5. Emotions
One of the most important things I’ve learned in life is that it’s generally best if we make important decisions based on reason rather than how we feel in the moment. One author we read in my critical thinking course pointed out that we need to “think calmly” and “act effectively.” We should be suspicious of appeals to our emotions in the decision-making process and only use our emotions to motivate us to act after the decision has been made rationally. Too often, people make emotional decisions and then must use reason to fix their mistakes. We must keep in mind we are often irrational creatures. We tend to want what we want when we want it the way we want it, whether it is a good idea or not. Therefore, our emotions can be used to manipulate us under the guise of reason.
Advertisers, politicians, managers, even friends and family try to use our emotions to convince us to do what they want. “Buy this product and you’ll be more popular.” “Vote for me and you’ll make this country great.” “Take on this project and you’ll save the day.” “If you do this, you’ll be a good son/daughter/spouse/friend.” While many reasons may be given, often decisions are sold to us as ways to feel good about ourselves or be more accepted by others. “You don’t want to miss the party. All the important people will be there.” Identity politics also comes to mind. “If you join us, you’ll be a real liberal/conservative.” It seems to me, much of the time, appeals to do what someone else is doing or jump on their bandwagon should be red flags calling for more thought. And sometimes the appeal is immediate – act now – we must know right away – don’t let this opportunity pass by. As a wise man once said, “If they must know right away, the answer is always, no.” We all need time to think, to engage reason before acting on emotion.
There is practically no end to appeals to our emotions. One common technique is the use of emotional words and phrases where more neutral language would do. For example, the use words like, “targeted” or “hit back,” rather than “focused on” or “refuted.” While emotional terms may convey a measure of truth, they are not intended to provoke rational discussion. I’m using the word, “provoke,” intentionally. Emotionally-charged words are typically used to provoke a reaction. Emotional language in political speeches and ads is intended to provoke an emotional reaction to gain sympathy and get votes. Emotional words used in the media are intended to attract attention and sell advertising. Emotionally-charged language is simply more exciting than neutral language. It provokes the opposition to anger, to hopefully “take the bait” and say or do something irrational. It galvanizes supporters, provoking them to act based on their reserve of confirmation bias. Like ad hominem attacks, emotional words are major obstacles to critical thinking and rational debate
Another technique is to appeal to patriotism or public spirit. No one wants to be the person who failed to defend their country or protect their fellow citizens from crime. One of the worst allegations against a candidate may be that they “allowed” something bad to happen on their watch and are therefore “soft” on terrorism, human trafficking, drug cartels, illegal immigration and so on. Yet, there is still a lot to consider in terms of the best ways to protect and defend our fellow citizens. Some policies are more cost effective than others, and some are just plain more effective. Getting mired in emotional language about who failed who can cloud rational thinking about what might work best in the future.
One official, whose words were later taken out-of-context, asked the emotionally-charged question, “What difference does it make?” referring to the opinion that the motivation of the killers was perhaps secondary to the larger fact that innocent Americans were killed. This person could have said something like, “Let’s consider what went wrong and what we can do about it,” but it’s often difficult to remain objective and rational when confronted with a horrific crime. Rationally, in any after-the-fact analysis of a security failure, the most important steps would be to examine security measures, determine where the response went wrong, and propose ways to prevent future attacks, before debating exactly why the killers did it. Nevertheless, this official will perhaps always be known as the person who “let it happen.” An old country saying might be appropriate. “Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you.” Even the strongest security can be breached. Even if you do everything right, you can still lose. Appeals to our emotions, particularly about protecting and defending home or country, often decrease our ability to think critically. Emotional retorts and counter-accusations can circumvent rational thought about what to do to keep the situation from becoming worse, or how to do better in the future, at least until everyone calms down.
6. Circularity
“Because I said so!” is a common adult response to a small child’s question, “Why?” While meant to invoke authority or assert the prerogatives of parenthood, it is nevertheless a dishonest form of argument. Just because someone is in charge doesn’t mean they are correct. And even if that person is the source of the rule book doesn’t mean the rules are always right. “How do we know this wine is the best?” Because it says so on the label. “How do we know this book is true?” Because it says so on page 3. “How do we know this President is the greatest since Lincoln?” Because he told us he is. Self-references do nothing to establish the truth. Without outside evidence and solid logic, the wine label, the book, and the President are merely telling us a story. If 9/10 of consumers judged the wine to be the best, its label might be telling the truth. If the book cites verifiable sources and eye-witnesses, it might contain a true story. If the president accomplished a great deal and had saved the nation from a calamity, he might indeed be the greatest since Lincoln.
Likewise, “Because I said so” is often a poor answer if we are trying to foster a love for critical thinking in children. Maybe a better answer would be, “Because if you run around the pool, you could slip and fall, and crack your head like an egg. Then there might be blood and brains all over the place, and your mom would freak out, and worse yet, you could die. And, I don’t want you to get hurt. So, please walk.” Age-appropriate explanations avoid circular reasoning and help develop critical thinking skills, especially those involved with thinking ahead, picturing what could happen next, and planning accordingly. While there might be “a right way, a wrong way, and the Army way,” as my Grandfather used to say, the point is authority only does you good if its orders are based in facts and make logical sense. And if persons in authority really know what they are doing, they should be able to defend their actions and choices with evidence and logic. Anything else is circular and suspect.
7. Association
Before you compare someone to Hitler, you’d better be damn sure of your evidence. Otherwise, Godwin’s Law comes into play. The tradition in online discussions is that “when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate was in progress.” It’s often tempting to draw an analogy to Hitler or the Nazi party to try to “prove” how “evil” your opponent is or how vile their proposals are. Even though parallels can be found on almost any topic, there are few human beings who have the capacity to sink to the level of Fuhrer-style dictators. Historically, there is a small club, similar in size to all-star athletes or inductees to the rock-n-roll hall of fame. Fortunately, most politicians and bureaucrats don’t come close to the infamy of Hitler. A few similarities or associations are not enough to accuse a politician of being guilty of genocide. Here’s the problem with guilt by association: It’s dishonest enough to claim one’s opponent is wrong because they associated with an X a long time ago. It’s even more dishonest to claim your opponent is an X because of their former association, and still more dishonest to assassinate their character entirely based on simply knowing an X. Even if your opponent has a few ideas and opinions that might sound like an X, or is a friend of an X, this is not the same as being an X.
In addition, sometimes the person being accused had little inkling what their friend or acquaintance might be capable of doing, and sometimes they knew them in another context before they become notorious for doing it.
A story might help with my point. When I was in grade school, I usually walked to school with a neighbor boy named Karl (not his real name). This was before widespread fears about kids being abducted on the way to and from school. And I was supposedly smart enough to walk there and back without getting hit by a car. One day, as we were walking across the street from the school, Karl spotted an empty bottle by the curb and decided to toss it into the middle of the street. It of course landed with a loud crash, and glass shattered all over the street. I was surprised he did this, but knowing Karl, I probably shouldn’t have been, because he was much more of a risk-taker than I was. The next thing we knew, the Principal met us as we entered the school: “Follow me, boys.” It became obvious he had seen the bottle-pitching incident and wasn’t too happy about it. He spoke to each of us alone to get the straight story. To Karl’s credit, he accepted responsibility for throwing the bottle. My only excuse was I didn’t know Karl was going to throw the bottle until he was already doing it. The Principal looked me in the eye and said sternly, “Like it or not, we are all known by the company we keep. I believe you share some of the responsibility for all that broken glass. Always remember to choose your friends wisely.” While we must keep in mind the sort of company we keep, sometimes just because we know a certain person doesn’t mean we are guilty of their actions by association alone.
Many careers were ruined during “The Red Scare” of the 1950’s because people happened to have friends or acquaintances who were members of the communist party, or because they were curious enough to attend a meeting or two to find out what communists believed, or simply because they were trying to show a member of the opposite sex they were interested in their opinions. One did not have to be a foreign agent, a spy, or a traitor to associate with a member of the Communist Party. And just because a person was a member of the party did not mean they were disloyal to America, even though “guilt by association” somehow showed they had to be. In the eyes of much of the country, anyone who was even remotely associated with communist thought was presumed guilty of a crime against the US. Apparently, it didn’t occur to the Unamerican Activities Committee that a real “commie” spy would go out of their way to avoid associations with publicly-visible organizations. People were blacklisted or imprisoned. Lives were destroyed. All because associations led to assumptions, and assumptions led to accusations, and many people could not prove their innocence. Much like a witch trial, any attempt to assert one’s innocence resulted in a conclusion like, “Well, of course you would say that. You’re just trying to stay out of jail. How could you not be a commie when you are a friend to one?” And so on. Just as surely as I am not a doctor just because I know several doctors, I am not a lawyer even though my son is, and I am not a pianist even though my wife is, a person cannot take on the attributes of another just by shaking hands, or having dinner, or coffee, or a casual conversation, or even making love. A person needs to take steps in a certain direction, or commit actual crimes, and these need to be proved using evidence.
I did not tell Karl to throw the bottle. I did not pick it up and hand it to him. I did not urge him to follow through with his plan, nor did I congratulate him on a bottle well-thrown. I merely did not stop him, because I didn’t know he was going to do what he did. Even if I had known a split second earlier, I doubt I would have been able to stop him. Still, I was considered an accomplice, just because I chose to walk to school with Karl. I was guilty even though my association was for an entirely different purpose than breaking glass in the street. It’s likely many who associated with members of the Communist Party in the 1950’s, the Black Panthers in the 1960’s, or the Weather Underground in the 1970’s may have done so for reasons other than supporting the cause. Like classmates who walk to school together, or acquaintances who take a step or two towards friendship, the association need not be about the thing that may have eventually drawn suspicion or blame. Somebody lives next door to practically every murderer. Unless the evidence shows they helped, they are not guilty, regardless of their neighborly association.
8. Hypocrisy
One technique of argument which has not improved with time is demanding a form of “pure” consistency from your opponent. “If you really believed in global warming, you wouldn’t be flying around on a private jet.” “You can’t be right about the state of those investments, because if you are, you stand to make a lot of money.” Just because a person stands to gain or lose doesn’t make their opinion wrong or right. Again, facts and evidence must be allowed to speak. The evidence for or against global warming is independent of a person’s personal choices, even though they might show themselves to be a small part of the problem. When the housing market collapsed in 2008, some did make a lot of money by shorting the market – selling out early – even as they warned the SEC about the coming crash. Their analysis led to the conclusions the market had been irrationally allowed to become a huge bubble and there was an opportunity for those who realized this mistake to make money betting against it. Their profit or loss was simply irrelevant to the condition of the derivatives market, just as a few private jets or air-conditioned mansions are largely irrelevant to the overall impact of CO2 emissions. In fact, the electricity used in one pro football night game is enough to power 4000 average homes. While the climate change advocate may not be leading a pure life, his personal decisions do not make him wrong about the facts, only a very mild form of hypocrite. The same could be said of doctors who smoke or drink in moderation while advising their patients to abstain. The strength of their advice is not dependent on whether they follow it to the letter.
It was once argued that a prostitute could not be “raped,” because after all this person chooses to have sex for money, as if sex workers were considered fair game for rapists. Yet, her (or his) choice of livelihood is irrelevant to the fact that consent is required whether the sex act is free or costs a million dollars. Much the same argument was once applied to wives as well. Apparently, many men considered the decision to marry a permanent waver of their partner’s right to consent. Nevertheless, we need to ask who the real hypocrites are. Are they persons who with good evidence and logic show their argument to be stronger than their opponent’s argument, or those who try to undercut their opponent’s argument claiming the person making it is a hypocrite for not being entirely “pure”? The dishonest thinker will use the opposition’s apparent hypocrisy as a reason to discredit their entire argument. The honest thinker will point to flaws in the evidence or the reasoning behind the opponent’s argument. In many cases, an appeal to hypocrisy, often called, “tu quoque,” meaning “you also,” is used as a form of personal attack, as if the person’s hypocrisy is a valid reason to disregard their entire position. However, it’s wise to consider that a person’s actions in the past, or even in the present, often have no relationship to the strength of their argument. If global warming is occurring, or the housing market is in trouble, we should be able to verify these claims without resorting to accusations of hypocrisy towards the persons making the claims.
That said, we also need to think about how to avoid hypocrisy charges. An old Chinese saying, roughly translated, states, “Never stop to tie your shoes in a melon patch.” In other words, it is best to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Some have said, “You can’t trust that magazine for honest reviews, because they make money from advertising the same products.” While this notion is sometimes true, it is not necessarily true. People with integrity, and critical thinking ability, can and do evaluate products, positions, and even politicians impartially, regardless of who is paying their bills. The presence of money in the mix does not always mean the opinions expressed have been corrupted. Even in politics, it is possible – though highly improbable in many minds – decisions can be made without the influence of money. But few candidates have the audacity to acknowledge campaign donors generally want something in return for all the money they give. While the incredible magnitude of money in politics argues against impartiality, just because a connection between money and power exists does not necessarily mean corruption is taking place.
However, wisdom literature proposes even our best intentions can be corrupted; in many ways it’s inevitable we will succumb to the allure of wealth, power, and fame. So, governments have adopted ways to make the seduction of these things less likely or at least less detrimental to society. So, we have laws – rules and regulations – concerning the use of money, fair business practices, the environment, checks and balances on power, and so on. And we can debate what needs to be done to reduce the influence of money in politics, for example. So far, however, there is not much a government can do about popular fame, unless of course a government decides to crush it through imprisonment, exile, or death. The individual is always at risk when a government decides he or she is an “enemy of the state.” Protesters, dissidents, and activists might sometimes achieve too much fame for their own good.
A better way to avoid impropriety and charges of hypocrisy is to govern yourself. Consumer Reports tries to keep advertising revenue out of its publications to assure readers there is no conflict of interest, no hypocrisy in their reviews. Scientists can submit papers for peer review and avoid dependency on partisan foundations. Entrepreneurs can decide not to prostitute their ideas to the highest bidding investors. Politicians can avoid taking money from donors who want to “own” them. There are many ways to police our own actions and not give others a reason to think we just bent down and stole a juicy melon.
One last observation. Hypocrisy charges levelled against an opponent for a flimsy reason may make it more difficult to confront real hypocrisy. It is tempting, and often hypocritical, to engage in “special pleading”: calling out the other side for actions that are perfectly acceptable within our own camp. For example, tolerating various improprieties in our group, but not in our opponent’s group, or proposing special treatment for our followers or patrons, but not for others, or advocating freedoms of speech/religion/peaceable assembly/the press for our side, but not our opponents. If financial or sexual impropriety is an issue, it seems to me it ought to be an issue for everyone, not just one party or the other. If CEOs deserve more pay, perhaps workers also deserve more pay, because it takes both to have a successful company. If First Amendment rights mean what I think they mean, these rights should be available to all, not just the party in power, or the politically-correct faction.
9. Scotsmen
“That guy is nothing but a RINO (or DINO)!” [These acronyms stand for “Republican in name only” and “Democrat in name only.”] The accusation is based – or should I say baized? – on the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, as in, “No true Scotsman would do that.” “No true Christian would believe that.” or “No true American would support that.” This kind of reasoning is reminiscent of the Straw Man argument. The accuser simply redefines their terms to specify the kind of position an “ideal” member of the group ought to have. “No true Conservative would propose X.” “No true liberal would advocate Y.”
Generally, the Scotsman is called into service when an opponent points out an example contrary to a previous claim. “All trumpet players are cocky.” “But my friend Mark is a trumpet player and he isn’t cocky.” “Then he’s not a true trumpet player.” Scotsmen claimants want to rule out examples they don’t like in order to win the argument. However, this approach neglects real diversity of opinion in most groups. All Christians do not think alike, nor do all Democrats or all Republicans, nor do all Americans, or even all Scotsmen. An argument must be fought and won on other grounds.
10. Authority
Experts can be wrong. A non-expert can be right. Sometimes the current consensus is valid. Sometimes it’s necessary to create a new paradigm. Sometimes, authority is relevant. Sometimes it’s irrelevant. So, what is the value of authority?
Often, when we appeal to authority, we cite historical events or scientific discovery to support our claims. If this kind of authority is pertinent to our argument, there may be good reason to use past authority to validate it. After all, we need to know history to learn from our successes as well as our failures. The problem arises when we appeal to an authority that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. It’s best to cite a Nobel Laureate in Physics on matters of physics, not the psychology of personal relationships. It’s best to cite a climate scientist on matters of climate change, not politics or economics. A pop psychologist’s opinion is probably irrelevant to a discussion of solar energy. And an expert opinion is only useful if it is cited specifically and accurately. In the late 1970’s, a report in the New York Times misrepresented a climate study to assert global cooling was taking place –the opposite of the scientific findings, stated with a certainty the scientist in question did not express. Scientists usually qualify their conclusions in multiple ways and almost always suggest further study. Sometimes journalists, in their rush to publish, get things wrong. In this instance, we have been laboring under an inaccurate impression of scientific authority for 40 years.
We can also get in trouble citing ancient wisdom just because it is old, or some vague authority, because it seems to be related, such as “German scientists believe,” or “Chicago economists agree.” Old sayings are not necessarily true or even relevant to today’s issues. Old ways are not correct just because they were once considered wise or normal. A vaguely described group of experts isn’t any better than asserting “some say” or “everyone knows (or agrees)” or “they tell me” or “according to some guy.” Exactly who are these people and what are their qualifications? As a famous editor of The National Geographic often wrote in the margins of the articles he reviewed, “Says who?” Again, authority is useless to substantiate a claim unless it is relevant, specific, and accurate.
Sometimes a person might claim to be an “authority” on something but may not in fact be. How can we know? There are several tip-offs. If the person typically uses phrases such as those in the preceding paragraph, we should question their authority. If the self-proclaimed expert typically says things like, “believe me,” “trust me,” “only I know,” or “everybody else is wrong,” he or she may be lying. Disagreement or critique is not necessarily wrong or “fake news,” it is simply another point of view to be considered on its own merits. And, when the “authority” accuses their opposition of being unpatriotic, traitorous, or “the enemy of the people,” we must examine everything they say very carefully, with an eye to verifiable facts. Critical thinking demands we not take the word of any so-called “authority” at face value.
Now, anonymous sources can present a conundrum. In a time of low public trust, anonymous sources can sound like they may be erroneous or fabricated. Nevertheless, the journalistic tradition of honoring the wishes of genuinely authoritative sources to remain anonymous, usually because they are whistle-blowers and legitimately fear retaliation, still stands. Anonymous sources can lead us into a “who watches the watchers?” situation. How can journalists build trust without doing their job of revealing truth and exposing corruption? And how can people believe journalists if their sources could be misleading or spurious? If we do not trust authority, what good is it? So, we are compelled to look at hard evidence along with alleged authority.
Here is an additional thought on arguments made based on what is considered “natural.” C.S. Lewis pointed out that arguing for the existence of God based on an appeal to “nature” was just as likely to convince people there was no God. Nature is at best neutral on the issue. It can be awe-inspiring to see an eagle on the wing over a sparkling waterfall at sunset, and one might be tempted to suggest the majesty of such a scene “proves” there is a God. But nature can also be brutal and cruel. Certain species eat their young. Storms, earthquakes, and volcanoes claim thousands of innocent lives each year. Life is subject to rot and decay. Nature is as ugly as it is beautiful. And just because something is “natural” doesn’t make it right. Geese mate for life. Penguins sometimes display homosexual tendencies. Good for them. But a female Mantis eats her mate and alligators will kill you if they catch you in their swamp after dark. The fierce competition and violence found in nature is a poor model for human interactions. We must ask ourselves whether we want to be predators in search of prey, or good Samaritans trying to reach out and help one another. The human virtues of prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude, along with mercy, forgiveness, faith, hope, and love are not natural. They are ideals conceived in the minds of human beings. Appeals to the authority of nature are just as hollow as appeals to an irrelevant authority or an authority that doesn’t exist.
There is a flip side to appeals to authority – appeals to ignorance. The basic proposition can be summed up as follows: we must conclude something is happening because we don’t see evidence proving it’s not happening.” For example, we must conclude the sun is pulled through the sky by golden winged horses because we can’t be sure it’s not. Or the Earth is flat because we can’t be sure it’s round. Or the tooth fairy, or bigfoot, or leprechauns exist, because we can’t say for certain they don’t. Further, personal ignorance is the stuff of which conspiracy theories are made. If someone is largely ignorant about space travel and can’t imagine the physics of low gravity, they may assert the moon landings were faked. If a person is ignorant about structural failure in 1970’s skyscrapers, and prone to distrust the government, they may assert the fall of the Twin Towers on 9-11 was an inside job. Almost any claim can be made through an appeal to ignorance. So, a critical thinker must consider the burden of proof always lies with the claimant, and the bigger the claim, the more evidence is required. In ignorance, someone could claim the giant heads on Easter Island were built by aliens, however the evidence suggests the Rapa Nui people made them centuries ago. A better approach to ignorance about something would be to admit we do not know and proceed to investigate further.
11. Causation
“Correlation is not causation.” This is a common statement, but what does it mean? “There’s no such thing as a coincidence.” Also, a common opinion, but is it true, and if so, in what sense? Sometimes we can advocate a position based on the “high degree of correlation” between doing X and ending up with Y. In college, I heard a joke about how trees cause wind. It seems there is a high correlation between tree limbs in motion and wind blowing. We hardly ever experience wind without seeing trees moving with an intensity that correlates well with the speed of the wind, therefore trees cause wind! Let’s put aside the fact that this little narrative fallacy also uses only one correlation as “proof.” While this is another example of cherry-picking, we need to consider the possibility that any two things might have a correlation that has nothing to do with the “cause” of a phenomenon or outcome. In this case, wind is the result of differences in air temperature and pressure, not moving tree branches, however enthusiastic the trees might seem to be.
Smoking is generally thought to cause lung cancer. It can be argued the causes of cancer are likely genetic, and it is difficult to say if smoking, or the nitrites in bacon, or too much time in the sun is the “cause.” It’s possible to develop a cancerous tumor even if you never smoke a single cigarette. And it’s possible to smoke for many years and never get cancer. Yet we know these kinds of factors can substantially increase the risk, in other words, the likelihood of a person developing cancerous tumors, because the human body can fend off only a limited amount of cell damage. The correlations between excessive smoking and diseases such as lung cancer and emphysema are well known. Extensive or repetitive tissue damage, either by radiation or cigarette smoke is a major factor in the onset of cancer. My conclusion: Correlation notwithstanding, because it represents an ongoing assault on the human body, smoking is not worth the risk.
As fond as Gibbs (of fictional NCIS fame) may be of saying, “there’s no such thing as a coincidence,” in terms of solving a crime, some events are indeed coincidental. Sometimes a person happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And sometimes two people are in the right place at the right time. I met my future wife this way. But I can’t claim I met my wife that day because I wore my lucky socks or obeyed the right god. Our coincidental meeting had nothing to do with wearing certain clothing or doing a good deed or saying a prayer the night before. Yet, it is a common fallacy to assert “this happened because that happened at the same time,” or “this happened because that happened first.” Do vaccines “cause” autism, or does it appear they do, because some happen to be administered just before or at approximately the same time the symptoms of autism normally start to become clear? Often chronology has nothing to do with causation.
In certain circles it is fashionable to blame reviled groups for “causing” natural disasters. When hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, some evangelical ministers claimed the storm devastated Orleans because of the gay population. Somehow, their reasoning went, the people of New Orleans deserved death and destruction. It apparently didn’t occur to these ministers that storms in the Gulf of Mexico periodically pass through the New Orleans area regardless of who lives there and what they did or did not do previously. There remains a chance another such storm will visit New Orleans in the future, even if the entire gay population moves to Iowa. It’s also revealing when a storm tracks towards their hometowns, these same ministers fall silent.
Diogenes realized the problem presented by the “survivor fallacy.” In short, while we might praise whatever gods we worship for saving certain people from storms, shipwrecks, and plane crashes, the fact remains we never hear from those who were not so fortunate. “Dead men tell no tales,” the saying goes. I survived a car accent in 1973, along with 3 other people. We might be tempted to credit our guardian angels or divine intervention, but there are many others who died on America’s highways the same day. Where were their angels? And aren’t we making a big leap to suggest we were spared for some divine reason? While it’s important to be grateful for lives saved and live on to do something useful for others, it would be incorrect to say we were spared because of our intention to play in church that morning. Our trip to church and our survival were not necessarily connected causally, even though there was a significant coincidence.
One final point. Some people like to think “because a something happened, it was meant to happen.” By whom? God? Karmic forces? The universe? Causation fallacies assert we should believe in fate or destiny. Were those children who died last week crossing the street to catch a school bus meant to die? Or was it a tragic accident? Was it caused by God, or fate, or by the stupidity of schools scheduling a bus stop on a curve in the dark of morning? To paraphrase Hanlon, “Never attribute to nature, fate, or God that which is adequately explained by human stupidity or carelessness.” And no, a person does not become president or even dog catcher because it was meant to be or was somehow “ordained.” Just because a thing happened doesn’t mean it had to happen. And just because a thing happened first doesn’t mean it necessarily caused a following thing to happen.
Douglas Adams, in “Mostly Harmless,” wrote, “Anything that happens, happens. Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens again. It doesn’t necessarily do it in chronological order, though.” We must avoid thinking everything that happens before or along with something else is causally connected. Often it really is a coincidence.
12. Errors
“We all make mistakes.” I’ve heard this expression for as long as I can remember. For the critical thinker, it’s important to keep in mind the nature and severity of the mistakes. Did your opponent merely misspeak or make a minor mistake? Or did they misrepresent the facts or perpetrate a logical fallacy? Are they materially wrong or just wrong about a few insignificant points? There can be a vast difference.
For example, someone could commit multiple logical infractions, yet still hold a correct position according to the evidence at hand. Alternatively, they could argue a fallacious claim with impeccable logic. There are plenty of Biblical examples of persons who were “slow of speech” or otherwise not skilled at rhetoric who nevertheless turned out to be right in the end. There are also numerous examples of Pharisaical windbags who uttered all the right words only to prove themselves wrong by their own actions. In other words, the truth of the claim does not necessarily depend on the skill or status of the person making it. Again, evidence matters, and sometimes, as the saying goes, “actions speak louder than words.”
We need to be careful not to attack an opponent’s argument for small errors that do not substantially pertain their central point. For example, if they get a date wrong, or their data is off by a percentage point or two, but these bits of information are still accurate enough to support their main proposition, these kinds of errors don’t necessarily invalidate the argument. The overall evidence and logic may still support a person’s claims regardless of whether the US Constitution was ratified in 1788 or 1789. In some cases, the claim is still correct even if the data is off by a factor of 2 or an order of magnitude. What counts is the direction the data points point. And sometimes, better data will only solidify the claim.
On the other hand, sometimes numbers can lie, or rather people can lie using numbers. As Mark Twain reportedly said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Certainly, statistics need to be applicable to the issue under consideration, not mixing “apples and oranges,” so-to-speak. And, they need to be presented in a way that doesn’t mislead. For instance, a common misrepresentation tactic in statistics is to display small differences on a greatly magnified scale making modest gains or losses look like an alarming trend. Another is to portray outlying points as “evidence” while ignoring the general trend line – an example of “cherry-picking.” Yet another tactic is to claim huge growth or huge loss without showing the actual basis or starting point. “Corporate profits are up by 50%.” Over what? We need to be careful about what we are comparing to what. We need to ask about the time period, gross vs. net values, the mean, median, minimum values, maximum values, overall trends, and so on.
We could claim the mean (average) cost of a house in an area is about $273,000, without stating that there are 11 houses in that area, 10 of which cost about $100,000 each, and one of which is priced at $2,000,000. Clearly, a set of numbers can be skewed by one or a few abnormally large or small values. The median price of a home in this area is still about $100,000. Quoting the mean can give the impression the real estate market is doing better than it is. In fact, the $2,000,000 house may be a “white elephant,” too expensive to sell in this market. The same effect happens in earnings comparisons. For decades, colleges have claimed their graduates have greater “earning potential” than non-graduates. The statistics showed the average college graduate did earn more over their lifetime than a non-graduate. But, when you consider that most college graduates work in jobs paying $50,000 or less per year with the median around $70,000, the data are skewed by the relative few who work as CEOs, CFOs, Bank officers, hedge fund managers, real estate investors, pro sports stars, highly specialized doctors and lawyers, Hollywood actors, politicians, etc. In other words, it is easy to get the impression lifetime earnings for college graduates are much better than they are. For many who are thinking about college, a better alternative would be to learn one of the skilled trades. A good crane operator can typically earn a six-figure income.
A major problem with statistical polling techniques is the way questions are asked. I always want to see the wording of the questions before I believe the results of a poll. Neil Postman, in his book, “Teaching as a Subversive Activity,” told a story about two monks who asked very similar questions to their Abbot. The first asked, “It is permissible to smoke while praying?” The Abbot replied, “No, my son. We should never let any other activity interfere with our prayers.” The second asked, “Is it permissible to pray while smoking?” The Abbot replied, “Yes, my son. It is always permissible to pray, no matter what other activity we are pursuing.” Postman told the story to underscore the point that the way a question is asked has a lot to do with how it is answered.
Questions about health care in the US are often asked from a political point of view. One side asks, “Do you think it’s fair for those who are healthy or wealthy to pay for the health care of those who are not?” The other side asks, “Do you think it’s fair that the sick and poor should be denied decent health care?” However, if we asked, “Do you think it’s acceptable to let those without health insurance die or become wards of the state after going bankrupt?” we might have a more productive discussion. There seems to be a lack of critical thinking all around this problem. Many people have so far failed to realize there is a cost to society one way or the other: lost productivity, public assistance, homelessness, bankruptcy, loss of tax revenue, etc. The issue isn’t simply about government-sponsored health care vs. privately-controlled health care. We need to ask what the net cost of insuring everyone would be compared to all the ways the current system is not cost-effective or ethically sound. And if one doesn’t like my questions, this only emphasizes the point that we must ask better questions in order to get better answers. “Garbage in. Garbage out.” We often fall into major errors in arguments and their outcome when we begin with errors in our assumptions which are reflected in the questions we ask.
Sometimes a public official will generalize and make a mistake. Some said words to this effect, “If you like your health plan/doctor, you can keep your health plan/doctor.” It seems to me this was the overall intent and was factually true for most people. However, it was either an exaggeration, a mistaken statement, an attempt to mislead people, or a bald-faced lie, depending on who you ask. The way the implementation of the law in question played out, some people did not have a choice. So, perhaps the statement was only mostly true. A critical thinker must ask whether a public official is simply mistaken, misrepresenting the facts, or lying. Sometimes officials do their best with what they know at the time. We must be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until their words and actions are proven to be deceptive. Sometimes they are not lying but wrong. Sometimes they are lying and wrong. But most of the time they may be saying what they think everyone wants to hear. Nobody wants to give “the enemy,” however we define them – communists, terrorists, criminals, illegal aliens – the upper hand. Public officials will tell us they are taking steps to protect us from WMDs, illegal drugs, gangs, invasions, illegal immigrants, and so on. They and we might be mistaken about the nature and extent of the threat, but many people do not want to take that chance. So, even though there may be massive errors, we tend to choose a certain path until our choice becomes obviously wrong. We assume we are right until proven wrong. And this may take some time. Aristotle was right about this at least, “A small error in the beginning causes maximal confusion eventually.”
The process of critical thinking must be charged with seeking the truth, wherever the search may lead. Follow the money. Trace your steps back to the error. Learn to tell facts from fiction. Learn to discern whether someone is somewhat mistaken or just plain wrong, exaggerating or lying, misrepresenting facts, withholding or fabricating evidence, or just telling you what you want to hear. Keep in mind, error and misjudgment are part of the human condition. CS Lewis wrote, “Progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turn, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.” So, it is with error and falsehood. The most truthful person is not the one who makes the fewest mistakes or tells the fewest lies. It is the person who takes steps to disclose and correct their errors, to uncover and clearly state the truth, even if it means admitting they were wrong. It is the person who “does an about-turn” when necessary and walks “back to the right road” of facts and evidence.
MurrayWorks 