Handout 2
Critical Thinking Made Easy
This section will consist of an in depth exploration of the specific
blocking mechanisms (also called fallacies) that make for poor thinking
ability, some of which are: wishful thinking, confusion of cause and
effect, appeals to tradition, convention and authority, labling,
overgeneralisation and false (unwarranted) belief.
Nothing
Blocks *My* Thinking!
Ya think so do ya? Well, we all share some deep biases and prejudices
that trip up our ability to think clearly about certain issues. But
far more insidious than the obviously controversial issues are those
everyday ones which cripple us because they are so well hidden by
our biases and prejudices that we aren't even aware we have them.
On these we find our toughest enemies. Like a comfortable pair of
old jeans, we slip into old thinking patterns and beliefs without
a thought. To give you an idea of some of the sources of shaky belief,
I've provided some definitions and examples of the worst "mindblockers:"
that turn the best of us into blockheads on occasion.
-
Wishful
Thinking:
- Ever wanted something to be the case so badly that you convinced
yourself it was indeed the case? No? Hmm, ok, how about the last
time you asked yourself why you pay taxes? Or own a car? I bet most
of you said you pay taxes because the government says you must,
and beyond that, you pay taxes for??? You drive a car because you
have to get to work, and you need a car to get to work because???
You think children should be in school until they are at least sixteen
because??? You're against drug legalisation because??? Depending
on one's answers and degree of thinking ability, all of these scenarios
involve deception of oneself, or wishful thinking. Wishful
thinking means one denies the implications of a position or belief
based on a deep-seated desire that it be otherwise than it is. For
example, if you think that prisons are the answer to the crime wave,
then you might be guilty of wishful thinking.
-
Appeal
to Tradition:
- Appealing to tradition is what we are guilty of when we say things
like: "My family has always done it this way," "This
country has never allowed gays in the armed forces," "The
best family is the nuclear family consisting of mother, father and
2.5 children," and so on. Suffice it to say that what has
been the case doesn't alone substantiate or support what ought
to be the case.
Appeal
to Authority:
- We make this error when we cite the name of some expert, law,
institution or other entity as justification for our belief when
the belief may have nothing to do with the expertise or realm of
influence of those entities themselves. For example: Suppose I claimed
that Stephen Hawking is a great scientist and he is quoted as saying
that the human genome research project is a waste of research monies.
Now that isn't true, but can you identify the problem here? It's
not the fact that the claim is untrue that's the problem, because
it could be true. The error lies in assuming that because
Hawking is a great scientist he is also an expert in areas of science
outside his own area of work as a theoretical physicist. Appeals
to authority are common coin in sloppy thinking and are particularly
troublesome when the authority being appealed to is a family member,
the church or a respected peer.
-
Labeling:
- If you are bipolar, then you already are a victim of "labeling."
To be bipolar is to be officially categorised as mentally
ill with all the stigma associated with that tag.
Labeling results from a natural human desire to make simple that
which is often incredibly complicated and difficult to sort out.
But seriously damaging consequences follow from this tendency to
think of things in mutually exclusive terms (if something
is hot, it can't be cold). Here's a typical example, "Welfare
mothers have many children just so they can collect more money from
the government; because they are lazy; because they are junkies,
because they are stupid." And another: "A child is anyone
under eighteen years of age or the age of consent." In this
example , you need to ask yourself what it means to define someone
as a child. Is a seventeen year old boy raising his sisters by himself
a child? Is a 14 year old girl practicing prostitution a child?
Is a sixteen year old girl who has a genius IQ, a college degree,
and is pursuing a doctorate in physics a child? It's never easy
to slap a label on that fits all particular cases that fall under
that label. Understand this if nothing else: When it comes to
being a careful, critical thinker there is no such thing
as "A SIMPLE ANSWER."
Hasty
Moral Judgment:
- Better known to most of you as "jumping to conclusions,"
this fallacy of thinking is incredibly destructive when unwarranted.
Have you ever found yourself thinking that a scruffily dressed,
homeless person is someone to avoid because a) they might rob you,
b) you wouldn't want people to think you were just like them, c)
they are junkies d) they are lazy, welfare cheats, OR..OR...OR,
e) mygawd they're crazy! They could be mentally ill! Hmmmm...yes,
well..you can see how troublesome and damaging jumping to conclusions
(hasty judgments) can be...especially to we members of the
Bipolar Nation :).
-
Conventionalism:
- This fallacy is akin to "appeals to tradition and authority"
already discussed, but further explanation is in order. First off,
there is no such thing as conventional wisdom in a pure, unadulterated
sense, instead, it is simply a shortcut way to talk about moral
teachings and "social rules" that our particular
group has come to accept as true. However, the reasons
why we once were justified in accepting them may no longer hold.
For example: "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again;"
"If you work hard you'll get ahead;" and "Everyone
is entitled to a college education" all presuppose conventional
truths that may no longer be viable under certain circumstances.
Can you think your way to some reasons for discarding these bits
of wisdom? There are some excellent reasons for why conventional
thinking can lead you to making some miserably bad choices in life
if you don't take the opportunity to learn how to avoid them. The
best way to think of these conventional tidbits is to realise that
though they may serve as general principles to guide you, they can
never be applied to every single situation one must think about.
The specific case requires one to go well beyond these simplistic
guidelines, and that's where good thinking skills give you a leg-up
over those whose thinking abilities are jumbled and sloppy.
-
Frame
of Reference:
- The best way to understand how your "frame of reference"
functions, is to think of it as a type of information filter,
and unfortunately, just as frequently as a kind of cognitive
blinder that often interferes with one's thinking processes.
Suppose you are a psychiatric nurse with four years of college and
ten years of practice behind you. Suppose also that a psychiatric
patient comes to you with a complaint that one of your staff members
has been sexually harassing him/her for several weeks. Given your
background, your first inclination may be to ignore the complaint
as just another manifestation of aberrant behaviour on the patient's
part, but you'd be guilty of allowing your frame of reference as
an experienced nurse to cognitively blind you, thus preventing you
from objectively looking at the situation on its own merits. Again,
a frame of reference is useful as a form of shortcutting
when there's little time for careful thought, in fact, it's essential
in some emergency situations, but it's deadly when the issue requires
something more than a cursory treatment. In fact, the consequences
of failing to get beyond those cognitive blinders may mean you lose
your job, someone is seriously injured or dies, lawsuits ensue,
and your credibility as a professional is destroyed, all because
your frame of reference led you to think in a lazy, sloppy manner.
-
Fallacies
of Cause and Effect:
- We always look for a cause to attach to some effect we've observed,
but then Scottish philosopher David Hume pointed out that we never
actually get to observe a cause, we just notice the conjunction
of events, some more, some less obvious and correct. Silly cases
of causal confusion involve things like believing a rabbit's foot,
a horseshoe, or a four-leaf clover causes good luck, thinking a
certain ball cap or other piece of apparel will help win the big
game, hoping a rainbow and other such omens portend prosperity.
Such silly superstitions harm no one, but some causal confusions
just aren't that benign.
You've probably heard someone claim that "The current rock
music like that produced by late Nirvana band leader Curt Cobain
is responsible for the high rates of youth suicide in industrialized
countries." Nice try, but there's no evidence that rock music
causes teenagers to suicide; the problem is much
more complicated than such an easy causal explanation indicates.
Maybe you've heard the ubiquitous cry of the right and their call
for a reinsitutionalization of strong family values,
as though there ever was such a thing. Family values are as different
as each family who claims to have such values, so there can be no
one set of family values per se, let alone can it be that
the lack of such values could cause all of the
current social ills or that their presence could cause a cure for
the same.
One additional kind of causal fallacy is heard everywhere and is
particularly damaging to thinking ability if one isn't aware of
it; it's called the slippery slope fallacy. Here's
a current example: Someone says, "I'm against making euthanasia
legal. I mean, where do you draw the line between mercy killing
of the terminally ill and that of the old and feeble? What's next?
We make it ok to kill the disabled, the poor, the homeless??? Nope,
it's just too dangerous." The overriding assumption here is
that no line can be drawn between voluntary
euthansia and involuntary euthanasia, yet clearly
such distinctions can be made because we just made them i.e., voluntary
versus involuntary. If you understand the meaning
of those terms, why then wouldn't one be able to decide whether
or not a case at hand is one whereby the patient is giving their
consent to be voluntarily euthanised or not? Obviously, the distinction
can be made, and so the hypothetical argument posed above falls
apart. Politicians love this strategy because at first blush it
just sounds right, yet it's obviously flawed. It
was just such an argument that got the United States into both the
Viet Nam and the Gulf wars without good reasons.
Well, that wraps this part up, now....Wait a minute there hotshot! You get
your buns back here right now!!!--You aren't done yet, and school's not out
till I say, so tap your poor fellow student down below on the back and follow
him to the page with your homework assignment on it <evil schoolmarm
grin>. Oh come on now; it's for your own good ya know :)
|