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.