Critical Thinking #9

 Critical Thinking  #9   Explanations

By definition, explanations start with a conclusion and then propose a reason for why that is so. The difference between an argument and an explanation is significant but often difficult to recognize. Maybe this will help. An argument asks: how do you know that? An explanation tells us why something is so. Casual explanations suggest particular physical or behavioral phenomenon--one thing causes another. Explanations begin with hypotheses and work their way through implausible to plausible explanations. Explanations look at evidence and use it to evaluate the hypotheses.

There are helpful qualities of explanations that contain general standards to guide our thinking and use. For example, explanations should be consistent, internally (logical) and externally (not contradict the natural world). A second standard is falsifiability. They must always be able to withstand scrutiny and remain truthful. Thirdly, the scope of the explanation must be sufficiently inclusion so as not to focus on an exception rather than a rule. Simplicity is always the best guide. The more complex an explanation, the more difficult it is to comprehend and drag in irrelevant information. And last, harking back to our look at fallacies, explanations legitimately use causality instead of correlation.

Scientific explanations are a category all their own. This process of thinking uses causal explanations and hypotheses to discover empirical facts. The heart of this process, the driving force, is the scientific method. If the subject interests you, I recommend Ian Barbour's Religion and Science for a fascinating history of its development. The scientific method is a universally accepted and used process in human kind's search for understanding of the natural world. It involves a five step process:

identify the problem

gather evidence and make observations

form a hypothesis

test the hypothesis--over and over

analyze the results objectively

Beware of bias that leads to false conclusions. Science does not evaluate subjective interpretations or value judgments. Learn the difference between science and pseudoscience.

Statistics are another category. Distinguish between qualitative and quantitative surveys. If you use them, they must be reliable and valid. Surveys can be: too small, biased, use manipulative questions, be based on guesswork, and miss contextual information.

There is a practical application for all this. For example, applied critically, you would understand that vaccines do not cause autism and covid vaccinations do not cause sterility.

Critical Thinking #8

 Critical Thinking #8   Fallacies

An argument can be sound (have the proper structure of premises and conclusion) and valid (premises are true and the conclusion logically follows), but if one does not use logical reasoning to offer a conclusion, the argument is wrong, incorrect.

"A logical fallacy is a type of flawed reasoning, and a fallacious argument is an argument that contains a fallacy."

We prepare ourselves to argue as critical thinkers by:

> becoming familiar with common fallacies

>evaluating the assumptions in an argument

>finding the conclusion and determining if the premises are relevant to it

>looking for things that distract from the main point

Toward that end I want to identify and define twelve of the most common fallacies that prevent reasonable debate and keep us from coming to better solutions.

1. Red Herring:  this is when an arguer raises an irrelevant side issue to distract the listener(s) from the main topic under consideration. You do not argue economics by getting side tracked discussing Nobel Prize winners.

2. Appeal to Popularity:  here is when the arguer tries to strengthen the argument by claiming "everybody" shares the belief, preference, or habit. Individual responsibility is ignored.

3. Slippery Slope:  the arguer claims one event will lead to a chain of events that result in an undesired outcome. There is no reason to assume the sequence will happen.

4.Appeal to Ignorance:  the arguer claims that since something cannot be disproved, it must be true. The arguer is avoiding the responsibility to provide evidence if their claim is to be accepted.

5. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"):  this is the classic confusion of correlation and causation. This is a questionable cause-and-effect relationship. Just because two events are correlated, it does not necessarily mean one caused the other.

6. Straw Man:  this occurs when the arguer distorts the opposing position and then presents evidence to knock down the distorted argument rather than the real one. The purpose is to misrepresent the motives of the opposition, distorting its position.

7. Ad Hominem:  this happens when the arguer attacks the opponent's personal characteristics, qualifications, or circumstances. It attacks a person rather than providing evidence for an argument.

8. Begging the Question: listening carefully, one can hear the similarity between premises and conclusion; one simply repeats the other. The truth of the premise is assumed to be true by the conclusion. This fallacy just repeats the claim twice.

9. Weak Analogy: this fallacy occurs when the comparison of two things is irrelevant or so weak as to be meaningless.

10. Unqualified Authority:  the arguer tries to prove a point by appealing to someone who is not an expert in the field or is unqualified to give advice that something is true. A baseball player probably would not be performing brain surgery.

11. Appeal to Emotion:  the arguer tries to persuade by appealing to fear, pity, patriotism, or flattery instead of using rational arguments. Emotion is useful but not strong enough to stand on its own as evidence.

12. False Dichotomy:  this fallacy falsely uses an either/or choice. The arguer offers a situation with only two possible outcomes, and one of them is overwhelmingly preferable, maybe even opposites.

If you accept premises without question or verification, you might end up agreeing to something you would not otherwise.

Critical Thinking #7

Critical Thinking #7  Arguments

It has been awhile since my last blog. Our world seems to be going to hell in a hand basket, what with white supremist, bigoted, domestic terrorists on the one hand and evil, authoritarian despots attacking global democracy on the other. I remain an optimist, affirming the good in people and the energy in youth. That's why I continue to teach and off this crash course on critical thinking, believing it can help us navigate out way through today's challenges.

So, lesson #7 Arguments. Our world is very polarized, full of arguments. That is why it is necessary and important to stop and define the word. I am not talking about the emotional screaming we do everyday, failing to listen to others and refusing to seek understanding within the chaos. Rather, here and in the classroom and, hopefully, in the circles we can influence, an argument is better understood as a "process." It is an attempt to work our way through our disagreements to arrive at a better solution. It is collaboration, not competition. Seen this way, we humanize those with whom we disagree instead of demonizing them.

An argument is a process, most effective when others can understand how we got to the conclusion we did. It technically has two parts: premises/reasons/evidence that lead to a conclusion or claim. Arguments preferably have more than one premise but definitely only one conclusion.

There are two types of arguments: (1) deductive arguments go from general premises to a specific conclusion. If the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true. Deductive arguments offer certainty. (2) inductive arguments offer reasonable certainty. They go from specific premises to general conclusions. These premises offer some evidence. Inductive arguments rely on the quality of the evidence. Having said this, you might recognize that the scientific method relies heavily on inductive reasoning/arguments. 

Two more terms are relevant here. A SOUND argument is one that has the correct structure (premises that flow into a conclusion) and all the premises are true. A VALID argument is one in which the conclusion logically follows from the premises. If a premise is not true, the argument is not sound but can be valid. NOTICE THE NECESSITY OF VERIFYING THE TRUTH OF PREMISES!

One other word before leaving this step in critical thinking. An enthymeme is an unstated assumption. It can cause horrendous problems when unchallenged. They can be true, but not always.

In conclusion, how do we engage in civil arguments?

Listen, really listen to understand.

When engaged in the process, look for indicator words such as "therefore" and "in conclusion."

Ask yourself and the other, "what is the main point?"

Examine the claims, the language, and the quality of the evidence.

(1) are the claims reasonable? (2) do the premises support the conclusion? (3) how relevant are the types of evidence used? (4) how strong is the evidence? (5) what is the tone [combative, compelling, pleading] of the author of the evidence? (6) is the language emotive? (7) is the evidence credible and the source of the evidence credible?

Do I have the intellectual humility to admit when I am wrong? The point of an argument is not to win but to come to a better understanding.

Critical Thinking #6

 Critical Thinking #6: Evidence

We go to sources to gather evidence, and evidence is what we use to decide which claims to believe or dismiss. We use evidence in our arguments to arrive at conclusions. Let's pause for important clarification.

For most of us for most of the time, arguments are emotional "discussions" we have with others to get what we want, to bring people to our point of view, to brow beat others without ever listening to diverse points of view. In critical thinking, arguments have a different purpose and a very different definition. This requires an adjustment in our thinking and approach to disagreements with others. Here we use and understand an argument as a process, a process to come to a better understanding, a corrected understanding, a movement toward constructive communication and interaction. In critical thinking, arguments use premises to arrive at  rational, defensible conclusions.

Evidence supports claims; it provides background to the issue under consideration, history and facts. Reliable evidence shares experts' insights and carefully defines terms. Unless participants share the same definitions, they will never communicate effectively. Evidence also enables debates of surrounding topics. So the question now is: what is evidence?

We begin with statistics and data. These are verifiable, provable, and can be confirmed. Be careful: numbers don't lie but liars use numbers. Less reliable but often helpful are anecdotes and eye witness accounts. Their strength is limited and not subject to peer review. However, expert testimony is. Sure, experts can agree, but experts' claims are in the public domain and available for confirmation or rejection. Scientific journals and academic studies are helpful to those willing to do the work. Newspapers, government websites, and personal blogs are easily accessible but should never be cited as "authoritative."

Some quick guidelines to help evaluate the integrity of our evidence:

Is the source a reliable authority?

Is the information current and up to date?

Does it provide sufficient information to justify its use?

Have you used an adequate variety of sources and opinions?

Have you weighed the counterarguments present in the evidence cited?

As you can see, the work of a critical thinker is not easy, but the rewards are immeasurable!

Critical Thinking #5

 Where do you get your information? Your next door neighbor? Your weird Uncle Bob? Fox News? MSNBC? How do you know who to believe? Do you limit yourself to one source or try to balance your information by going to multiple sources? Do you live in a bubble or scour the landscape for different viewpoints?

From the beginning of my course, but especially here, I challenge students to always ask two questions: (1) is what I'm hearing credible? and (2) is the source of what I am hearing credible? In fact, this is the entire course in a nut shell. If we could always remember to ask these questions, a lot of conflict could be avoided and a lot of misinformation stopped in its tracks.

In today's world there are basically two sources of information, digital and print. Both come with lots of questions needing to be asked. What "kind" (more later) of information is it? What is its frequency? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? What is the intended audience? Public? Academic? Professional? etc? What form does it come in? "News"? Magazine? Academic journal? Book? If the information is digital, pay attention to the "source."  .com?  .gov?  .edu?  .org?  These designations give us a world of information. If you live in a digital world, do you rely on websites? Social media? You do know that Wikipedia is subject to public editing?

Fake news is pervasive, and its consequences are extremely detrimental to common discourse and public goodwill.  We wake up to and go to bed with lies, intentional and unintentional. Technology has made it possible to photo shop and manipulate the visual support used to disseminate the fake and malicious efforts to confuse the public. One lie, despite expert, authoritative, legitimate verification, has convinced one third of this nation that the last presidential election was corrupt and wrong. On another issue, many people do not recognize satire or understand the role of sponsored content in the information they receive.

Here is a simple test we might employ. SIFT: Stop before sharing, Investigate the source of the information, Find other trusted sources that verify or correct, Trace the original to its origin.

A desirable characteristic of a critical thinker is intellectual objectivity. Never easy--always worth the effort!!

Critical Thinking #4

 Picking up where we left off---by the way, happy holidays whatever your preference and happy new year---the next section (Module 4) of the course focuses on Language.

Martin Heidegger, one of the 20th century's philosophical giants, in his early Being and Time, called language the "house of being." It's heady and complex, but here is where he claims to find the uniqueness of humans. Not ignoring communication methods among other species,  Graeber and Wengrow (The Dawn of Everything) marvel at the similarities of verbal communication across the global development of hominid species. Language is how we find and give meaning to the world around us through denotation (specific and literal) and connotation (meaning and context) usage.

Language falls into two primary categories, form and intent. The former is the structure (subject, verb, adjective, etc.) and the latter is the implied meaning behind the vocabulary used. Careless use of words can lead to confusion through what is known as vagueness and ambiguity. Examples would be "It is a pleasant day," whatever that means, and "I ran after the robber wearing my pajamas," unsure which of us is wearing a pair of my pajamas.

After we have spent time building the broad understanding, we turn our attention to descriptive features and uses of the language that shapes our world. When we can master and recognize these, we are better prepared to recognize how others use language and avoid being manipulated by their deliberate misuse, unintentional or malicious. Those features include:

Tone: the attitude or atmosphere embedded in the words.

Emotive use: language that produces emotional reactions.

Euphemism: words that soften the impact of the situation (pink slip for being fired).

Dysphemism: words that harden and inflame (terrorist for freedom fighter).

Innuendo: indirect accusation without evidence.

Loaded question: have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Weasel words: mercurial and indefinite (might help you lose weight).

Proof surrogate: implied evidence without providing it (we all know she enabled his activity).

Listen to what politicians say and claim. Listen to the wording of the commercial and read the disclaimers. Learn to discern what is said from what is not said. We all use the same words, patriots and autocrats, but what is believable, truthful, constructive, freeing?

I ask my classes to do a little research to illustrate how we use words depending on the situation and context. Just four words to make them think: argument, theory, critical, and freedom. The Greeks actually had four different words for "love" in an effort to reduce confusion. Would that we were as careful.

Critical Thinking #3

 Having begun with a definition of critical thinking  to focus our attention and to which we can return periodically to remind ourselves of our goal, we stopped to reflect on the ethical perspective out of which we respectively work.  The definition is simply a statement; the ethical principles are personal choices and a recognition of the values that guide our living. Now the work starts getting harder and will separate serious seekers from conventional thinkers.

Scholars Linda Elder and Richard Paul have provided eight essential intellectual traits to challenge our efforts. Each could take volumes to discuss, but I will only list them briefly.

1. Intellectual Humility: being conscious of one's knowledge and native egocentrism

2. Intellectual Courage: the need to face beliefs for which we have strong, negative emotions

3. Intellectual Empathy: the need to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others to understand them

4. Intellectual Autonomy: learning to think for oneself and control one's thought process

5. Intellectual Integrity: being true to one's own thinking and being consistent with one's standards

6. Intellectual Perseverance: use insights and truths despite difficulties and irrational opposition

7. Confidence in Reason: human interests are best served by reason and enabling others to think rationally

8.Fairmindedness: treat all viewpoints alike without reference to one's own advantage

The next step is to confront, as honestly as possible, our personal obstacles to critical thinking. The first named obstacle is bias. Bias is the preference for or inclination against something based on your opinions and not evidence. We all have viewpoints; that's normal. The problem comes when there is no good reason and we are oblivious to the consequences. The trap is confirmation bias. Prejudice, a preconceived opinion against someone or something, is a similar obstacle that, unchecked, takes us down the road to destructive discrimination and persecution.

Enculturation is the process of learning the habits of a culture. When that view becomes too narrow and becomes a sense of superiority, the third obstacle of ethnocentrism raises its ugly head. A generalization, the fourth obstacle, a broad statement about a group, can be helpful when true, but when distorted or blatantly false, destroys relationships and prevents communication. The last obstacle to personal critical thinking addressed is stereotyping. A stereotype makes a judgment about a person or group that may not be true. When that judgment  is not true, it limits our understanding of each other.

Ignorance uncorrected becomes fear, which not relieved becomes prejudice. This becomes discrimination, and unchecked, results in persecution. This pattern is too familiar!

The intellectual honesty required to face our personal obstacles can be painful, but the results of enhanced integrity is well worth the effort for ourselves and others.