Explore UCD

UCD Home >

PHIL10160

Academic Year 2026/2027

Critical Thinking (PHIL10160)

Subject:
Philosophy
College:
Social Sciences & Law
School:
Philosophy
Level:
1 (Introductory)
Credits:
5
Module Coordinator:
Assoc Professor Daniel Esmonde Deasy
Trimester:
Autumn
Mode of Delivery:
On Campus
Internship Module:
No
How will I be graded?
Letter grades

Curricular information is subject to change.

NOTE: AI was not used in any way in the composition of this module outline.

In his 2005 book *On Bullshit*, the philosopher Harry Frankfurt (1929-2023) wrote that:

"One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes their share. But we tend to take the situation for granted.”

Frankfurt defines 'bullshit' as content that is presented to us without any regard for the truth, but for some other reason: for example, to persuade us of something or just to get our attention. Given that definition, Frankfurt's comment applies even more to our world today much more than it did in 2005. In fact, with the advent of generative AI and LLMs, we live in an era in which the total quantity of bullshit in our cognitive environment is constantly increasing. So, it's more important than ever to be able to distinguish the true from the false, the rational from the irrational, and the logical from the illogical. And that requires the ability to reason well.

Even as generative AI systems like ChatGPT and Claude grow increasingly capable of reasoning, the ability to think independently remains essential to human dignity, freedom, and moral responsibility. Intellectual autonomy—the ability to think for oneself—is what allows us to question authority, challenge assumptions and norms, and make sense of our lives beyond what is suggested or computed for us. Without the ability to reason for ourselves, we risk becoming passive recipients of content rather than active participants in shaping our world. Generative AI can support our thinking but it can't replace our uniquely human capacity to reflect, doubt, and choose in ways that are bound up with conscience, creativity, and our own lived experiences.

But reasoning, and especially reasoning well, is not easy. The aim of this course is to help you to learn to reason better, and therefore to make better decisions, by learning three main things:

1. Why our natural psychological biases make it hard for us to reason well, and what we can do to mitigate those biases;

2. What reasoning well actually consists of; in other words, what it means to be sensitive to the evidential and logical relations between different claims; and

3. How to extract and analyse arguments from what people or AIs write or say, in order to assess whether we should accept their conclusions and recommendations.

To be a little more specific, in the module we'll learn about cognitive biases and how to mitigate them; what an argument is; what makes an argument (logically) good or bad; what makes a claim evidence for another claim; how we might fail in our search for evidence; how to extract an argument from a piece of text, in order to assess whether we should accept it; what the difference is between having an opinion and knowing something, being scepticism and being sensitive to evidence, and between lying and bullshitting; what the typical forms of bad argument are; and finally, about logical paradoxes (such as that generated by the statement ‘This sentence is not true’), which seem to threaten our most basic assumptions about good reasoning.

The module is taught by me, Dr. Daniel Esmonde Deasy (Associate Professor, UCD School of Philosophy), and is delivered in the form of two 50-minute face-to-face lectures per week of term along with seven 50-minute face-to-face tutorials with a graduate tutor from the School of Philosophy. Lectures consist primarily in the presentation of material by the lecturer, and tutorials involve active discussion of the material and non-graded exercises. The module is not difficult, but it should reward those who engage with it with valuable skills they can apply throughout their lives.

I welcome students of all kinds to join this module: not just Philosophy students, but also students from any other discipline in the university; students at any stage of their UG degree; exchange, Erasmus, and study abroad students; students for whom English is not a first language; mature students; Open Learning students; and students who have come to UCD through other non-traditional routes. Critical thinking is for *everyone*, and the more diverse the class, the better.

If you'd like to see last year's syllabus, just email me at daniel.deasy@ucd.ie.

About this Module

Learning Outcomes:

The main learning outcomes for this module are:

1. Being able to understand and apply key concepts in critical thinking such as 'reason'; 'cognitive bias'; 'argument'; 'inference'; 'premise'; 'conclusion'; 'evidence'; 'inferential strength'; 'valid argument'; 'sound argument'; 'fallacy'; and 'paradox'.
2. Being able to distinguish different types of cognitive biases and apply strategies to mitigate them.
3. Being able to understand what makes an argument inferentially strong (i.e. logically good) or inferentially weak (logically bad).
4. Being able to produce your own examples of inferentially strong and inferentially weak arguments.
5. Being able to extract, analyse, and assess short arguments presented in text or in speech.
6. Being able to distinguish different kinds of fallacies (i.e. common forms of bad argument).
7. Being able to distinguish belief, knowledge, lies, bullshit, and rhetoric.

Indicative Module Content:

The key topics in this course are:

1. Reasoning (good and bad).
2. Cognitive Biases (common patterns of thought that lead to bad reasoning).
3. Fallacies (commonly accepted patterns of bad reasoning).
4. Arguments (what they are; how they are structured).
5. Evidence (what it is; how it works; what makes it strong or weak).
6. Logical validity (a quality of arguments whose conclusions have to be true if their premises are true).
7. Inductive strength (a quality of arguments whose conclusions are likely to be true given the truth of their premises).
8. Rhetoric (the art of persuasion).
9. Lies and Bullshit.
10. Paradoxes (arguments that seem to lead to contradictions).

The United Nations identified seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as core to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and UCD contributes in general to SDG 4 Quality Education. Further SDGs explored within this module if relevant are listed below. A scale of 1 - 5 indicates the extent to which the SDG is covered.


 

Student Effort Hours:
Student Effort Type Hours
Lectures

24
Tutorial

7
Autonomous Student Learning

94
Total

125

Approaches to Teaching and Learning:
1. TEACHING

Teaching is centred around lectures and tutorials, both of which are essential for learning in this module.

Lectures are scheduled twice a week during term, and last for around 50 minutes. In the lectures, I present the week's learning using a clear slideshow presentation which provides key definitions and examples. In advance of each lecture, I share the slides along with lecture notes which go into more detail on the week's topic. I am happy to take some questions during lectures. All of the lectures are recorded live on zoom and are made available as lecture videos at the end of the week.

Tutorials are small-group seminars led by a graduate Philosophy student. The purpose of tutorials is two-fold: first, to give you a chance to ask questions and discuss the material presented in the lectures and readings in a smaller setting; and second, to develop some of the reasoning skills we are learning about in the lectures by completing non-graded exercises solo or in small groups. Tutorials last for around 50 minutes, and take place once a week for seven weeks during term. In the tutorials, the tutor will first present some of the key concepts and examples from the week's material and then provide you with an opportunity to ask questions about it. Then, they'll divide the class into smaller groups and ask them to collaborate on informal (i.e., non-graded) exercises related to the content of the module. For example, groups might be asked to identify the conclusions in short passages containing arguments, or identify which statements provide reasons for another statement. The tutor will provide feedback in the tutorial on each group's work as the tutorial progresses. Since tutorials provide an opportunity to actually practice your skills in reasoning and argument analysis, they are also an essential part of the learning for this module.

2. LEARNING

Learning for this module is centred around the following:

a. Content presented in the lectures;
b. Detailed lecture notes;
c. Other required readings shared by the lecturer on the course page;
d. Discussion and debate in the tutorials;
e. Non-graded tutorial exercises;
f. Non-graded online MCQs;
g. Online and in-person feedback on the exercises.

In terms of learning, you will be expected to (i) read the assigned readings in advance of the lectures (shared on the course page as PDFs); (ii) attend the lectures; (iii) attend and actively participate in the tutorials; and (iv) complete the non-graded online MCQs.

In addition to the obvious things like delivering lectures, organising tutorials, and populating the course-page with readings, notes and slides, I will support your learning by:

a. Setting a number of non-graded online MCQs covering the topics of the module;
b. Making feedback videos for the online MCQs at the end of each quiz week, explaining why the answers were what they were;
c. Providing further feedback and guidance on the online MCQs in lectures and via emails;
c. Sharing a practice exam with a separate answer sheet, so you can get further practice doing exam-style questions;
d. Answering questions via email, in person after lectures, on the course page, and in office hours.

Requirements, Exclusions and Recommendations

Not applicable to this module.


Module Requisites and Incompatibles
Not applicable to this module.
 

Assessment Strategy
Description Timing Component Scale Must Pass Component % of Final Grade In Module Component Repeat Offered
Exam (In-person): A 2-hour in-person MCQ exam in the UCD Exam Period. End of trimester
Duration:
2 hr(s)
 Other No
80
 No
Participation in Learning Activities: Participation in tutorials and completion of tutorial exercises. Week 3, Week 4, Week 5, Week 6, Week 7, Week 9, Week 10 Graded No
20
 No

Carry forward of passed components
Yes
 

Resit In Terminal Exam
Spring No
Please see Student Jargon Buster for more information about remediation types and timing. 

Feedback Strategy/Strategies

• Feedback individually to students, on an activity or draft prior to summative assessment
• Group/class feedback, post-assessment
• Online automated feedback
• Self-assessment activities

How will my Feedback be Delivered?

1. The online MCQs will generate automated feedback at the end of the 24-hour assessment period. 2. There will be weekly group feedback videos on the online MCQs. 3. You will receive individual and group feedback in tutorials on informal assignments and exercises. 4. There will be a set of practice MCQs with an answer sheet that you can use to test yourself and check your results.

There is no set text for this module. But two books I highly recommend are:

1. Galef, J. (2021). The Scout Mindset: See Things Clearly and Make Smart Decisions. Portfolio Penguin.

2. Lyons, J. & B. Ward (2024). The New Critical Thinking. Routledge.

If you'd like to see last year's syllabus, please just email me at daniel.deasy@ucd.ie.
Print this page
Fill in the following details:
Enter the body of your query here.

From time to time UCD would like to send you further information that we feel, based on your enquiry, would be of interest to you.