This chapter adopts one simple yet crucial principle of rationality – the contextually adequate contrast of reasons – as an important path for the normative evaluation of polylogue. This principle is consistent with the basic polylogical idea that arguing for a position is always arguing against other incompatible positions. The key normative obligation of any arguer is thus that of defending the contrastive bestness of the position advanced. The basic principle of contrastive reason can be contextually determined relative to the constraints and affordances of place for argumentation. As such, the principle is translatable into a normative condition from which to evaluate argumentation in complex communication: make a relevant expansion of a disagreement space. It is then demonstrated how this approach explains the false dilemma as a polylogical fallacy that neither logical nor dialectical approaches can adequately handle. The usefulness of this approach for evaluating the role of place in the management of disagreement in polylogue is also illustrated. Finally, the chapter discusses the intriguing and often paradoxical relations between individual and collective rationality that polylogue framework foregrounds, in contrast to most extant normative approaches in argumentation theory.

Developing and practicing ethics requires an active and mindful approach that continues from graduate school throughout our careers. Because life in the real world tends to be messy with gray areas, contradictions, surprises, and rough edges, we must stay alert, distrust quick answers, and keep questioning. Knowing the ethics codes, laws, and professional guidelines is important; however, it is not enough. It is important not to let ethics, laws, and standards replace critical thinking, professional judgment, and personal responsibility. Our ability to think creatively and respond ethically to even the most daunting challenges seem mirrored by our shared human abilities to rationalize even the most unethical approaches. This chapter discusses the importance of learning to recognize and avoid the classic ethical fallacies. Attention is paid to the importance of knowing our weaknesses, ethical blind spots, biases, and ways to address these fallibilities in our careers.

We define critical thinking in several different ways that converge on the same basic idea. It is a combination of skills, attitude, and knowledge. To think critically about any topic, one needs a deep knowledge of the topic and the propensity to apply the appropriate thinking skills. These skills can be taught (and learned) in ways that transfer to different topics, but it is not easy or automatic. Instructors need to teach for transfer deliberately. Personality traits such as a concern for truth, being analytic, and being open to new ideas are some of the traits of critical thinkers. Creativity has been defined as creating something that is unusual and useful. It is a special case of critical thinking. The rules for scientific reasoning, avoiding bias, resisting persuasion, and so on are universal, thus we conclude that although culture is always important, the skills for critical thinking are the same everywhere.