A primer on critical thinking with personal commentary
0. Blind Spots
The most important and most difficult task in critical thinking is to think critically about our own thinking. Even if we have learned how to be critical of our thinking, the next obstacle is to be willing to be as skeptical about our own opinions as we are about the opinions of others. I taught courses focused on critical thinking for many years, and it was always gratifying when a student commented, “It seems to me this course is as much about critiquing our own arguments as someone else’s.” Indeed. I tried to encourage students to ask hard questions of themselves, not just the authors we were reading, or those who offered an opposing opinion. Critical thinking skills will do us no good if we are afraid to ask ourselves hard questions like, “What if my assumptions are invalid?” “What if my premise is wrong?” “What if I don’t have all the relevant facts?” “What if I’m mistaken, or just plain wrong about my conclusions?” Rhetoric is only useful up to a point. Perhaps that point has something to do with our humility in the face of difficult problems. H.L. Mencken wrote, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” A greater voice once said, “first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” We are unlikely to see the real problems with someone else’s reasoning if we are unable or unwilling to examine our own.
Each of us has a personal perspective. Our environment, our upbringing, our experiences, our education, our family and friends, and so on have a significant effect on the way we see the world, for better or worse. Sometimes our perceptions are simply mistaken. Here’s a trivial example. Until she attended elementary school, my daughter was convinced everyone played a musical instrument because everyone in her circle of family and friends did. Fortunately, it was easy to change her misperception. Sometimes it’s not so easy to challenge ideas like, “people who share our race or religion are trustworthy, while others are not.” This kind of perspective is not trivial. It often takes a lifetime to change an early impression brought on by bad experiences, learned prejudices, or outright ignorance. I grew up in two places. Through the first grade, I attended an integrated school in Michigan. Then, for most of my childhood I lived in a small, close-knit, pretty much all-white town in central Pennsylvania. I therefore must keep in mind my childhood circumstances were very different from say, an African-American child who grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood in New York City. Each of us has a unique personal perspective, shaped by years of interactions with family members, friends, acquaintances, and authority figures. If I had grown up elsewhere and my skin was a different color, I would have an entirely different worldview. Therefore, I should refrain from judging anyone until I’ve walked a few miles in their shoes, or at least until I’ve taken the time to listen to their story. We all see life through the lens of our experiences, as well as the experiences of those who are close to us. And sometimes it takes a lot of convincing to change our perceptions, or even our willingness to accept the perceptions of someone who has an entirely different background.
If we want to develop “critical thinking” skills, the first step is to acknowledge our blind spots – all the thought patterns, biases, prejudices, and opinions influenced by growing up with certain advantages (or disadvantages), or the inheritance of certain privileges (or the lack of these). At this point I feel compelled to say it’s possible to be biased in practically any direction. I admit I’m still somewhat biased against “frat boys,” those who seem to rely on wealth and connections rather than hard work and merit. This is perhaps an after-effect of growing up in a small town and being indoctrinated with the notion that a person should stand on their own two feet and take responsibility for their own actions. Now, this is a bias born of the example of my dad, who grew up during the Great Depression and witnessed how hard his father and older brother had to work to succeed. No club or fraternity provided any advantages or fallback plan for them or for my dad. I went so far with my “anti-frat” bias that when I was asked (at a rush party no less), what I thought of fraternity life, I replied, “I guess it’s alright if you want to have a bunch of ready-made friends.” (Guess who was not invited to any more fraternity parties.) The point is, my bias was not rational. It was assembled from bits and pieces of experience, a dose of resentment for those who appear to have life handed to them or seem to be immune from the consequences of their actions, plus a smidgeon of good old-fashioned self-righteousness. In fact, most fraternity members turn out to be valuable members of their communities. Many make positive contributions to society. And all those kegs and parties might have distracted me from the better aspects of fraternity life. Here’s another fact: I just don’t know. But I do know a person should have better information before committing to a prejudice and should be careful about dismissing something or someone without substantial concrete evidence. If I had admitted my bias in college, maybe I would have met some wonderful people. The loss is mine. Nevertheless, I must add, my lack of critical thinking about my own thinking was part of the problem.
It’s easy to take the attitude, “everything would be better if more people thought and acted as I would, if everyone were more like me.” “Why can’t a woman…be more like a man?” Henry Higgins sang. What a colossal failure of critical thinking! Socrates admonished his pupils, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” It’s easy to critique others, to be their armchair coach or analyst. Perhaps if we had as much information about what they are dealing with as we have about what we are dealing with…but, we do have a great deal of information about our own circumstances – our problems, successes, and failures. If we choose to think just a little bit harder about these, we might find our way of doing things isn’t the panacea we thought it was. We may find expecting others to do things our way is a trap built by sloppy thinking. The better way is to discover who we are, why we think and act the way we do, and as one pop psychologist has said, how all that is working out. The point is, we can’t solve the enormous problems confronting humanity if we don’t really know who we are as individuals. It’s important to question our assumptions, our biases and prejudices, our attitudes, and our conclusions, as well as make an honest attempt to understand how we became the people we are. Only then can we change the lenses of our experience and begin to see what others see. Only then can we begin to discover ways different perspectives can help us all see better solutions to the difficult problems we all must face.
At this point, I need to interject a few words about ideology, the belief system one has adopted, or in which one has been immersed. Whether a person is a conservative or a liberal, a laissez-faire capitalist or a democratic socialist, or identifies with any political, economic, or religious worldview, the pressure to mold their thinking to the norms of that system can be enormous. The effects of ideology can become even more acute if politics and religion are mixed. For example, it’s difficult to have a rational debate if either side claims to represent “the party of God” or claims to be “doing God’s work,” as if that should end the discussion. A person’s ideology can become an impediment to critical thinking if they tend to believe they are somehow supposed to maintain a certain stance on an issue, no matter what, or if they believe only their ideology can save the world from a perceived threat.
Ideology can encourage people to over-simplify complex issues, take extreme positions, and become callous to real problems of real people. Ideology can become a major blind spot in our thinking if we let it. It can also lead to a host of unfair and even cruel characterizations of well-intentioned people. In extreme cases, ideology not only arrests critical thinking ability, but also provides a rationale for people to bomb government buildings, gun down worshippers in churches, temples, or mosques, or fly airplanes into skyscrapers.
Humans are capable of reflection, introspection, and circumspection. We can think about the world and our place in it. We can work together to solve problems and build a better world. We can exercise humility and caution, making sure no one is cast aside or cast out. The starting point is in our own minds. We must understand a thing is not true just because we heard it was true, or thought it was true, or want it to be true. If we can learn to apply the same critical thinking skills to ourselves as we do to others, thinking about others as we would have them think about us, we might have a chance to do better. If not, like any other tool, critical thinking can become a mere weapon, capable of destroying rather than creating. The choice is up to each of us.
1. Generalizations
We are being force-fed generalizations 24/7. Most of this is not intentional, but a side-effect of the constant repetition and amplification of stories by modern media sources. We see the same story countless times, presented to capture our attention and advertising revenue. Soon we get the idea that all Pit Bulls are vicious, all protesters are violent, all immigrants are murderers, all cops are racists, or all men are rapists. Without a doubt, some indeed are. But here’s the distinction: some is not all. Humans have a tendency, some would say a need, to categorize and label things – and people. In certain instances, this is a good idea. “Leaves of three, let it be,” helps us avoid poison ivy. But other aspects of life are much more complex. We don’t often get the news about how many protests were peaceful, how many arrests went well, how violent crime and murder rates are trending downward, or how many men treated women with respect today. Instead, generalization gives us the impression of widespread societal collapse. Throw in a dash of willingness to think the worst of others, and some becomes all.
There is a lot to unpack here. We commonly experience “cherry-picked” stories – isolated data points – not their context, not their relationship to larger realities. These stories are repeated often enough to give us the impression they are somehow representative of reality. They become stereotypes or memes, spreading ideas that may or may not be true, but nevertheless give the impression of truth – “truthiness.” Certainly, it’s a tragedy when a firearm ends a young person’s life. But it is irrational to accuse all gun owners of callous indifference or immorality. A relative few may value their rights more than a little “collateral damage,” but most are concerned and want to keep firearms out of incompetent or unstable hands. Confusing some with all encourages extreme responses and leaves out a large middle ground of possible agreement.
Then there is the narrative fallacy. Richard Jewell fell victim to a narrative blaming him for the Atlanta Centennial Olympic Park bombing in 1996. However, this narrative overlooked crucial facts and deflected attention from the search for the real bomber who wasn’t caught until two years later. We all like it when a story “hangs together” and sounds true. If you want someone to believe a lie, wrap it up in enough truth to convince them, and tell them a good story. But a good story is not the same as the truth. Simple unvarnished truth is hard to find because it is hard to tell. Stories made of selected slices of reality are easier to believe. Suppose 500 years from now, humans eking out a meager existence in one of the few habitable zones left on the earth contact a technologically advanced species from another planet. The aliens ask, “What happened to all the oil and to your planet’s ecology?” How will our descendants answer? Will it be a long-drawn-out story about the endless debates on climate change, the lack of political will, the battles over the world’s resources, the clashes between rich and poor, or the belated and largely futile response to the realization we were about to lose a precious inheritance to greed and stupidity? Or will it be a simple statement of fact? “We burned the oil and destroyed our environment.”
In the Garden of Eden, Adam disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit. He then tried to tell a story. He rationalized, saying he didn’t think God would really let him die. He passed the buck, blaming the woman God made for him, implying it was somehow God’s fault. Eve blamed the serpent. The simple unvarnished truth is Adam failed to take responsibility for his actions. The narrative fallacy is like Adam’s attempt to varnish the truth. It’s often a story told to assign, evade, or deflect responsibility, or just achieve a sense of closure, even if key evidence is disregarded. It’s a story that sounds true and seems to explain everything. It’s a conspiracy theory rather than a direct, clear statement of facts. Hanlon’s razor comes to mind. “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” We accuse others of malice while concocting stories to cover our own stupidity. One doesn’t have to lie. The narrative only needs to give the appearance of truth. In other words, Adam tried to bullshit God. At one time or another, we all do.
There are many obstacles to critical thinking built on the notion some equals all, the massive repetition of truthy stories, otherwise known as propaganda, and the “either-or” fallacy. The debate between “pro-life” adherents, who are mainly conservative, and “pro-choice” supporters, who are mainly liberal, is one example. Simply characterizing the issue as either “killing babies” or a “war on women” misses the point: we need to have a serious discussion about the heartbreaking realities many families face. Many women don’t have adequate support systems, in terms of family, financial resources, pre-natal care, family leave, day care, health care, sick leave, etc. These kinds of factors are important to the debate. Without considering the plight of women who are victims of rape or incest or who sadly face severe complications in their pregnancies, it is impossible to reach a fair and rational policy.
If, after hearing a believable story, we are told we must choose either the winning, presumably “good” side, or the losing, presumably “evil” side, we are being manipulated. It is possible to be “with us” and disagree with certain proposals without siding “with the terrorists.” “Either you are for us or against us,” is sloppy, dishonest thinking. So is “love it or leave it.” It’s quite possible to love a country, yet still critique its policies. And, it is unfair to assert that everyone who disagrees with their dear leader “hates” their country. These kinds of statements depend on characterizing some as all and defining the problem in terms of extreme “either-or” viewpoints. Persons of good sense and good will should be able to question the story, examine the narrative for lies and truth, and help decide how to solve the problem. The world, like the inside of our heads, is rarely this or that, either-or. Most of the time the situation is complex, multi-faceted, or just plain messy.
Many years ago, I was driving to a meeting at the university when I was stopped for going faster than the posted speed limit of 40 mph. When the officer asked if I knew how fast I was driving, I said, “To be honest, I don’t know. I was on my way to a meeting and was thinking about that, so I was not watching my speed. I know there were no other cars on the road for the past couple of minutes, but that’s all I know. I’m sorry about that.” He replied, “You know, you’re the first person today who didn’t try to bullshit me. You admitted not knowing how fast you were going, so I’m going to let you off with a warning. Just watch your speed and drive safely, OK?”
I’m sure police officers are constantly confronted by people who ask, “Why aren’t you out catching murderers and drug dealers instead of people going a few miles over the speed limit?” The answer is of course, “We do both.” There is absolutely no reason to believe law enforcement does not pursue both goals for the sake of public safety. Nevertheless, everywhere we hear, “what about veterans?” “what about starving children?” “what about the elderly?” “what about the homeless?” Questions about allocation of resources are difficult enough without either-or polemics. We can and should discuss priorities and cost-effectiveness, but these are different questions than those implying the choice of only one problem to solve or one evil to address.
Also, we can easily get sidetracked rehashing the past and trading what-a-bouts. “What about when Clinton did this, or Bush did that?” What about the other side’s mistakes or failures? This line of questioning diverts the discussion away from how to address issues or solve problems in the here-and-now, towards more and more what-a-bouts. These questions can be just as diverting as directing the discussion to a related but irrelevant area or changing the topic entirely. None of these tactics is useful in maintaining focus on the original topic.
Generalization works for some things. However, the more complicated the problem, the more steps it might take to solve it, the less useful it may be to generalize. Generally speaking. Even this is not always true. We need to be extremely careful.
2. Redefinitions
“There is no swifter route to the corruption of thought than through the corruption of language.” George Orwell
Not long before I began writing this project, I had a phone conversation with my dad about “globalization.” As the discussion began, he said he was against it. I told him I thought there was no way to stop it. “Really, why would you say that?” he asked. It then occurred to me we might have different definitions of the term, so I asked what he meant by “globalization.” He said he was against establishing a world government with open borders and so on. I said, ”I thought you meant “globalization” of the economy by the transnational business community, where products are assembled from parts made all over the globe.” Globalization in this sense had already provided benefits in terms of lower costs and wider availability of goods and services. I added I believed this kind of globalization was already well underway. “Oh, that’s different,” he replied. Indeed. Defining terms is vitally important. We could have had an incoherent argument, but instead we talked about the pros and cons of national and corporate interests.
Recently I heard an excerpt from a speech in which the speaker said he was against “globalists.” “You know what that means? Right?” he asked the audience twice for emphasis. He then provided his own definition: “A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much.” This is a novel definition, to be sure. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, a globalist is ”someone who believes that economic and foreign policy should be planned in an international way, rather than according to what is best for one particular country.” This definition does not imply “not caring about our country,” simply that a globalist believes the interests of many countries should be considered. Clearly, a globalist would not be interested in a “my country first” doctrine but would not place their country last either. The fact is 7.5 billion people live on the earth and their fates are intertwined, whether we like it or not. Financial markets are linked. Thousands of corporations do business on multiple continents. Energy and water resources have become global issues. Climate change is an international concern. Human life and health are at stake. An Ebola outbreak in central Africa could affect life all over the planet. A collapse of ocean ecosystems would affect all nations.
Considering the global nature of business and political decisions, we need a more neutral definition than one that asserts globalists somehow don’t care about their countries. It seems to me a globalist understands no country can do well in a vacuum. “To do well” a country needs other countries to succeed side-by-side, so to speak. There are far too many countries in which people live on the brink of financial ruin, are plagued by starvation, or threatened with so much violence they feel compelled to seek refuge in other countries. How can a “my country first” policy change this situation? It seems to me a “my country first” nationalistic approach is based on a zero-sum assumption: we will always have winner and loser countries – we must make our country a winner – too bad if you live in one of the losers. Too bad if you are one of the bottom billion people on the planet who will be hurt most by lack of resources, inadequate health care, and the effects of climate change.
It seems to me the speaker was also trying to manipulate his audience into accepting his personal definition rather than defining terms in a more neutral way. If being a follower of a party or a candidate means accepting new politically-motivated definitions of words, such as globalist, nationalist, liberal, conservative, socialist, or capitalist, critical thinking is surely needed.
Is globalism merely a matter of trade and finance ? Does it mean other countries are more important than yours or mine? Does it mean we must move towards one world government? Does it mean all borders must be open? Does it mean the end of national sovereignty? Or does it simply mean all nations should be able to participate in global decision-making, just as many people believe citizens of each country should be able to participate in its decision-making? Most of the time it’s best to have a clear, direct, and neutral definition; one that doesn’t change during the discussion. I know I seem to be pursuing an agenda here, however it seems to me a critical thinker must consider how their thoughts and ideas might affect other people than the members of their tribe. If the agreed-upon definition of a loaded word such as “globalism” ends up causing needless suffering and death to millions, I’d say it’s a poor definition.
Here are the dictionary definitions of two terms that are often used in various contexts. A critical thinker must ask, “what do we really mean by these words?” and “how have they been redefined to undercut their usual meanings in a rational discussion?”
Liberal ~ One who favors proposals for reform or progress and is tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others. One who is open to new behavior, ideas, or opinions and is willing to discard traditional values; not being limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas.
Conservative ~ One who favors or holds to traditional attitudes and values and is cautious about or tends to oppose change or innovation, typically in politics or religion. One who wishes to preserve tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and prefers gradual development to abrupt change.
To argue about the “evils” of opposing parties based on these definitions would be ludicrous. At most, we could argue the merits of change vs. tradition, sometimes agreeing to fix what’s broken, and other times agreeing to stick with what works. However, as these terms are commonly redefined to ramp up division and attribute every possible talking point to the other side, it’s no wonder Democrats and Republicans do battle, each side accusing the other of holding a plethora of extreme political views. Here are my attempts to assemble the “new” definitions from cable news talking points.
Liberal – one who is a collectivist, pacifist, communist, Marxist, globalist or socialist, believes in a “tax and spend” “big government” “nanny state” with “handouts” for those “unwilling to work,” believes in “killing babies” “on demand,” supports “death panels,” is either “Godless” or without morals, opposes business, gun rights, and the death penalty, wants “open borders,” is soft on crime, immigration, and terrorism, and is either a Muslim, a Jew, an evolutionist, or an atheist.
Conservative ~ one who is intolerant, greedy, obstructionist, racist, nationalist, white supremacist, or fascist, is either anti-science or anti-intellectual, is a “hawk” on war, proposes cutting social programs while “coddling” rich corporations, favors tax cuts for billionaires, opposes women’s rights, LGBTQ rights and labor unions, supports the death penalty, is “pro-birth,” is a “gun-nut,” believes if others are out-of-work, sick, or poor, it’s their own fault, and expects everybody to practice “fundamentalist” Christianity.
Let’s get a few things straight. Definitions matter. Talking points are not definitions. False attributions are not useful. Neither is name-calling. Generalizing is unfair. Using words as Billy Clubs is not helpful. Changing a neutral definition into an emotional set of accusations is dishonest. So is changing a definition during a debate. Using a clear, direct, neutral definition can make the difference between a calm, rational discussion and a brutal shouting match that accomplishes nothing. Shakespeare had Macbeth describe life as “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.” Indeed, it will be if everyone talks past one another, having no agreement on what their words mean. When my Grandpa, a retired Army Capitan, heard pointless chatter he used to say, “Yack, Yack, Yack!” Without a good mutually acceptable definition of terms, opposing sides can only “Yack.”
3. Straw Men
It’s frequently effective, but terribly dishonest, to accuse your opponents of having extreme views, even if they do not. Many arguments (and votes) have been won by the side claiming their opponents advocate an extreme position they do not hold, so their counter-proposal can seem reasonable or moderate in comparison. This practice is also known as “framing the debate.” Even better, if one side can show their “Straw Man” version of their opponent’s position is misguided, erroneous, or somehow dangerous, their more “sensible” position can win the day. For example, if one party can assert the other is “soft” on crime/terrorism/illegal immigration, or advocates an extreme position on health care, or believes the country should become a “communist” state, the Straw Man can easily be defeated and with him the other party. The trouble is nobody wants to be known for positions they do not hold, especially when they are being attacked for supposedly holding them.
Many years ago, I had a confrontation with one of my neighbors about my dog. She claimed he barked “all the time.” Certainly, if my dog barked “all the time” she would have had a valid point. Yet, he was in our house 8-10 hours each night, and during the day, one of us was usually home for a good portion of the time. While we noticed some barking, he would generally bark at something for a minute or two and then lie down in the shade. In our experience he never barked “all the time,” or even continuously. When I suggested she was exaggerating, my neighbor accused me of calling her a liar. This is the way exaggerations sometimes work. The person making them can get offended if they are called out on it. After I questioned her about what she meant by “all the time,” it became apparent that what she should have said was, “look, I like to have my windows open in the early evening and I’d appreciate it if you would keep you dog quiet then.” She was also sensitive to the low bark of a Great Pyrenees so there was that as well. (In contrast, another neighbor had a couple of small dogs who would sometimes bark for 10-20 minutes straight that did not seem to bother her.) It took us quite a while to get to the specific truth of the situation.
Specific truth is the enemy of the Straw Man. One good approach is to require both sides of the debate to restate their opponent’s point clearly, briefly, and accurately. If you can hold your opponent responsible for understanding the specific point you are trying to make, clear thinking can result. If what you propose is that terminally ill patients should have access to doctors who can give advice on palliative care, it is dishonest for your opponent to claim that you believe in “death panels.” If you propose a better path to citizenship for immigrants or intend to show more concern for refugees, it is dishonest for your opponent to claim you believe in “open borders.” Often, Straw Man arguments are couched in a war of words, and catchy rhetoric can be a useful weapon.
A Straw Man argument is often supported by the tactics outlined in the section on Generalization above. Often, it’s true a relatively small percentage of the opposing party supports policies closely matching the Straw Man, so it’s not much of a leap to accuse the entire party of advocating these positions. However, defeating a Straw Man is like defeating a knight’s squire. You have yet to face the full strength of the knight, so even if you’ve won the battle you haven’t won the war. However, you can win popular sentiment, because well-chosen straw men can make your opponents look like fools or traitors, depending on how far you want to go. Just pick an unpopular-sounding Straw Man and knock him down. It’s dishonest, but it often works, especially when your supporters are afraid of the Straw Man.
Political campaigns give birth to dozens of Straw Men, and sometimes it’s difficult for candidates to prove they don’t hold such an ignorant or vile position, especially when their opponents have enough money to repeat the accusation hundreds of times. Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels reportedly said, “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.” If we want to improve our critical thinking ability, we must guard against repeated assertions becoming construed as the truth. That goes for what we tell ourselves as well. Constant repetition can be poisonous to critical thinking.
Sometimes it’s possible for a speaker to reverse the Straw Man tactic. They will claim their side advocates a position it does not, because they know it sounds good and it’s almost impossible for the opposition to argue against it. They truly have no intention of following through with their Straw Man proposal, which is fine for them, because all they really want is to prevent the other side from moving forward with it. They can appear to adopt a position just long enough to get elected, then they can claim the other side sabotaged their “well-laid plans.”
Even without a convenient Straw Man, exaggeration of the opposition’s claims or position can have a similar effect. Framing the debate using misrepresentations and exaggerations makes it difficult to ascertain the truth. Honest mistakes can be corrected, but exaggerations have a way of merging with lies to make it nearly impossible to have a rational debate. This kind of re-framing is part of the narrative fallacy, mentioned earlier. A good story laced with emotionally-charged words is often easier to believe than cold, dry facts stated in more neutral words. The debate over global warming is fraught with attempts to control the narrative – to tell a good story – rather than confront the facts. Thus, data are discarded and replaced with alarmist visions, conspiracy theories, and loaded words. The news media often play he exaggeration game by focusing on a minority of partisans that hold extreme positions. It is then even easier to get the impression that these views are the norm and really represent the opposition. Hence, the entire opposition can be labelled “evil” or “depraved,” even though only a few of them might be. The upshot is that exaggerations can stop critical thinking in its tracks if we let them. Sometimes the dog barks, sometimes he doesn’t. So be specific and seek accuracy.
Another destroyer of rational debate is attacking the person rather than the argument. This tactic, also known as an ad hominem attack, is perhaps the antithesis of critical thinking. While some people seem to have a gift for insults or name-calling, this does not mean they have won the debate. A person could be a stable genius and still be wrong or might be an unstable simpleton and still be right. The name or label applied to a person has nothing to do with the quality of their arguments or the evidence they can present. Like bullying, personal attacks and insults are often the last refuge of the side losing the argument. If all one can do is denigrate the person making the argument, I submit more time should be spent addressing the specific proposals or problems at hand rather than thinking about clever comebacks. It often seems those who uncritically accept the claims of the attacker seem to enjoy the sport. Even so, any name-calling should be a wakeup-call to those who want to think clearly about the strength of the argument rather than search for ways to belittle another person. Enough said.
4. Evidence
C.S. Lewis recounted this story about his legendary mentor, “The Great Knock.”
“At Bookham I was met by my new teacher – “Kirk” or “The Great Knock” as my father and I called him. I had heard about him all my life and I therefore [thought I] had a very clear impression of what I was in for…
He was over six feet tall, very shabbily dressed (like a gardener, I thought)…
We shook hands, and though his grip was like iron pincers it was not lingering. A few minutes later we were walking away from the station.
“You are now,” said Kirk, “proceeding along the main artery between Great and Little Bookham.”
I stole a glance at him…I began to “make conversation” in the deplorable manner which I had acquired at evening parties…I said I was surprised at the “scenery” of Surrey; it was much “wilder” than I had expected.
“Stop!” shouted Kirk with a suddenness that made me jump. “What do you mean by wildness and what grounds had you for not expecting it?”
I replied that I didn’t know what, still “making conversation.” As answer after answer was torn to shreds it at last dawned upon me that he really wanted to know. He was not making conversation, not joking, nor snubbing me; he wanted to know. I was stung into attempting a real answer.
A few passes sufficed to show that I had no clear and distinct idea corresponding to the word “wildness,” and that, in so far as I had any idea at all, “wildness” was a totally inept word. “Do you not see, then,” concluded the Great Knock, “that your remark was meaningless?” I prepared to sulk a little, assuming that the subject would be dropped. Never was I more mistaken in my life. Having analyzed my terms, Kirk was proceeding to deal with my proposition as a whole. On what had I based (but he pronounced it baized) my expectations about the flora and geology of Surrey? Was it maps, or photographs, or books? I could produce none. It had, heaven help me, never occurred to me that what I called my thoughts needed to be “baized” on anything. Kirk once more drew a conclusion – without the slightest sign of emotion, but equally without the slightest concession to what I thought good manners: “Do you not see, then, that you had no right to have any opinion whatever on the subject?”
———-
We live in a time in which “everyone has a right to their own opinion.” But, is there such a right? Many opinions are baized – or rather based – on hearsay, sound bites, and incomplete information. In other words, many opinions are based on practically nothing. In fact, some opinions are based on something worse than nothing: superstition, prejudice, irrational fears, misrepresentations, conjecture, conspiracy theories, and confirmation bias. We all want to believe new information only if it confirms what we already think we know. A mind truly open to new information, willing to admit its ignorance, although previously basing its opinions on practically nothing, has a better chance of forming a new opinion than a mind basing its previous opinions on superstition, prejudice, irrational fears, misrepresentations, conjecture, conspiracy theories, and confirmation bias. The difference is one mind has learned to search for substantiated evidence, while the other is content to repeat what it has heard countless times before.
Evidence is crucial. It’s not necessarily true that “everyone has a right to their own opinion.” While we may have a right to believe whatever we want, we also have an obligation to draw conclusions based on evidence. Even though my opinion might be an honest representation of what I believe, it might also be factually untrue. Daniel Patrick Moynihan reportedly said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” It seems to me “The Great Knock” was right. Everyone has a right to a well-informed opinion. While we may have a right to say anything we want, we don’t have a right to be taken seriously by people who have done their homework. We all have a little room for suspicion, bias, prejudice, conjecture, and ignorance, if we can be honest about these, and can remain open to new evidence. The trouble is humans are highly motivated by fear. If our poorly-informed opinions lead us to fear and hatred, the consequences can be worse than not having an opinion at all.
Evidence can be tricky. It’s easy to cherry-pick evidence that supports our point-of-view, that confirms our long-held opinions. However, it’s also dishonest. When facing any problem, evidence supporting and refuting our beliefs must be taken into consideration. And, just because we have held an opinion for a long time doesn’t make it true. If a person believes “frat boys” are phony and entitled for 40 years, time can’t make this opinion any truer. The person must be willing to look at the evidence. The evidence may show some are phony and entitled, but most are genuine and responsible. Some redheads are hotheads. Some men are chauvinists. Some politicians are narcissists. Some police officers are racists. The evidence will show how many are, and critical thinkers would be wise alter their opinions to fit the facts.
We live in a time when objective truth seems to be irrelevant to many people. Conventional wisdom says, “What’s important is what people believe to be true, and the more people who believe something, the truer it must be.” Even if all the people on the planet believed the earth is flat, it wouldn’t make it so. One philosopher acquaintance of mine often said, “just because you say something is so, doesn’t make it so.” Again, evidence is required. Truth is not like “Tinker Bell.” Truth does not fade away if not enough people believe it. Objective reality exists. Expenses cannot exceed revenues indefinitely. If enough parents don’t vaccinate their children, serious diseases we once thought were eradicated will return. The earth is a sphere. The greenhouse effect is real. If we continue to burn fossil fuels, at some point the supply will run out. If we continue to destroy habitats and pollute the planet, many species will face extinction, including ours. Believing otherwise won’t change these facts.
If someone insists on their own “alternative” facts, or that facts don’t matter, or that by believing something to be true we can make it so, it’s time to think critically. Objective reality may not always be popular, nor may the people who champion it, but it is often our only protection from superstition, prejudice, irrational fears, misrepresentations, conjecture, conspiracy theories, and confirmation bias.
I also have a problem with experts and non-experts being granted equal time and equal credence in public discussions. If objective facts don’t matter, then expertise doesn’t matter either. If everyone is entitled to their own opinion and their own facts, why shouldn’t a climate scientist and a cable news contributor have equal footing? In a few words, because their opinions are not equal. One has earned a PhD and has done extensive research on the topic. The other tends to base their opinion on something worse than nothing, and therefore has “no right to have any opinion whatever on the subject.” We all need to keep this in mind when watching such discussions on a cable news channel. We need to ask, “What direct knowledge of the problem under consideration does each speaker possess?” and “What evidence are they presenting to support their opinions?” It doesn’t matter what they “feel” or “believe” unless they can back it up with specific data, with objective facts, with more than cherry-picked data points, mere speculations, and over-generalizations.
Because evidence is crucial, it is essential to research the topic under consideration. However, many people are confused about what constitutes “research.” Even college graduates, who ought to know the difference between research and merely “looking stuff up,” have difficulty understanding that gathering evidence is not the same as Googling a few key words. Some people assert they have “done their research,” while the “evidence” they present is often no better than hearsay, or worse, information gleaned from the telephone game of internet blogs, memes, and out-of-context quotes. First, here is what research is not: (1) finding a handful of sources that happen to agree with your opinion, (2) finding a string of sources that stem from the same source, whose content is basically copied and pasted from one source to the next, (3) finding a few references on social media or in blogs that claim to present “proof” of this or that claim, (4) finding a summary or commentary on the topic that claims to present the whole truth. For example, some people think research is citing the opinions of people who happen to share their views and confirm their suspicions. Research, in the intellectually honest sense of the term, must consider material that does not confirm our biases, and especially sources that question or contradict our assumptions or preconceptions. I recommend trying to track down the evolution of a claim through various articles, checking both the wording and the dates. If several articles all use the same wording, and a prior article appears to have been their source, then all of these “sources” can be said to be one source, making essentially the same claim, or attacking the same position in the same way. This one source does not indicate the researcher has found solid evidence to support their position. Further, if the original source is a commentator or blogger, the “evidence” may amount to nothing more than “some guy said so.” In the study of history, for example, primary sources – such as letters, memoranda, diaries, photographs, laws, treaties, military orders, pay ledgers, bills of sale, birth and death records, journal and newspaper articles from the time, and so on – generally carry more weight than second-hand sources like textbooks and other writings that generally “interpret” what went on. History is easy to whitewash. We must guard against allowing it to be re-written by people who have a personal agenda. What was the “noble cause” of the Confederacy? The right to defend the homeland against invasion or the right to own people as property? Primary sources of the day argue differently than apologists who defend a certain “way of life.” As some journalism professors have said to their students, “Your job as a journalist is not to cover the controversy between the party that claims it’s raining and the party that claims it’s sunny. Your job is to stick your head out of the window and see which one is telling the truth.”
Second, opinion is not the same as evidence, and evidence is not the same as “proof.” Proof requires a preponderance of evidence. We often hear the phrase, “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” In most areas of life there will always be some doubt. A vaccine may be 99% effective, yet may not work on everyone, or may have adverse effects on a small number of people. The question is, do we need 100% certainty, or is this an unreasonable standard? If polio and measles have been all but eradicated using vaccines, what more “proof” do we need? It is possible to find sources that reiterate the same talking points doubting the need for vaccines. It is possible to find commentary by bloggers and various famous people who argue against vaccinating children. It is possible to find anecdotal evidence against vaccines. However, it is also possible to find valid scientific studies by epidemiologists and other credentialled researchers who have done the hard work of providing primary information regarding the efficacy and safety of vaccines. The preponderance of evidence indicates vaccines save lives, scientists and pharmaceutical companies are telling the truth about them, and a very high percentage of the population has benefitted from enhanced immunity. So, while there is some evidence of risk, this evidence must be considered along with the risk of not taking a vaccine and compared to the risk of taking the medications necessary to treat the disease the vaccine was designed to prevent. And, is the risk more or less than the risk of undertaking other activities or of taking other drugs? Aspirin can cause cancer by way of a condition known as Barrett’s Esophagus. I no longer take aspirin because of this risk. Yet, I’ve never had polio, measles, tetanus, or any other disease for which I have been vaccinated. For me and many others the risk of taking aspirin may in fact be greater than taking a vaccine.
Third, there is a “pecking order” for information that might be used as evidence. The best sources are scholarly, abundantly sourced books that have been developed over years or decades, encompassing thorough reviews of the available material, with no rush to publish before the facts are analyzed as completely as possible. Next best may be articles and studies in refereed journals, followed by articles in periodicals with no political axes to grind. Then, there are newspaper articles, especially those by individuals with a reputation for objectivity and rigorous vetting of sources. The more the source is driven by time, the more likely it is to be incomplete, mistaken, or biased. The goal is to look for information that has been corroborated or confirmed, and therefore is more likely to hold up under scrutiny. The best information often comes from sources that are not trying to “scoop” each other or gain readers in order to make more money. In my estimation, one reason political and social life has become so polarized is that too many opinions are founded on incomplete information. In the rush to publish, important facts and details can be left out, either accidentally or on purpose, if the source has an agenda to push. So, opinions form more quickly than the full story, and those opinions can be almost impossible to change even after all the relevant facts have been published.
A final word on evidence. Here are some important questions for all critical thinkers: “What are they not telling me?” What information is being withheld or left out? Is this intentional or unintentional? What’s the whole story? Gregory House, a fictional character, famously said, “Everybody lies.” Everybody tries to tell us what they think we want or need to hear. Everybody tries to show themselves in the most favorable light. Some leave out facts unintentionally even though they are trying to tell the whole story. Some try to lie and mislead others intentionally to get what they want or what their group wants. Evidence can be like a shell game. Sometimes it is hiding right in front of us. Sometimes it is revealed grudgingly after a lot of time and effort. No matter what, we must learn to search for it. Obvious truths are rare.
It has been said, “knowledge is power.” That sounds true, but maybe we should revise it to, “specific knowledge is power,” or “the control of knowledge is power.” So, we must learn to ask better questions. Reporters should be good critical thinkers. However, it seems to me some are not. Some ask about the salacious rather than the substantive. Some fail to follow up with questions like, “What is the premise of your belief or proposal?” or “What assumptions are you making about this?” or “If you do this, then what?” or “What steps do you plan to take to make this proposal a reality?” In other words, “How do you know?” or “What evidence do you have?” or “What if you are mistaken or wrong?”
The search for evidence must take us past assertions and generalized claims towards what lies beneath them. As I told my classes, the search for truth and the pursuit of solutions to problems are multi-step processes. We need to avoid thinking, “that sounds good,” as if a conclusion that sounds good is therefore the only solution to the problem. Unless we able to ask, “Then what?” we are no better than the legendary Coyote who thought all he had to do was shoot himself out of a canon to catch the Roadrunner. He thought in terms of simple one-step solutions to a complex problem, while the evidence all around him suggested more steps would be required. If he had asked, “Then what?” a few times he might have achieved his goal, but he never did. He was stuck in a bubble of false assumptions, conjecture, and simple solutions when he could have used the available evidence to make a better plan.
MurrayWorks 