Information analysis

I’ve been asked about this before, and I don’t have a simple answer. In the past, I taught courses in critical reading at Kiryat Ono College. But that gave tools, not an algorithm. By the way, I don’t think academic studies give you these tools. Maybe a little, but in the end it all depends on you. What I tried to teach in Kiryat Ono is to take the article and summarize it for yourself (and refrain from forming your own position, and certainly not let it influence you). Then formulate it in the form of a logical argument (assumptions and conclusion). Then examine each assumption to see if you agree, and if not – why not. Then examine the inference from the assumptions to the conclusion. Ultimately, see whether you agree with the conclusion itself and whether it indeed follows from the assumptions, and whether the assumptions are reasonable. It is important to understand that these are three independent questions. I think that if you practice on different articles and try to apply this method to them, you will see that you improve a lot. I have seen it with my students there. One indication of improvement is if you discover that articles that arouse antibodies in you, after analysis you suddenly see that they actually make sense and agree, or at least partially agree. This means that you are working correctly (i.e. not from the gut).