CRITICAL THINKING

The Critical Thinking course plays a foundational, cross-disciplinary role: it provides the logical and argumentative tools on which all university study rests, and it shows their social and political importance. A free society depends on citizens able to examine what they are told: all power rests on opinion, opinion can be manipulated, conformity can stifle dissent. The course starts from eight questions (what do I really know, how far should I believe, what deceives us, who persuades us, who has the right to command, how do we deliberate, how do we decide under uncertainty, who answers for our thinking) and asks two great classics about each how they thought critically and what we can still use of it.

By the end of the course, students will be able to:
• explain why critical thinking is a condition of a free society and of a public opinion able to check power, comparing the answers of the philosophers in the programme;
• analyse an argument, identifying its thesis, premises and structure, recognise its fallacies and biases, and assess its strength;
• distinguish validity from soundness and assess the strength of non-deductive arguments, including with probability and statistics;
• evaluate the reliability of sources and the interests of those who speak, and proportion their belief to the evidence;
• discuss and respond to others in keeping with the rules of rational discussion, recognising unfair moves and misleading analogies;
• construct and defend a personal thesis on a public question in writing, stating what could refute it.

o specific prerequisites are required: the course is open to all Foundation Year students.

1 What do I really know? Rules of rational discussion, deductive arguments: Socrates (the elenchus and its
price), Descartes (methodical doubt).

2 How far should I believe what I am told? Non-deductive arguments, reliability of sources: Hume
(opinion, induction, testimony), Voltaire (the Calas case).

3 What deceives us, alone and together? Rationality and cognitive biases: Bacon (the idola, or idols),
Tocqueville (the tyranny of the majority).

4 Who persuades us, and who benefits? Rhetoric, propaganda, conflicts of interest, analogies: Plato
(persuading and demonstrating), Marx (ideology).

5 Who has the right to command? Reconstructing arguments, conditionals and counterfactuals: Hobbes
(the state of nature), Rousseau (force does not make right).

6 How do we deliberate together? Rules of discussion, replying, fallacies: Cicero (arguing both sides),
Schopenhauer (unfair moves).

7 How do we decide when the outcome is uncertain? Probability, statistics and probabilistic biases:
Pascal (the calculus of risk), Machiavelli (the effectual truth).

8 Who answers for our thinking? Autonomy and responsibility: Kant (thinking for oneself, in public),
Nietzsche (the genealogical question).

Selected passages, indicated in class; available in any edition, by standard numbering.

• Plato, Apology of Socrates; Crito; Euthyphro; Gorgias 452e–466a; Phaedo 89d–91c; Phaedrus 274b–277a; Republic VI,
487e–489d.
• R. Descartes, Discourse on Method I–III; Meditations on First Philosophy I.
• D. Hume, An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, sect. IV–V and X; Dialogues concerning Natural Religion,
parts II–V; Of the First Principles of Government.
• Voltaire, Treatise on Tolerance (1763), chaps. I–II.
• F. Bacon, Novum Organum (1620), I, 38–52; II, 11–13.
• A. de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, I, II, 7; II, I, 2.
• K. Marx, The German Ideology, I, A; Letter to Ruge (1843); Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political
Economy (1859).
• T. Hobbes, Leviathan I, 4–5; XIII; XVII–XVIII; XXIX.
• J.-J. Rousseau, The Social Contract I, 3; II, 3; Discourse on Inequality, second part.
• Cicero, De inventione I, 1–5; De oratore III, 56–61; Tusculan Disputations II, 9.
• A. Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right (Eristic Dialectic), Introduction and selected stratagems.
• B. Pascal, letters to Fermat (1654); Pensées (“Infini–rien”; justice and force).
• N. Machiavelli, The Prince XV, XVIII, XXV; Discourses I, 58.
• I. Kant, An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment? (1784); Critique of the Power of Judgment §40; Perpetual
Peace, Appendix II.
• F. Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality, III, 12; Beyond Good and Evil, §§1–5; The Gay Science §2.

Suggested textbooks (not required): Bowell,Tracy, Cowan, Robert, Kemp, Gary: Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide, Routledge, 2019.
Canale, Ciuni, Frigerio, Tute: Critical thinking: an introduzione, Bocconi University Press, 2022.

Assessment methods
Assessment is based on two written assignments done at home, with one week from the release of the brief, on a free topic within fixed criteria:

• First assignment (November), 30% of the grade: a critical analysis of a public text chosen by the student from the last twelve months (an article, a speech, an advertisement, a law, a statistic, the answer of a digital assistant), of 1,500–2,000 words. The student states what the text claims, reconstructs its argument, applies at least three tools from lessons 1–8 explaining why those, gives a reasoned verdict on how far to believe it and says what would change it;

• Second assignment (end of course), 70% of the grade: an argumentative essay on a public question chosen by the student, of 2,000–2,500 words. The student defends a thesis, sets out the strongest objection in its best form and answers it, names two classics of the programme as allies and one as an opponent and criticises him, uses tools from at least two of the eight questions (one of them among the first four) and says what could refute the thesis.

The form is free (essay, dialogue, open letter, editorial). Each assignment comes with a one-page methods note: sources used, who funds them, what the student checked personally, which tools, including digital ones, were used. The topic may be submitted to the lecturer a week earlier, only to check its feasibility. Criteria, the same
for both: clarity, quality of reasoning, use and critique of the tools, treatment of the objection, honesty about limits, personal checking of sources, independence of judgement; agreeing with the lecturer or with a philosopher does not count. Each assignment is graded out of thirty; the final grade is the weighted average
(30% and 70%).

written

The instructor is responsible for ensuring the authenticity and originality of all examinations and coursework. In cases of suspected academic misconduct, an additional on-site assessment may be required during the exams, which may differ from the standard format.

Grades are awarded on a scale of thirty, from a minimum of 0/30 to a maximum of 30/30 with honors.
With regard to the grading criteria (the way in which marks will be assigned):
A. Scores in the range 18–22 will be awarded in the case of:
- sufficient knowledge and applied understanding of the course material;
- limited ability to gather and/or interpret texts and concepts, formulating independent judgments;
- sufficient communication skills, particularly with respect to the use of the specific language of philosophy.
B. Scores in the range 23–26 will be awarded in the case of:
- fair knowledge and applied understanding of the course material;
- fair ability to gather and/or interpret texts and concepts, formulating independent judgments;
- fair communication skills, particularly with respect to the use of the specific language of philosophy.
C. Scores in the range 27–30 will be awarded in the case of:
- good to excellent knowledge and applied understanding of the course material;
- good to excellent ability to gather and/or interpret texts and concepts, formulating independent judgments;
- fully appropriate communication skills, particularly with respect to the use of the specific language of philosophy.
D. Honors (lode) will be awarded in the case of excellent knowledge and applied understanding of the course material, together with outstanding judgment and communication skills.

Lectures, use of multimedia materials, discussion groups, symposium, round table, workshops.