (deductive) or strength (inductive) of the argument.
You can use examples from the text, or you can find examples
elsewhere.
· Editorials and opinion columns are a good source, as are
letters to the editor. Blogs will also often be based on
arguments.
· Use mapping and evaluative techniques to make sure it is an
argument.
· Is it inductive or deductive? Explain why.
· Does it pass the tests of validity and strength? Explain.
Discussion 5: In My Opinion
Initial Post Instructions
Consider one of the following current social issues – or one of
your choice:
· Opioid crisis
· Legalization of recreational or medical marijuana
· Vaping

5. · Immigration
· Elimination of the electoral college
· Gun control
For the initial post, address the following:
· State your position on one of these issues – are you for,
against, or neutral? Explain why. Avoid vagueness or ambiguity
in your response. Make your position very clear.
· Examine how you have formed that opinion.
· How well do you think you know the facts?
· Do you know and understand statistical information that
applies to the issue?
· Do you think you have formed your opinion using only
System-1 thinking, or have you applied System-2?
· What part have heuristics, cognitive bias, and dominance
structuring played in how you have formed your opinions?
The initial post is not about how "correct" your position is; it is
about how youarrived at your position on the issue. This
discussion requires application of metacognition – thinking
about how you think.
Discussion 6: Comparative Reasoning
(only 1 additional scholarly source for this discussion)
Please read/review the following resources for this activity. You
must include the following resources in your post.
· The Doctor’s Choice is America’s Choice”: The Physician in
US Cigarette Advertisements, 1930 – 1953. Link to article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470496/
· The Opioid Epidemic: Who is to Blame? Link to article:
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/pain/opioid-epidemic-who-
blame
· The Opioid Epidemic: It’s Time to Place Blame Where It
Belongs. Link to article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/
Introduction

6. The medical profession has a muddled and contradictory
association with its approach toward the tobacco industry.
While the profession now firmly opposes to smoking and
vigorously publicizes the serious, even fatal, health hazards
associated with smoking, this was not always so.
Advertisements for tobacco products, including cigarettes "...
became a ready source of income for numerous medical
organizations and journals, including the New England Journal
of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA), as well as many branches and bulletins of
local medical associations" (Wolinsky & Brune, 1994).
Physicians and reference to doctors and smoking were once
common in tobacco industry advertisements. The story of
physicians and promotion of smoking can be found in "The
Doctors' Choice Is America's Choice" (Gardner & Brandt,
2006).
The role of physicians in the current opioid crisis is now under
scrutiny on television (Farmer, 2019) by trade publications
(King, 2018), peer-reviewed journals (deShazo, et al, 2018), and
by physicians themselves (Hirsch, 2019).
Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, research the history of the association of
doctors with tobacco companies and tobacco advertising. Read
about the association of doctors with the opioid crisis. Then,
address the following:
· In what way are the two situations comparable?
· In what way are they different?
· Apply the concept of moral equivalence. Is the conduct of
doctors in relation to smoking and the tobacco industry morally
equivalent to the conduct of doctors in the opioid crisis?
Explain your position and be very specific.
Discussion 7: What Do I Value?
Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, address the following:
· What core values would you risk your life and freedom to

7. defend?
· Could a nation going to war be appropriate in certain
circumstances – or is war never an appropriate response?
Notice that this exercise requires deductive reasoning. You are
stating a position and supporting it with "top down" reasoning.
Be sure to review Three Features of Ideological Reasoning.
Apply these concepts as you create your own arguments and
evaluate those of your peers.
Remember that you are using ideological reasoning here. Is your
post structured like an ideological argument, beginning with a
general idea (opinion, belief, or principle) and moving down
from these abstractions to their specific applications?
The text warns us that ideological arguments often fail the test
of Truthfulness of the Premises. Have you tested the truth of
your premises?
Discussion 8: When the People You Love Don’t Think Like You
Introduction
Facione & Gittens (2016) state, "Strong critical thinking about
complex and difficult social policies demands that we respect
those with whom we disagree" (p. 344). The authors of your text
ask us to take seriously the points of view of those with whom
we disagree.
· Should I respect the point of view of a misogynist – a person
who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against
women?
· Should I respect the point of view of a racist?
· How about someone who believes marriage is only between
one man and one woman?
· How about someone who does not believe that humans are
contributing to the conditions that cause climate change?
· How about someone who denies that the Holocaust occurred?
Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, pick one point of view from the five
questions above that you find particularly repugnant – one that
you think is completely unjustifiable. If you were in
conversation with such a person, how could you ethically

8. respond to the statement of such a point of view? Keep in mind
that you are expressing a value opinion, which requires
ideological reasoning.
As you form your response, keep in mind the following; these
are things you need to think about but not necessarily to write
about in your initial post:
· Reflect if you are using System-1 or System-2 thinking? Are
your responses tinged with cognitive bias?
· Do you think there is a qualitative difference between
believing some races are inferior and the belief that marriage
should only be between one man and one woman?
· Do you think there is a qualitative difference between not
believing in human contribution to climate change and not
believing in the Holocaust?