“Critical Thinking”: Separating the Pepper From the Fly Shit–If You Dare
by Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
Introduction: What is “Critical Thinking” (CT) and Why Do Those Who Claim to Most Call For It Really Fear It Most?
Critical Thinking (CT) is a lot like heaven: “Everybody wants to go there but nobody wants to do what it takes–die”); or it can be seen as like the “Christmas Spirit”: “It is easier and better to give than receive”); or, perhaps like the old saying: “Be careful what you wish for you just might get it.”.
I was once asked to jump on the “for Dummies” bandwagon and write a book with the title “Critical Thinking for Dummies”. I said that the book would not likely sell many copies and the person who wanted me to write the book asked why. I said, “Look at the title: Those truly aspiring to learn some of the principles and tricks of critical thinking are not likely dummies and likely do not think of themselves that way; and those who are the real dummies have every reason to burn not buy or read the book, kill the author, and blacklist all those who buy it; as critical thinking, when learned and applied consistently is a real threat to their kind.” He laughed and said “I guess that is applied critical thinking”.
“If the construction of the future, and its completion for all time is not our task, all the more certain is what we must accomplish in the present: I mean the ruthless criticism of everything that exists; the criticism being ‘ruthless’ in the sense that it fears neither its own results nor conflict with the powers that be.” (Karl Marx letter to Arnold Ruge 1843)
I could go to some of the standard texts (there are few) in CT and just quote some pithy definition. Rather than that, I’ll give my own working definition of what is real critical thinking and how does it differ from mere criticism or even critique. Basically CT involves the development, application and “validation” of scientific-method-based analysis of the real quality of one’s own thinking and the products of it, and that of others. By “quality” I mean multi-dimensional: rhetorical intention; disguised intention; deductive logic; inductive process and logic; sources; methodologies and sampling; consideration of alternatives to positions advanced; framing; rhetorical and other use of logical fallacies http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Logical_fallacy ; propaganda and psyops trade-craft; implications; etc.
A student taking a course in Critical Thinking ran into his old Army buddy who asked him what he had been doing.
CT student: “I’m taking a course in Critical Thinking at the local College”.
Army buddy: “Critical Thinking–What’s that?”
CT student: “Well our professor uses the “3-Fs”: Figures–> Facts –> Figuring (what all the facts mean).
Army buddy: “What?”.
CT student: “Look, “do you have a weed-wacker and lawn mower?”
Army buddy: “Yeah I do; both of them”.
CT student: “Then you are most likely a heterosexual”.
Army buddy: “Your damn straight I am, but how did you get that?”
CT student: A weed-wacker and lawn mower means you probably [not certain] have a house, probably [not certain] have a family and thus probably [not certain] heterosexual; it is all based on probabilities and logic. Go try it yourself.”
Later the Army buddy ran into another Army buddy of theirs who asks what their buddy the CT student has been doing:
Army buddy: “He’s taking a course on Critical Thinking stuff ”
Second army buddy: “What is that?”
First army buddy: ” OK, do you have a weed-wacker and a lawn mower?
Second army buddy: “No why do you ask that?”
First army buddy: HOMO!
Critical thinking is not mere criticism or even critique because true CT means that it is always, and I would argue first and foremost, to oneself and one’s own arguments. It means without fear or favor and that is exactly what Marx meant: “…fears neither its own results nor conflict with the powers that be [including conflict with one’s own pet theories, passions and interests].” That is why courage and integrity are prerequisites for CT.
Expose an irrational belief, keep a man [sic] rational for a day. Expose irrational thinking, and keep a man [sic] rational for a lifetime.
Basically Critical Thinking (CT) may and likely will lead to criticism; but it need not be so in a negative sense unless taken so with someone with a fragile ego and/or interests to protect. CT is really about “analysis” (in accordance with best yet evolving scientific methods of investigation, induction and deduction) of the “quality” (basis, evidence, reasoning, implications, rhetorical intentions, methodologies,) of one’s thinking and that of others. But just as with cigarettes and other potential toxins, there should be a warning sign on every book or course on CT:
Warning!
Critical Thinking, if Learned and Applied Seriously, May and Likely Will Lead To
- A lonely Life;
- Sudden and Often Job and Career Changes;
- Divorce;
- Your own Personal FBI, CIA, NSA or Whatever File;
- High Blood Pressure and Rage When Watching Politicians and Pundits on TV and Replacement Costs of Smashed TV;
- No Invitations to Parties, Lecture or Just “Schmooze”;
- Assassination, Wrongful Imprisonment, Serial Harassment
“Tell the Truth–Then Run” (Yugoslavian aphorism)
At the present place where I teach economics and geography, the night before an accreditation visit, the administration hit all the classrooms and posted very expensive notices in each one, that proclaimed that in all of our classrooms, we were teaching and the students were learning the “Six Campus-Wide Abilities” guiding and integral to all classes and curricula. I remember walking into my classroom and seeing for the first time, this sign and bold proclamation not of what we propose to do if we get an unconditional pass on accreditation (we did not in 1996 and later as well), but a bald-faced lie that this (teaching and learning these abilities) what had been going on all along.
What were these six guiding abilities (baskets of skills and capabilities)? Critical Thinking; Information Technology Awareness; Global Multi-Cultural Awareness; Effective Citizenship; Lifelong Learning; Effective Communication. The presumption was–and is– that if one were some kind of titled teacher or academic, or administrator, of course, from the title alone, one could and should presume that the teacher or administrator would be able to define all the critical terms, let lone provide some instruments and metrics of outcomes assessment; and that they were in place and working.
This was a true “Potemkin College” and the timing (on a Friday before an accreditaton visit to commence the next Monday) as well as secrecy of the placement of these signs in classrooms spoke more of the fears of administrators and some of their compliant proxies, than any real commitment to, or even ability to define, the skills and capabilities in the respective six baskets of “abilities”. From my own experiences in academia and government, I have found that few if any administrators or teachers have been trained in CT or read in the area, can define it, can give concrete examples of it at work, and most of all, have any real reason to other than fear it because of what about them would be exposed when the CT scan turns in their direction to analyze the “quality” of their thinking and policies and machinations based upon that thinking.
Dimensions of Critical Thinking Explored
At the heart of scientific method is critical thinking . By critical thinking we mean all those time/results-tested rules and processes for delineating, analyzing and predicting the essential features, dynamics(processes and patterns of change) and consequences-implications of phenomena; ultimately for the purpose of transforming and controlling those phenomena and their effects.
Critical thinking involves separating out what is really being argued or implemented—as opposed to appearances. Critical thinking also involves understanding sources and errors of bias; it also involves analyzing by whom, for whom, for what purposes, on what basis or authority and with what probable costs and benefits is something being argued or implemented.
Critical thinking is not about simply trashing sacred icons ,traditions , institutions and beliefs for the fun of it . Yet critical thinking may and often does, lead to undermining or
challenging sacred beliefs and institutions as new theories , facts, data and reasoning processes emerge , are established and ultimately replace , the old. Science proceeds funeral by funeral as old “facts”, beliefs, traditions, academic luminaries, and institutions die and are buried and replaced by new ones .
Of course not all of the profound questions related to human existence can be handled through processes of science and critical thinking . Some profound questions are by their nature “metaphysical ” and therefore unanswerable through empirical or scientific methods. Yet we receive proof everyday that science and the scientific method work: as we take a medication that produces the predicted and intended results; as we fly on an airplane and arrive at our intended destination (with or without our baggage) alive and on
schedule; et c. Critical thinking produces empowerment as it helps a person in being progressively more able to differentiate: style from substance; rhetoric from reality; appearance from essence; falsehoods from closer approximations to truths; sophistry from sound reasoning; contrived “data” from real facts; ‘the pepper from the fly shit.”
In human society as i nature, every potential blessing is also a potential curse and vice-versa . For example, many of the macroeconomic forces that operate to reduce unemployment also operate to increase inflation . And so it is with critical thinking : that which is a potential blessing can also become a curse if not properly handled. When one
experienced in critical thinking hears patently racist, sexist, national chauvinistic or other forms of absurd arguments , that person can become isolated , alienated , intolerant, angry and antagonistic arrogant or depressed . We should never forget that each person is a teacher and each person is a student . We should never forget that learning critical thinking, essential to and like education in general, is a lifetime process.
We should never forget that even the most able in the area of critical thinking ,often lapse into non critical thinking in accordance with various interests and passions. There is a popular saying in southern India: “For the little frog in the well, the sky is as big as the opening of the welL” We all live in various kinds of wells. Further, as well learn more about neurobiology and human cognition, we learn that more than 90% of the biological processes involved in cognition and action occur at the subconscious and precursor levels without our awareness. We often decide in an instant, impulsively, then look for rationales ex post facto for our decisions made on impulse and subconscious levels.
Some Elements and Issues of Critical Thinking
1. DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN FACT AND OPINION
2. RECOGNIZING AND EVALUATING AUTHOR BIAS AND RHETORIC
3. DIFFERENTIATING CORRELATION AND CAUSALITY
4. DETERMINING ACCURACY/COMPLETENESS OF INFORMATION
5. RECOGNITION OF LOGICAL FALLACIES AND FAULTY REASONING
6. CONTRASTING/COMPARING INFORMATION AND PERSPECTIVES
7. DEVELOPING INFERENTIAL AND DEDUCTIVE SKILLS
8. MAKING JUDGMENTS AND DRAWING LOGICA L CONCLUSIONS
9. CONTEXTUAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES
10. EXISTENTIAL CHALLENGES
DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN FACT AND OPINION:
1. A fact is a statement about a phenomenon that has been proven true
repeatedly by experimentation , prediction and other methods and has consistently survived attempts to test and refute it.
2 .Question: What externally-verifiable information has been presented that
suggests a statement or assertion to be true or false?
3 .Question: How does the author differentiate between the interpretation of information and the presentation of established facts and data?
4.Question: What rules or techniques can be used to identify and differentiate statements of fact and statements of opinion ?
5.Question: Can a statement contain both facts and opinion ?
6.Question: Can some opinions be considered more reliable than others ? Why?and On what basis?
7.Question: Are there some ‘facts ‘ that are beyond dispute versus other ‘facts’ that are provisional?
RECOGNIZING AND EVALUATING AUTHOR BIAS AND RHETORIC
1.Question: What qualifications does the author have for writing on this subject? What are the qualifications of the sources quoted by the author ?
2 .Question: When and where was this article first published? Does this information affect the credibility of the article ?Why?
3 .Question: What overt and possibly covert organizational/ideological ties and material interests does the author have? Has the author in the past taken a position dictated by known ‘facts ‘that was in contradiction with his/her ideological biases and material interests?
4.Question: What do you think the author wants his/her readers to think or do ? Does the author openly proclaim his/her biases at the onset ?” Does the author claim to be ‘unbiased’ and therefore ‘objective’ ? Can any person be truly “unbiased” ? Is objectivity
versus subjectivity determined by degree of analytical rigor or does bias necessarily interfere with objectivity?
5 .Question: Do the sources quoted by the author appear to be exclusively from a narrow segment of the broad spectrum of ideologies ? Is there an apparent correspondence between the ideological perspective of the author and the ideological perspectives of the
sources quoted ?
DIFFERENTIATING CORRELATION AND CAUSALITY:
1.Question: If two or more variables are shown to be highly correlated , on what basis other than the high degree of correlation can causality be established ? (What are the mechanisms of cause and effect?)
2.Question: What is a statistically-significant level of correlation? If I find even that a given variable appears to consistently follow another over apparent time and space, why do we
automatically conclude that an event or variable ‘was CAUSED by the event/variable that preceded it ? (Post Hoc Ero Propter Hoc Fallacy) When two variables are highly correlated over time, could it indicate that both variables were influenced by another variable/event that was not immediately apparent ?
3 .Question: How reliable are the data bases and statistical techniques employed to establish correlations?- What are the real world time lags between movements of variables? Do reporting intervals for relevant data prohibit realistic time lagging of
variables to establish correlations? On what basis have time lags between variables been assumed?
4.Question: Is there only one independent variable or are there multiple independent variables; How and on what basis are they differentially weighted or ranked in terms of a given dependent variable and importance to it as a causal variable?
5. Question: Does the author consider feedback effects, loops and factors outside of his/her academic discipline when viewing causality? What principles, theoretical work, time periods and analytical scopes were considered by the author in viewing causality?A variable thought to be an effect of something could also be considered a cause of something when longer time periods or wider analytical scopes are taken into account :example:
high fertility rates are often seen as a fundamental cause of underdevelopment, and yet underdevelopment can be seen as a cause of relatively high fertility rates when wider scopes of analysis are employed.
DETERMINING ACCURACY/COMPLETENESS OF INFORMATION PRESENTED :
1.’Question: Have any known facts, arguments, data and inductive procedures relevant to the argument been omitted ? Why?
2.Question: What sources of information other than those cited could be used to check the information and data presented? Were multiple sources and citations given for each fact or or piece of information presented and considered? Were conflicting data, arguments and statistical procedures presented and considered ? Why were some data and arguments dismissed in favor of others?
3 .Question: Was information presented on the statistical , inductive and deductive processes employed to obtain or infer the information , facts and conclusions presented ?What is the general reputation of the data/information sources and inductive/ deductive processes employed ?
RECOGNIZING LOGICAL FALLACIES AND FAULTY REASONING:
Fallacy of “Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (Latin for”After this therefore because of this*): Because an event appears to follow a previous event , it is a fallacy (logically unsustainable proposition when tested) to argue that a given event must have been caused by the event that preceded it; e.g.”Everytime I wash my car i trains , therefore if I wash my car it will rain.”
Fallacy of “Proof by Analogy” An analogy is not proof or an equivalence; only an invitation
to thought and see some possible comparisons. Comparisons can be carried to or of extremes or to assert equivalences and other comparisons can be made between things that in reality have nothing in common.
Fallacy of Composition: It is a fallacy to argue that what is true in the particular must be true in general: e.g. If I cannot see at the football game. I should stand up; however,if everybody stands up ,no one can see .
Fallacy of Division: It is a fallacy to argue that what is true in general, is necessarily true in the particular; e.g. federal budget deficits may be desirable in the short-run to stimulate an
economy out of recession but for a particular person with marginal and transitory employment, deficit spending may bring disaster.
Fallacy of “Ad Hominem”Arguments: An”Ad Hominem’ argument is one that attempts to refute or present an argument by attacking the character, reputation or image of a person
advancing the argument that is being attacked.”A person held in general disrepute may be correct on a point, while a person held in high general repute may be simply wrong.
Fallacy of Appeal to Authority: One should never at least as “Evidence*,cite the mere opinions of someone generally thought to be an expert or great authority Quotations of opinions from great names and authorities may properly be used to provoke thought : they should never be used as asserted ‘evidence, ‘ as even the greatest names and authorities can be and have been wrong in their own academic disciplines.
Fallacy of Oversimplification: Potentially relevant information is ignored often to
make a point:e.g.”the majority of voters in the U.S. are [were] Democrats. Therefore Democrats will win every election.
Fallacy of Tautologies: A tautology is a circular argument that is inherently true and therefore meaningless in an argument. For example : “Inflation has increased; this has been as a result of rising prices.’Since the definition of inflation is a process or generally rising price levels eroding the purchasing power of a currency, this becomes a tautology: prices are rising “because” prices are rising.
Fallacy of Stereotyping: People or objects that are only superficially similar are lumped together under simplistic labels, generalizations or categories; e.g. Hispanic-Americans”all”speak Spanish and”therefore”Spanish language advertising will appeal to”all”of them .”
Ignoring the Question: Digression, obfuscation or similar techniques are used to avoid answering a question or dealing with an argument; eg, when asked about the possibility of a tax increase, Senator Porkbarrel replies ,” I have always met the obligations I have to those I represent. ”
Fallacy of Faulty or Unwarranted Generalization: A generalization unwarranted by the limited data or evidence given e.g. Ducks and Geese go south for the winter and ‘therefore ‘
all waterfowl migrate south for the winter.
Observationally Equivalent Hypotheses: Many arguments appear to be logical and based upon sound evidence. There maybe, however,. other competing and equivalent-in standing–hypotheses that appear to be equally logical and based upon sound evidence. Why did the Stock Market Crash? Why did the election results come out as they did ?
CONTRASTING AND COMPARING INFORMATION AND PERSPECTIVES:
1 .Question: What experience and qualifications does the author have on the subject relative to the author writing from an opposing perspective? Does the author explicitly state his/her biases and credentials or attempt to hide or exaggerate them ?
2 .Question: To what extent does the author make the reader aware of opposing arguments ?
3 .Question: Does the author refer to and deal with, data sources employed by those with opposing perspectives? Does the author employ new data and data sources to deal with opposing perspectives? What is the general reputation and credibility of those sources and the data sources employed by the opposition ?
4.Question: Do you have the feeling that the author is constructing assumptions and structuring’ supporting data”so as to ‘logically*arrive at predetermined and ideologically convenient conclusions? How do the opposing authors stand on this question?Are there other possible conclusions consistent with the data presented that have not been addressed
by the authors ? Which of the contending authors is strongest in presenting and dealing honestly and without caricatures, with, opposing points of view?
CONTEXTUAL and EXISTENTIAL CHALLENGES:
Some contextual and existential challenges challenges are forces, interests , institutions, modes of human behavior and institutions that challenge,limit, constrain, shape and inhibit the full receiving, processing and utilization of information and argument.
1. Pseudo-objectivity of Analyses of Problems
2. Withholding of Relevant Information (deliberat eCover-ups)
3. Avoidance of Issues(Calculated Reporting to Enhance Careers and Images of Institutions )
4. Disinformation and Calculated Misrepresentation of Information
5. Biased Expertise(“Experts ‘for Hire pandering for personal gain)
6. Corruption
7. Harassment(Of Whistle-Blowers etc.)
8. Short-termism(By focusing on short-term issues , gives appearance of effective action )-
9. Ambiguity(Ambiguous terms or meaning changed to suit the argument )
10. Unaccountability(Organizations and Institutions lack accountability and transparency and therefore lack incentives to properly research and report) .
11 Lack of Personal and Institutional Integrity and Credibility
12. Inter and Intra Organizational Competition (e.g.Media competing to get the ‘scoop’ ,”Empire Builders’, “Turf Protectors’ ,*N.IH.”(Not Invented Here) Syndrome
13. Situational, elastic and Dubious Standards of Proof
FRAMING:
All rhetoric begins with framing an argument. What does a picture frame do? It is supposed to outline and highlight, direct perception into the picture in some hoped for or calculating way. What does it mean to frame someone for a crime? It means to set up a package of selected and contrived inculpatory elements that make the person appear guilty as well as hide those facts and arguments that are exculpatory. This is what the whole fraudulent “adversarial “legal system is based upon: each lawyer tries to hide the nasties and pimp the supposed positives for his or her case while doing the opposite to the opponent: hyping the nasties and hiding any positives or exculpatory in their case.
Framing an argument works the same way. If you accept my terms, my definitions, my instruments of measurement and metrics, my data and sources, my reasoning, and if I can get you to ignore or even not be well-disposed to the arguments of my opponents, I have already taken a large step in rhetoric or persuasion. Why? Because new discoveries, and some not-so-new discoveries in neurobiology and cognition show that much of what happens prior to, but necessary for any conscious cognition or “choices” considered and made, over 90% of the basic neurobiology involved, including that which has been pushed from conscious cognition and action in the past to the subconscious in the present, occurs at the unconscious and sub-conscious levels.
Often we decide things impulsively then look for rationales and supporting sources and data for our reasoning post hoc and only if challenged. Then there is confirmation bias where we both consciously and sub-consciously look for sources that confirm our own biases and positions and also eschew and even trash sources in opposition even if not in open and conscious opposition to our own positions and perceived interests.
If A = B All men are mortal
If B = C Socrates is a man
Then or “Ergo” A = C Socrates is mortal
This is one-part of scientific method: Deduction or going from general premises or supposed axioms and laws, to specific cases and predictions or conclusions. But the problem is where do these general premises come from? What about reverse deduction or contrived deduction (where I know that I want to assert A = C now what “premises” do I need, given variables A, B and C to come up with A = C in ways that are “deductively valid”)?
If A = US; B = American Capitalism; C = Real Freedom, Democracy, World Leadership etc. then we get the classic Cold War syllogism minus the “Ifs”:
US = American Capitalism
American Capitalism = Real Freedom etc
US = Real Freedom etc…
Or to illustrate how deadly “logic” and rhetoric can be: A = Religion A or Ideology A; B = Holy Book B or Grand Theory B; C = True and Only word of God or Only and Absolute Truth
RA/IA = HBB/GTB
HBB/GTB = TWOG/AT
RA/IA = TWOG/AT
From Alice Through the Looking Glass:
“When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” “The question is”, said Alice, whether one can make a word mean so many things.” The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master that’s all.”
With political, economics and other forms of power comes the power of defining and spreading the definitions of important words in discussions on important issues. The old saying is that “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter”; it should have been added that one can easily switch from one to the other in the eyes of former mentors as well as enemies. But if one defines terrorism as simply any act, by anyone, under any banner or supposed authority, that involves calculated, or depraved indifference to violence and force or coercion of non-combatants, neutralized former combatants, or general populations without defenses is terrorism; no matter by whom, against whom, under what banner or cause; because that is what terrorism is and what terrorists intend.