Need assignment help?
Need assignment help? For this discussion, you will address the following prompts. Keep in mind that the article or video you’ve chosen should not be about the topic “critical thinking,” but should be about someone making a statement, claim, or argument. One source should demonstrate good critical thinking skills and the other source should demonstrate the lack or absence of critical thinking skills. Personal examples should not be used. • Explain at least five elements of critical thinking that you found in the reading material. • Search the Internet, media, or the Ashford University Library, and find an example in which good critical thinking skills are being demonstrated by the author or speaker. Summarize the content and explain why you think it demonstrates good critical thinking skills. • Search the Internet, media, or the Ashford University Library and find an example in which the author or speaker lacks good critical thinking skills. Summarize the content and explain why you think it demonstrates the absence of good, critical thinking skills.
PEER 1 RESPONSE: David D. The following are five elements of critical thinking:
1. Using knowledge and intelligence effectively to arrive at the most reasonable position possible.
2. To honestly and accurately evaluate reason for a belief or action.
3. Approaching reasoning from a logical, unemotional perspective.
4. Using experience and intuition to better interpret a response without being swayed with emotion or bias.
5. Seek to understand the nature of knowledge and the ethics of a decision or action (Plencner, 2014).
Need assignment help? Often, those seeking to define critical thinking think of it as a universal concept, free from knowledge about the topic in question. This is not true and is the reason knowledge and intelligence occupy top element in the above list. According to Bailin, Case, Coombs, and Daniels in their article about the misconceptions of critical thinking, “Becoming proficient at critical thinking itself involves, among other things, the acquisition of certain sorts of knowledge. For example, the knowledge of certain critical concepts which enable one to make distinctions is central to critical thinking (1999, pg. 272).” A critical examination of anchoring in Puget sound requires a knowledge of the risks associated with anchoring, the mechanics of such, and the proximity of alternatives like mooring to a buoy or a pier and which is most advantageous for the current conditions. Need assignment help?Critically thinking about this situation is not free of the knowledge inherent to the process.
I chose one situation to identify both effective and ineffective critical thinking. It is a sensitive subject due to its ethical complexity.
On September 22, 2013, a U.S. Navy Seahawk MH-60 helicopter was washed overboard from USS WILLIAM P. LAWRENCE (DDG 110) (WPL). The ship was proceeding in rough seas at over 30 knots toward a mission to relieve another DDG of escort duties of a
high value asset. The investigation uncovered an implied sense of alarm and hurry that may have influenced a bad decision. I’ve attached the investigation.
It is my opinion that the Commanding Officer (CO) of WPL critically and adequately assessed the risks prior to the incident based on the list above. It was later revealed that the aviation community did not release information about helicopter mechanics and the effect of the sea on them to the surface warfare community and this information may have changed the face of this tragedy. Here is the critical breakdown in comparison to the five elements stated above:
6. Using knowledge and intelligence to affect a good decision. CDR Vavasseur was an experienced ship handler and sound tactician. I know, I served under her. While it is very risky to recover a helicopter in rough seas as 30 knots, it is possible, especially if the helicopter is not at risk of excessive damage from water splashing onto the flight deck, which is what was formerly thought.
7. Based on the follow-on mission and assessed risks, there was a moderate reason to recover the helicopter at the time. I do think the implied hurry of getting to the next mission influenced a possible wrong decision and is the reason why RADM Harris chose to put the blame on the CO.
8. I have stood Officer of the Deck and recovered helicopters on a DDG and understand the logic behind it. For many evolutions at sea, there are checklists and the checklists provide a logical approach to minimizing risk and executing operations at sea. Again, there may have been an implied sense of hurry that influenced the situation, but risk exists in many evolutions at sea.
9. When I first heard of the situation, my intuition was that it was a bad idea. After reading the investigation, I could logically understand the decisions that were made. When there is a mission involving high value ships and personnel, weighing risk becomes necessary. Conversely, there is a certain level of autonomy allowed and reducing speed and lessening risk are possible at multiple levels.
10. Understanding the basis of reasoning and ethics. As I mentioned, the later knowledge about helicopter performance and the effect of sea water on rotor blades was not known at the time, so an adequate assessment was not entirely possible. Knowing these characteristics may have elevated the risk so much that the Captain would have chosen to not land the helicopter at 30 knots.
I assess CDR Vavasseur’s critical thinking as adequate despite the implied sense of hurry that was felt that day.
The reason I think critical thinking was not effectively used is based on the final decision of the RADM Harris. I think he was under pressure from the aviation community to have someone held responsible. Considering the new, yet formerly unknown information about the effect of sea water on rotating helicopter rotor blades, the Captain followed all regulation, procedures, checklists, and risk assessment and mitigation. Unfortunately, in our military, the CO bears the burden of any mishap, whether to blame or not.
I read the testimony of the aviation community, the interviews of the deceased servicemembers’ families, and associated civilians and they had the mentality of an angry
mob. They wanted blood and it was guided by emotion, vengeance, and not at all about critical thinking. Still, one could say that the Admiral did exhibit critical thinking in that the career of one Officer may be a worthy sacrifice when faced with the wrath of an entire community of aviators. At this point, the situation becomes a very murky ethical dilemma. I’ve spoken to pilots who have said to me, “I understand the CO was not at fault, but somebody has to burn for this. It is just the way it is.”