In my last post I talked about how to evaluate scientific claims. That’s relatively easy compared to critical evaluation of what most of us are come across on a daily basis. Questions like “should a modern society allow capital punishment?” Or “is abortion right or wrong? And who decides?” The guy who had that “I don’t believe the liberal media” bumper sticker had obviously abrogated his critical thinking responsibilities to a political ideology. Evidently, if he read it in a newspaper or heard about it on TV, he automatically rejected it. Unless of course it was Fox News. If I recall correctly, many of Rush Limbaugh’s listeners took great pride in calling themselves “dittoheads” because they agreed with everything he said. It’s scary to me that people would want that blowhard to do all their thinking for them, but they’re clearly out there. I’m just sayin.’
But how do you decide what to believe when there’s no “hard science” to defer to? Philosophers will arrive at a conclusion after examining all the different aspects of a question, but they always reserve a back door for themselves; you’ll hear “I believe this to be the truth, but of course I could be wrong.” Even scientists who deal in testable hypotheses will tell you that even they don’t deal in absolutes; the best they can get to is the same statement as our philosopher friend: “I believe this to be the truth, but of course I could be wrong.” Following their examples then, we should come to a conclusion only after examining the facts, but always remember that there’s the possibility that we could be wrong. That’s really the only intellectually honest position.
So how do you know you have all the facts? Clearly, that’s a never-ending quest. You NEVER have all the facts. To amend the initial question then, how do you know when you have enough facts to come to a conclusion? That’s really the core of it: when do you know you have enough information?
I think that varies from situation to situation and depends on a lot of variables: how much you already know about the topic, how important the question is, what’s involved in finding out the facts, and so forth. Ironically, one thing is available to us today and is both working against us and in our favor is the internet. There’s an enormous amount of information to be had with just a few keystrokes these days. That’s good because it makes it easier and easier to find out stuff, but it’s bad because no one is policing the internet to make sure what’s there is truthful. But when used properly, in general educating oneself by gathering information is a good thing. So that’s the first thing: cast your net as far as possible and gather as much information as you can.
My very intelligent (and relentlessly skeptical) friend Mark Elliot helped with this next one: second, when examining the purported facts, try to determine the agenda of the purveyor of said facts. Are they promoting something? Have an ideology? Looking for fame or money? If you can sort that out, it will give you some insight into their perspective and may help you determine a bias in the data. Everyone has a bias, even when they try not to let it influence what they write or say. A good example of that is so-called “Biblical archeology.” I say “so-called,” not to be pejorative, but because it’s frequently not good archeology. Many times the writer will start from the unshakeable premise that the Bible story is an accurate historical depiction, and then hunt for archeological evidence to support that depiction. A better approach (if you will, a scientific approach), would start with no premises and see what the archeological record had to say, and then build the story from that. The Bible details the ancient Hebrew conquest of modern-day Israel, describing extensive warfare and large-scale military actions; some archeologists have maintained that they have evidence to support that story including fire-scorched city walls and the like. However, there’s a very interesting book entitled “The Bible Unearthed” by Finkelstein and Silberman, two archeologists in Israel, where a very different picture is painted. They say the archeological record supports no such conquest; instead they maintain that the ancient Hebrews were likely hill-dwelling nomads who gradually settled in existing villages and abandoned their nomadic life to take up a pastoral existence. Full circle (and my point): if you have an agenda (to prove the historical accuracy of the Bible, in this example), your treatment of facts may be suspect.
Next, try the “smell” test. Learn to stop and think, “Does this feel right? Does this make sense? Does it fit with what I can verify objectively?” This takes some intellectual rigor and honesty here. If you start out with the thought that “you’ll have to prove this to me,” ESPECIALLY for things that seem on the surface to fit your own belief system, that’s a great start.
Let me give you an example. There’s a number of nut jobs out there who believe the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was somehow staged by the US government to justify going to war in Iraq. Think about it though. For that to be true there would have to be at least dozens, and perhaps hundreds of people who would have to believe in that mission (to start war) strongly enough that they would keep this vast conspiracy a secret. I don’t know about you, but when someone tells me something juicy I’m as likely as not to forget I’m supposed to keep it a secret, and spill the beans within 48 hours. And the US government is worse than I am at keeping a secret! How likely is it that dozens of people would be able to keep this a secret for more than a decade after the events? And not a single person blabbing? I think pretty unlikely!
I’m not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, so poking holes in that one is pretty easy for me. But what if I were inclined to believe it in the first place? That’s when it’s especially important to be skeptical. So the time to be the most skeptical is, ironically, when we’re most inclined to believe!
To recap then, here’s the steps:
1. Gather your facts.
2. Look for an agenda
3. Give it the smell test (Does it make sense?)
Applying these then puts us well on the way to critical thinking!
There’s a part 4 coming up though.
About BigBill
Stats: Married male boomer.
Hobbies: Hiking, woodworking, reading, philosophy, good conversation.
Thinking critically (part 3)
In my last post I talked about how to evaluate scientific claims. That’s relatively easy compared to critical evaluation of what most of us are come across on a daily basis. Questions like “should a modern society allow capital punishment?” Or “is abortion right or wrong? And who decides?” The guy who had that “I don’t believe the liberal media” bumper sticker had obviously abrogated his critical thinking responsibilities to a political ideology. Evidently, if he read it in a newspaper or heard about it on TV, he automatically rejected it. Unless of course it was Fox News. If I recall correctly, many of Rush Limbaugh’s listeners took great pride in calling themselves “dittoheads” because they agreed with everything he said. It’s scary to me that people would want that blowhard to do all their thinking for them, but they’re clearly out there. I’m just sayin.’
But how do you decide what to believe when there’s no “hard science” to defer to? Philosophers will arrive at a conclusion after examining all the different aspects of a question, but they always reserve a back door for themselves; you’ll hear “I believe this to be the truth, but of course I could be wrong.” Even scientists who deal in testable hypotheses will tell you that even they don’t deal in absolutes; the best they can get to is the same statement as our philosopher friend: “I believe this to be the truth, but of course I could be wrong.” Following their examples then, we should come to a conclusion only after examining the facts, but always remember that there’s the possibility that we could be wrong. That’s really the only intellectually honest position.
So how do you know you have all the facts? Clearly, that’s a never-ending quest. You NEVER have all the facts. To amend the initial question then, how do you know when you have enough facts to come to a conclusion? That’s really the core of it: when do you know you have enough information?
I think that varies from situation to situation and depends on a lot of variables: how much you already know about the topic, how important the question is, what’s involved in finding out the facts, and so forth. Ironically, one thing is available to us today and is both working against us and in our favor is the internet. There’s an enormous amount of information to be had with just a few keystrokes these days. That’s good because it makes it easier and easier to find out stuff, but it’s bad because no one is policing the internet to make sure what’s there is truthful. But when used properly, in general educating oneself by gathering information is a good thing. So that’s the first thing: cast your net as far as possible and gather as much information as you can.
My very intelligent (and relentlessly skeptical) friend Mark Elliot helped with this next one: second, when examining the purported facts, try to determine the agenda of the purveyor of said facts. Are they promoting something? Have an ideology? Looking for fame or money? If you can sort that out, it will give you some insight into their perspective and may help you determine a bias in the data. Everyone has a bias, even when they try not to let it influence what they write or say. A good example of that is so-called “Biblical archeology.” I say “so-called,” not to be pejorative, but because it’s frequently not good archeology. Many times the writer will start from the unshakeable premise that the Bible story is an accurate historical depiction, and then hunt for archeological evidence to support that depiction. A better approach (if you will, a scientific approach), would start with no premises and see what the archeological record had to say, and then build the story from that. The Bible details the ancient Hebrew conquest of modern-day Israel, describing extensive warfare and large-scale military actions; some archeologists have maintained that they have evidence to support that story including fire-scorched city walls and the like. However, there’s a very interesting book entitled “The Bible Unearthed” by Finkelstein and Silberman, two archeologists in Israel, where a very different picture is painted. They say the archeological record supports no such conquest; instead they maintain that the ancient Hebrews were likely hill-dwelling nomads who gradually settled in existing villages and abandoned their nomadic life to take up a pastoral existence. Full circle (and my point): if you have an agenda (to prove the historical accuracy of the Bible, in this example), your treatment of facts may be suspect.
Next, try the “smell” test. Learn to stop and think, “Does this feel right? Does this make sense? Does it fit with what I can verify objectively?” This takes some intellectual rigor and honesty here. If you start out with the thought that “you’ll have to prove this to me,” ESPECIALLY for things that seem on the surface to fit your own belief system, that’s a great start.
Let me give you an example. There’s a number of nut jobs out there who believe the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was somehow staged by the US government to justify going to war in Iraq. Think about it though. For that to be true there would have to be at least dozens, and perhaps hundreds of people who would have to believe in that mission (to start war) strongly enough that they would keep this vast conspiracy a secret. I don’t know about you, but when someone tells me something juicy I’m as likely as not to forget I’m supposed to keep it a secret, and spill the beans within 48 hours. And the US government is worse than I am at keeping a secret! How likely is it that dozens of people would be able to keep this a secret for more than a decade after the events? And not a single person blabbing? I think pretty unlikely!
I’m not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, so poking holes in that one is pretty easy for me. But what if I were inclined to believe it in the first place? That’s when it’s especially important to be skeptical. So the time to be the most skeptical is, ironically, when we’re most inclined to believe!
To recap then, here’s the steps:
1. Gather your facts.
2. Look for an agenda
3. Give it the smell test (Does it make sense?)
Applying these then puts us well on the way to critical thinking!
There’s a part 4 coming up though.
About BigBill
Stats: Married male boomer. Hobbies: Hiking, woodworking, reading, philosophy, good conversation.