Critical Paper

Submitted By Scottrd66
Words: 739
Pages: 3

Critical Paper
Rickey Scott
National University
LED 610 Analysis and Decision Making
Harvey B. McDonald
Aug 17, 2014

Critical Paper Throughout this paper the reader will delve into facts and arguments surrounding the doubting of truthfulness of a rightful authority and whether or not this action is a disrespectful course of action. According to Facione (2013), we have been tossing the authority term back and forth for many years when referring to trustworthy sources or information, such as people in positions of authority, or ads shown on television whether that is the local or national news or a 30 second commercial advertising a product. When most people think of the word authority, the first authoritative figures that enter their minds are parents, teachers, and law enforcement officials. When evaluating the credibility of sources and claims, the better practices to use are to incorporate self-evaluation, cognitive thinking, and healthy skepticism in overcoming any and all possible distractions from seeking the truth. Doubting the truthfulness of a rightful authority is not a sign of disrespect. Clinchy (1994), argues that a knower initiates his or her process by empathetically agreeing with separate or other perspectives, and then judging them. The process is characterized by withholding judgment; by believing the information first, then doubting, because believing and doubting, or accepting and judging, are understood to be mutually, exclusive processes. Doubting the truthfulness of a rightful authority, or displaying skepticism does not mean a person is being disrespectful (Clinchy, 1994). Take historic events in American history for example, such as the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s, and the Vietnam War protests of the 1970’s, during both of these events, citizens fought authority to use their own cognitive thinking abilities, and skepticisms while analyzing the what, why, and how in an attempt to challenge what they deemed as a rightful authority. Of course the government didn’t respond in a way that the people expected because they labeled the demonstrators as extremists, radicals and even went as far as calling them terrorists because they were attempting to use their own holistic ways of critical thinking. In evaluating the circumstances of this paper, the author illustrates historic facts while highlighting a time in history whereas a rightful authority was challenged and did not take this behavior as groups of people using their own better judgment and critical thinking abilities, but viewed them as non-critical thinkers attempting to stir up controversy and rile up the masses for their own self-serving agendas. To inject inference and make recommendations into this paper, when the Civil rights marchers initiated their marches in the 60’s, or when the students around the nation boycotted the war in Vietnam during the 70’s, the government chose to stamp out any opposition to their decisions, leaving both sides deeply affected by the outcomes, such as marchers being attacked while demonstrating their critical thinking abilities, or the four students killed in Ohio at Kent University because they challenged the nature…