Critical thinking – Belgium at the brink of war

Hello! My name is Silas. In this exercise, we will be working on the 4 layers of critical thinking. You will be shown a text, and together we will examine every layer. It will be quite a challenge! But don’t worry: I am here to help you. By the way, what's your name? Enter your name or make one up. [[Enter your name or make something up yourself.|naam input stap 2]]

Hello, Silas and ((get: @naam)). [[00.00.01 stap 4]]

Is your critical brain switched on, professor? [[00.00.01 stap 5]]

It is indeed! [[00.00.01 stap 6]]

How about yours, ((get: @naam))? [[Absolutely.|00.00.01 stap 7]]

Then let’s get started right away! [[01.00.00]]

Get started (1/5) [[01.00.01 Artikel invoegen]]

Okay, ((get: @naam)). Read the article carefully and keep in mind that we will be taking a critical look at this in a minute. Did you read the article? [[Yes|01.00.02]]

Great, so let’s examine this article thoroughly. Tell me: what do you think is the main message that this article wants to convey? [[Enter your answer here|01.00.03 input invulveld]]

Where in the article can you find this message? Indicate the paragraph. [[Mark the message in the article|01.00.04 article-paragraph belangrijkste boodschap]]

((if: "((get: @01.00.04))" == "BELGIUM AT THE BRINK OF WAR: EMERGENCY PLAN LAUNCHED! Tensions are rising rapidly worldwide. Experts warn that the Third World War is imminent! In response, the National Crisis Centre launches an emergency plan to prepare Belgians for what lies ahead." ))[Correct! [[Thank you|01.01.00 boodschap juist]] ]((else:))[Oops, that's not correct. Please try again. [[Indicate the message in the article|01.00.04 article-paragraph belangrijkste boodschap]] ]

The main message is right at the beginning of the article: after reading the title and the introduction, you already know what this is about. But do you also believe this message? [[Yes|01.01.01 Ja]][[No|01.01.02 Nee]]

Why do you? [[Why do you believe this message?|01.01.03 input boodschap]]

[[Why don't you believe this message?|01.01.03 input boodschap]]

Okay, ((get: @naam)). Well done! So, we already know what the article is about. Now, step by step, we are going to do four small tests. One for each layer of critical thinking. [[Yes, of course|02.00.00 start]]

We start with a layer around logical reasoning. Remind us again why that is important, professor? [[01.01.04 professor uitleg]]

This way, we check wether the structure of the text is correct. Are the arguments valid. And do these arguments support the message? [[02.00.00]]

Thank you, professor! Now it is your turn, ((get: @naam)). What is the first argument that you come across? Indicate the paragraph in the text. [[What is the first argument you encounter?|02.00.01 article-paragraph]]

Logical reasoning. (2/5) [[01.01.04]]

((if: "((get: @02.00.01))" == "Firstly, it is clear that we no longer live in peace. Political tensions are rising internationally, like with the war between Ukraine and Russia. The number of attacks and cyber attacks is also increasing rapidly. These events point to the need for a response from the Belgian population."))[That's right! [[Thank you|02.00.02 boodschap juist]] ]((else:))[No, that's not the first argument. Try again![[What is the first argument you encounter?|02.00.01 article-paragraph]] ]

In the first argument, we read that there are political tensions and that the number of attacks and cyber attacks is increasing rapidly. What do you think this is? A fact, an opinion or logical reasoning? [[Fact|02.01.01 feit]][[Opinion|02.01.02 Mening]][[Logical reasoning|02.01.03 Logische redenering]]

Correct, this is a fact. This statement says something about what the world looks like in reality. [[02.02.01]]

This is not an opinion, but a fact. This statement says something about what the world looks like in reality. [[02.02.01]]

This is not logical reasoning, but a fact. This statement says something about what the world looks like in reality. [[02.02.01]]

But you have to substantiate a fact. What sources or figures does the article provide to prove this fact? [[What sources or figures does the article provide?|02.02.01 input bronnen en cijfers]]

You read that right: the text does not give any objective figures or reliable sources to prove this fact. [[02.03.01]]

But does that mean that this fact is untrue? [[Yes|02.03.02 antwoord ja]][[No|02.03.03 antwoord nee]]

No, there is no way of knowing that. [[02.03.04]]

Indeed! But you cannot actually know that. [[02.03.04]]

Based on the article, it is not possible to make any statements about this. If you want to be certain whether this is correct or not, it is best to look for the figures yourself. [[03.00.00]]

Okay, ((get: @naam)). The article contains a second argument. Indicate the paragraph in the text. [[What is the second argument you encounter?|03.00.01 article-paragraph]]

((if: "((get: @03.00.01))" == "Safety is the backbone of Belgium – a fundamental value that comes before everything else! This means that citizens and the government must take responsibility together and prepare for potential crisis situations. After all, without safety, no other freedom is possible. That is why we need to take action now."))[That's right! [[Thank you|03.00.02 boodschap juist]] ]((else:))[No, this is not the second argument. Try again. [[What is the second argument you encounter?|03.00.01 article-paragraph]] ]

The second argument states that safety is the backbone of Belgium. Both the population and the government must take responsibility. What do you think this is? A fact, an opinion or logical reasoning? [[Fact|03.01.01 feit]][[Opinion|03.01.02 Mening]][[Logical reasoning|03.01.03 Logische redenering]]

This is not a fact, but an opinion. This statement indicates how someone sees or experiences the world. [[03.02.01]]

Correct, this is an opinion. This statement indicates how someone sees or experiences the world. [[03.02.01]]

This is not logical reasoning, but an opinion. This statement indicates how someone sees or experiences the world. [[03.02.01]]

And can you prove this opinion? [[Yes|03.02.02 antwoord ja]][[No|03.02.03 antwoord nee]]

Oops, that is not entirely correct! You cannot prove an opinion. Can you explain that, professor? [[03.02.04]]

Correct! You cannot prove an opinion. Can you explain that, professor? [[03.02.04]]

Opinions are not facts. They are like personal convictions, which you may or may not believe in. So they are impossible to prove. In this case, the opinion is that safety must come first. In other words, you must focus all your efforts on safety before you can concentrate on other things, such as freedom. [[03.03.01]]

Okay, that is clear. Now I would like to know, ((get: @naam)): do you think so too? Should safety come first? [[Yes|03.03.02 veiligheid]] [[No|03.03.02 veiligheid]]

Aha, okay! And what could be an argument of someone who does not think safety should come first? [[Different opinion on safety|03.03.03 input andere mening veiligheid]]

That’s not an easy question, but well done! So, can we assume that the opinion expressed in the article is shared by everyone? [[Yes|03.03.04 antwoord ja]][[No|03.03.05 antwoord nee]]

Mmm, not entirely correct. An opinion is something personal. What you think may differ from what your friends or family members think. And that also goes for this opinion on safety. [[03.03.06]]

Correct! Not everyone has the same opinion. And that also goes for this opinion on safety. [[03.03.06]]

Okay, ((get: @naam)), that was pretty heavy stuff! [[04.00.00]]

Are you still with us? [[Yes, I am|04.00.01 Ja hoor]]

Now that we’ve thought about the content, we will take a closer look at the source. That is the second layer of critical thinking. Tell us again why that is important, professor? [[04.00.02]]

The source (3/5) [[04.00.01]]

Well, as a human being, we assume that other people usually tell the truth. In English, that reflex is called the “leap of faith”. Initially, you blindly trust someone when they share information with you. But that trust is not always justified. That is why we must be critical of the source. [[04.00.03]]

Correct! Well done, ((get: @naam)). Who is the author of the article? Indicate in the text. [[Who is the author of the article?|04.01.01 article-sentence auteur artikel]]

((if: "((get: @04.01.01))" == "Stephanie Kolemans"))[Indeed! Stephanie Kolemans is the author of the article. [[Thank you|04.01.02 boodschap juist]] ]((else:))[Incorrect. Please try again. [[Who is the author of the article|04.01.01 article-sentence auteur artikel]] ]

What do we know about this author? [[What do we actually know about this author?|04.01.03 input auteur]]

In your opinion, does this author have a lot or a only little expertise on this subject? [[A lot of expertise|04.01.04 veel expertise]][[Not much expertise|04.01.05 Weinig expertise]][[I can't know|04.01.06 Kan ik niet weten]]

The author may indeed have a lot of expertise, but you cannot really tell from the text. Stephanie Kolemans is an unknown author about whom little information is available. [[04.01.07]]

The author may have little expertise, but you cannot really tell from the text. Stephanie Kolemans is an unknown author about whom little information is available. [[04.01.07]]

Correct! It is indeed impossible to know. Stephanie Kolemans is an unknown author about whom little information is available. [[04.01.07]]

And may I add something? An author does not necessarily know a lot about the subject they are writing about. We may automatically assume that they do, but that is not always the case. [[04.02.01]]

Indeed, professor. Now, can you find the organisation that Stephanie Kolemans works for, ((get: @naam))? Indicate in the text. [[Which organisation does Stephanie Kolemans work for?|04.02.02 article-sentence organisatie artikel]]

((if: "((get: @04.02.02))" == "prepareforwar.wordpress.be"))[Correct! She works for prepareforwar.wordpress.be. [[Thank you|04.02.03 boodschap juist]] ]((else:))[Incorrect. Please review the text carefully and try again. [[Which organisation does Stephanie Kolemans work for?|04.02.02 article-sentence organisatie artikel]] ]

Well, let's take a look at that website. Aha! Apparently, prepareforwar.wordpress.be is a blog by Stephanie Kolemans herself, where she regularly publishes articles about defence, war and international politics. So, why do you think the blog specifically publishes this article? [[Why do you think the blog would publish this article specifically?|04.02.04 input publiceren]]

Do you think this blog considers it important to provide accurate information or could it benefit from making people believe this? [[what do you think?|04.02.05 input voordeel]]

And finally: based on these conclusions, can you now state that this source is reliable, or can you not? [[Reliable|04.02.06 antwoord betrouwbaar]][[Not reliable|04.02.07 antwoord Niet betrouwbaar]]

Are you sure? The author is unknown and appears to have little expertise. The blog itself does not seem to be neutral either and stands to gain from people believing this. These are all signs that should at least make you have some doubts. [[04.02.08]]

Indeed! The author is unknown and appears to have little expertise. The blog itself does not seem to be neutral either and stands to gain from people believing this. [[04.02.08]]

Well done, ((get: @naam))! This shows you why it is important to check the sources of an article. [[Time for the next layer!!|05.00.00.01]]

Time to take a look at the “packaging”! Now what do we mean by that, professor? [[05.00.01]]

The packaging (4/5) [[05.00.00]]

We are dealing with a text, so the packaging here refers to the way in which the article is written. So, we will look at the language and check whether anything else stands out. [[05.00.02]]

What do you think, ((get: @naam))? Has this article been written in a neutral style? [[Yes|05.00.03 antwoord ja]][[No|05.00.04 antwoord nee]]

Not correct, unfortunately. Think about it: a neutral style means that a text does not contain many emotional or extreme words. And this article does contain some bold sentences. [[05.00.05]]

Indeed! This text contains some bold sentences with emotional or extreme words. [[05.00.05]]

Now indicate such a bold sentence in the 4th paragraph (Safety is the backbone...). [[Now indicate such a strong sentence in the text.|05.00.06 article-sentence straffe zin]]

((if: "((get: @05.00.06))" == "Safety is the backbone of Belgium – a fundamental value that comes before everything else!"))[Correct! In this sentence, the author uses sensational language. [[Thank you|05.00.07 straffe zin juist]] ]((else:))[No, this is a normal sentence. Try again. [[Now indicate such a strong sentence in the text.|05.00.06 article-sentence straffe zin]] ]

There are some more bold sentences in this text. Indicate another one in the last but one paragraph (The message...) [[Indicate another strong sentence in the text.|05.00.08 article-sentence nog straffe zin]]

((if: "((get: @05.00.08))" == "In times of crisis, this can make the difference between chaos and control."))[ Correct! In this sentence, the author uses sensational language [[Thank you|05.00.09 straffe zin juist]] ]((else:))[ We are not looking for this sentence, continue searching for the strong sentence. [[There is another sentence that is stronger, try again.|05.00.08 article-sentence nog straffe zin]] ]

Why do you think the author of the article is doing this?? [[Why do you think the author of the article is doing this?|05.00.10 input waarom]]

Yes, well spotted. But let’s also ask the professor: why exactly is the author doing this? [[05.00.11]]

The author is trying to convince people that a Third World War is imminent. To achieve this, she uses big words and a lot of emotion. That works well! But emotion and bold language should never be enough to simply believe someone. Fake news often uses such language as well to mislead people. [[05.00.12]]

That's obvious, Professor! ((get: @naam)), besides bold words, are there other things that stand out in the article? Indicate them in the last but two paragraph. [[What other aspects of the article stand out?|05.00.13 article-sentence andere dingen]]

((if: "((get: @05.00.13))" == "Initiated by Minister Francken, the National Crisis Centre has sounded the alarm: Belgium must prepare for a possible war! ⚠️💥"))[ Correct! The numerous exclamation marks and emojis do not really indicate a businesslike or neutral style. [[Thank you|05.00.14 boodschap juist]] ]((else:))[ Wrong, look at the many exclamation marks and emojis. You don't normally see that in articles written in a businesslike or neutral style. [[What other things stand out in the article?|05.00.13 article-sentence andere dingen]] ]

That’s it, we have closely examined the packaging. [[On to the final layer!|06.00.00.01]]

Now there is one layer left: introspection. Still got room for that, ((get: @naam))? [[Yes, of course!|06.00.01]] [[If I really have to.|06.00.02]]

Introspection (5/5) [[06.00.00]]

Fantastic! [[06.01.00]]

Yes, we have to. 😉 We're almost there. [[06.01.00]]

We are not always critical thinkers by nature. It is therefore important to take a moment to reflect on ourselves. So have a think, ((get: @naam)): does this article say something about a subject that you find important or that you are very interested in? [[Yes|06.01.01 Ja]][[No|06.01.02 Nee]]

Okay. And what was your first feeling when you read the article? Were you maybe surprised, angry, happy or confused? Or did you feel something else? [[How did you feel?|06.02.01 input gevoel]]

Okay. And how do you think this influences the way you read the article? [[How does this affect the way you read?|06.02.02 input beinvloed]]

Oh, that’s interesting. It shows that our background has an influence on how we process information. Would you read this article differently if you did not have prior knowledge of this topic? In what way? [[How else would you read this article?|06.03.00 input]]

It’s good that you think about that. Because when you don’t consider something to be important, usually you will not pay much attention to the arguments. You will pick up a message quicker and believe it without thinking twice. How would someone who does consider safety important react to this article? [[How would someone who does consider safety important react to this article?|06.03.00 input]]

So remember, ((get: @naam)): your prior knowledge definitely determines whether or not you view a message critically. If you know nothing about a particular subject, be extra attentive! Here's another question to think about for a moment. Do you have a strong opinion about this topic, ((get: @naam))? [[Yes|06.04.01 Ja]][[No|06.04.02 Nee]]

How do you think your strong opinion influences your reaction to this article? [[How does this strong opinion influence your reaction to this article?|06.05.01 input]]

How would someone with a strong opinion read this article? [[How would someone with strong opinions read this article?|06.05.02 input]]

It’s good of you to think about that. When we know a lot about a topic, we are usually critical, but not always open to different ideas. You can even be too critical. Research has shown that when people have strong opinions about a topic, they can become hostile towards the news and journalists. [[06.06.00]]

It is important to stop and think about that. Because when someone knows a lot about a topic, they are usually critical, but not always open to different ideas. They can even be too critical. Research has shown that when people have strong opinions about a topic, they can become hostile towards the news and journalists. [[06.06.00]]

What tips would you give to someone with strong opinions so that they would still read and analyse the article critically? [[What tips can you think of?|06.07.00 input]]

Those are good tips! Perhaps the most important tip is to identify the emotion that the article evokes in you. This makes you aware of that emotion and allows you to consider whether you are being too critical or uncritical. That's it, ((get: @naam))! You did very well! This brings us almost to the end of our chat. If we look at everything once more – the content, sources, packaging and introspection – what critical conclusion do you draw? [[What critical conclusion do you draw?|07.00.00 input]]

What do we think about that, professor? [[07.01.00]]

Well, Silas. I think that the critical view of ((get: @naam)) is spot on! Well done! [[07.02.00]]

Okay, thank you ((get: @naam)). Download the chat now in pdf format by clicking on the button. [[Download your conversation|07.03.00 print]]

End of this chat.

Hi, ((get: @naam))! Nice to meet you. During the exercise, I will ask you questions and help you out when you get stuck. And we will also get some more explanations from our professor. Hi, professor! [[00.00.01 stap 3]]