Making Better Decisions: Critical Thinking. Part 2
Proper Deliberation is the use of reason to think clearly and truthfully.
Proper Intention is the examination of one’s sincerity of motives.
CRITICAL THINKING
We live in a “post-truth” culture. One that is driven by personal emotions, opinions, and desires rather than by critical reasoning…instead forming a culture of arbitrary choice. Reality becomes whatever one wants it to be. Truth, that is “what corresponds to reality,” becomes repressed by distorted and ambiguous language. Phrases like “fringe theory,” “counter-knowledge,” and “alternative truth” undermine the essential content of truth; while accusations of “misinformation,” “extreme views,” “conspiracy theories,” and “fear mongering” are often used to paint truth with an attitude of skepticism.
The best defense, the most reliable one, is for every person to learn how to think clearly and critically. This entails pausing to identify various factual information and to consolidate it into evidenced-based conclusions. The process necessitates a measure of humility in understanding that one does not know everything. Furthermore, its goal is not to disparage, but to distinguish between claims that can be validated, and those that cannot. Mark Twain is credited with once saying:
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” -Mark Twain
So, the message in all this is that one should approach the acquisition of truthful information with a healthy dose of thoughtfulness and reflection in order to not swallow the easy bait of fallacy. This involves a great measure of humble discernment in analyzing information sources for accuracy and truthfulness. Furthermore, it necessitates the personal acquisition of both the knowledge and skill for valid reasoning. Let’s look at some everyday examples of how this can be accomplished.
Screening Sources for Accuracy and Truthfulness
A well-known Hollywood actor, stylishly dressed and surrounded by fashionably appointed furnishings, looks toward you and begins to describe in a smoothly delivered manner, the importance of a unique and novel treatment for a common malady…or a new product of a popular company…or endorses a particular person or cause. Citing that it has been proven beneficial by “many studies” and testimonials, it has become accepted and promoted by “many experts” as well. Though this illustration may be somewhat over dramatized, it is at least representative of many misrepresentations we are exposed to everyday. How do we go about processing this information for accuracy and truthfulness?
1. What are the qualifications of the agent? Is he or she an authentic expert in the field of reference; or is the information only one of personal favor or promotional interests? Do we give credence to the agent’s information solely because he or she is a favorite personality? How is their trust and accuracy authenticated?
2. Is reliable documentation and supporting factual information presented? Can the truth claims be easily verified? Search scientific articles, on-line professional statistics, comparison reviews, “Consumer Reports,” national and state association’s positions, fact check.
3. Who stands to gain by the acceptance of this information? Is this a self-serving promotion by the agent or the supporting company? Could there be commercial or institutional bias at play?
4. Are the “studies,” “testimonials,” and “experts” referred to authentic and representative of the large picture or only a narrow selection of source material? Were the studies properly designed and performed in a scientific manner? Was there a control group with which to compare the results? How were the persons giving their testimonials chosen? Were they compensated in some way? What “experts” were identified? Were they truly experts within the field of reference? Do they represent the consensus of other experts, or are they exceptions to the norm? Were experts compensated in any manner by the promoting institution or company?
5. Is the information presented a form of “cherry picking,” in which only the supporting information of a particular product or cause is presented, and ignoring any contradictory evidence or information? A critical thinker would challenge, “I want the facts, all the facts,” in order to make their own informed decision. A similar misrepresentation is found in “selective windowing,” whereby selective information is presented that does not represent the whole; while other germane (but contrary) information is intentionally omitted.
6. The Trojan horse, some call it “counter-knowledge,” is the form of including false information within an argument generally true in appearance. Untrue information is imbedded in authentic information in a subtle effort to have persons accept the whole, both truth and falsity combined. This often is exercised by offering several truthful statements initially; then adding one or two untruths that may sound true, though are not. It then becomes relatively easy to convince others to accept the false statements as fact. It’s the matter of swallowing the hook with the bait.
Many other forms of false and misleading representation can be elucidated; but suffice it to say that it is ever present and can easily distort our perceptions of what is true and authentic in the process of making beneficial decisions. Granted, it is a rare person who has the time or inclination to ask these questions in the course of their daily bombardment with all kinds of solicitations and promoted information. Nonetheless, the point to be made is that some form of critical consideration is essential in the search for honest and reliable information on which to make responsible decisions.
“A lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies.”
-Alfred Lord Tennyson
Sound Reasoning
Critical thinking involves much more than developing the discrimination between information that is true and that which is not. It also involves learning and practicing the discipline of thinking well. That is to say, learning to make reliable inferences and conclusions using a method or a process of valid reasoning. Formal logic, the discipline of sound reasoning, is posited upon two main approaches. They form the tools one uses to think rationally and to avoid the many logical fallacies.
Formal Logic:
Deductive Reasoning:
Associated most closely with Plato is that of “Deductive Reasoning” – which is the reasoning from generality to specifics (from universals to particulars). Plato believed that there existed what he referred to as “Forms,” consisting of independent entities outside of human existence that could be discovered through the use of reason. These “Forms” or “Ideals” were felt to be universal realities, like Beauty or Justice, which could be utilized in making valid individual decisions regarding specific attitudes and behavior. This process of argumentation then, is from general to specific, whereby the conclusion can be no larger than the premises. As the conclusion is contained within the premises, the conclusion must thereby be one of certainty if the reasoning is sound.
Inductive Reasoning:
“Inductive Reasoning” flows in just the opposite direction, from the specific to the general (from particulars to the universal), and as such is sometimes referred to as “ampliative” argumentation. Aristotle is the most noted proponent of this type of reasoning, as he studied the specific traits of nature and “amplified” those characteristics in a way to infer a larger reality must exist. Because the conclusion lies outside of any data set, as being broader, there can never be any guarantee that the conclusion is true, only a high probability that it is so.
***
Informal Logic involves Identifying Logical Fallacies:
A fallacy is an error in logic. It is a type of mistake in reasoning. Some will be errors of omission of information, others may be statistical errors of interpretation, while others may contain false assumptions. All contain mistakes in how ideas are presented.
Next time you observe a political discussion or a product advertisement, keep these logical fallacies in mind. In the interest of time, I will only present several so you get the idea of some of the most common logical fallacies. However, if you have any interest in others, I have about 20 logical fallacies on my website, reasonandreflection.org. You can find them listed with descriptions under the topic of reason: Informal Logic: logical fallacies
I. Fallacies of Irrelevance:
These are fallacies which are primarily diversionary. By introducing an irrelevant claim or concept, it detracts from the main issue at hand.
Attacking a Straw Man:
The straw man fallacy is one of the most frequently used fallacies in the political sphere. It consists of re-defining a person’s position in a manner to either exaggerate or weaken his or her position, making it easier to refute. This is often accomplished in one or the other of two ways. The first is to alter the original premises, making them broader or narrower than their initial intent. By the use of “Oh, what you are really saying is that…” the opponent re-shapes the premises of the argument in a form more to their benefit. The other version is when the opponent subtly replaces all the actual premises with an expression of implication like, “The real reason you say that is…” Often times this alternative of re-defining a premise is performed in such an extreme manner that no one can agree with it, especially when the alternative is presented as the rule, rather than the exception.
Substituting an original premise with a modified version, defined by the opponent, is a version of the straw man fallacy. The straw man fallacy distorts the original premises just enough to make it weak. For example, one might say, “This car has had to have a lot of expensive repairs lately. I think it’s time to buy a newer car.” A straw man fallacy may be something like, “Oh, you must think we need to buy a fancy new car like Dan did with his Mercedes.” In this instance, the original premise is weakened by the hyperbolic re-phrasing implying the purchase of a very expensive car, which may have not at all been intended in the original comment.
Red Herring:
A Red Herring fallacy is one in which someone introduces an extraneous claim which does not contribute, but rather diverts, the discussion into another area of consideration. The claim may in fact be true, but it does nothing to confirm or refute the initial topic of discussion. Instead, it changes the conclusion, and thereby changes the conversation into a different one altogether.
Television news interviews are typical examples of this technique. If a direct question is asked, “Do you support this infrastructure bill before Congress?” The respondent, hesitant to commit either way, will often divert the question by introducing a peripheral (though sometimes true) comment, such as, “Well, the last time we faced a bill, it was more bipartisan than this bill because…” Now, one is no longer discussing the topic of supporting the actual bill, but that of partisanship.
The straw man fallacy changes the original premises; while the red herring fallacy changes the conclusion.
Ad Hominem (Latin: “to the man”):
An Ad Hominem fallacy is when an opponent attacks the character or intentions of a person rather than the argument. An argument’s soundness should succeed or fail on its own merits, not the character of the individual. Ad Hominem fallacies may occur as: 1) You’re a terrible person version; 2) Guilt by association version: “she is a friend of …”; “he is a member of …;” or 3) Questioning the intentions or motives of the speaker version: “He may say that, but I believe he really believes…”
Politics is rampant with the ad hominem fallacy. Labeling or branding one as bigot, misogynist, homophobe, radical conservative, or flaming liberal are all meant to undermine the credibility of that person’s positions or efforts. This fallacy is often associated with that of “repetition” as a means of persistently branding a person or defacing their character without any verification of their claims.
II. Fallacies of Faulty Authority:
Appeal to Authority:
A fallacy of appeal to authority can be expressed in several ways: 1) By assigning authority to persons who have no special knowledge or expertise in the area being discussed. (e.g., Hollywood celebrities or professional athletes advertising products of which they have little knowledge); 2) By overawing a person by referencing a famous person’s use of the product or their views (e.g., Ice Cube supports Tom Luck for President, shouldn’t you?); 3) By appealing to a single selected authority among many other respected authorities (who may have alternative viewpoints) about a controversial issue. Who is to say the single selected authority is the correct one?
Appeal to Popular Opinion (Bandwagon fallacy):
When we claim that our position is the proper one because many other people agree with it, we are committing the appeal to the people or appeal to popular opinion fallacy. Similar to justifying a position by means of an appeal to authority, appeal to popular opinion places authority in the hands of a large group. Though the general population certainly can have a group consensus or opinion about a specific issue, that is not to say that it is necessarily correct by virtue of it being popular. Popular opinion can be easily manipulated by various means into viewpoints far removed from the actual facts required for correct decision-making (e.g., “groupthink”).
Appeal to Tradition and Fallacy of Novelty:
The fallacies of an appeal to tradition and that of novelty are like two opposite sides of a coin. While the fallacy of tradition places the correctness of a position within the comfort and security of past events and practices, an appeal to novelty takes the position that what is new and different is most reliable and fitting.
Generalization: The difference between analogy and generalization is that while analogy compares two items regarding a common element, generalization takes one element and extrapolates it into a wider conclusion. It is to take an individual sample case, and claim that all other items in that category are the same. For example: If one blue Ford is fast, then all blue Fords will be fast.
III. Fallacies of Cause and Effect:
As the old dictum goes, correlation does not imply causation. Just because two events are frequently seen together does not mean that one necessarily causes the other.
The Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy (Latin: “after this, therefore because of this”):
This fallacy follows the form: If event A precedes a subsequent event B, the A must have caused B. Sometimes this can be true; but it is not necessarily so. Another way of thinking about this fallacy is if A, C, and D all occurred before B; then to definitely say that B was directly caused by A can be fallacious. B could have been cause by C, D or any combination of A, C, or D. When something unexpected occurs, it is natural to look at preceding factors that may have caused the resultant event. If one recognizes a new or unique previous factor, the inclination is to believe that it alone was the cause of B, though it may be completely unrelated in causing B.
Neglect of a Common Cause:
Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. By taking correlation to imply causation, we commit the fallacy called neglect of a common cause. This can occur when two events or items are frequently in close association. Just because whenever we see A, we also see B does not mean that A causes B or that B causes A; there might be a third thing, C, that causes both A and B.
Causal Oversimplification:
This is a fallacy often occurring in the discussion of complex social or moral issues. In most cases, causality is shaped by a whole multitude of interwoven factors. Causal oversimplification overlooks this complexity and posits causality within only one element of this interconnected whole.
Confusion of a “Necessary” with a “Sufficient” Condition:
A necessary condition is one which must be present for an event to occur. A sufficient condition is one, or a set of conditions, which will produce the event. A necessary condition must be there, but it alone does not cause the event. If there is no A, there can be no possibility of B. But A alone does not comprise B.
Example: One cannot bake a cake without some kind of flour. Therefore, flour is a necessary condition (A) for a cake (B) to be made. However, flour alone (A) does not comprise the whole of the cake (B).
The Slippery Slope fallacy:
There is no doubt that there are causal chains in which an event A causes B, and then B causes C, which in turn causes D. Even though this cause and effect can exist, this fallacy occurs where one asserts the existence of such a chain without giving full causal argument for each step in the chain. The question is whether there is good reason to believe that each step is solely the result of the preceding one. If not, the charge of a “slippery slope” has to be held in question.
IV. Other Common Informal Fallacies:
Circular Argument:
The fallacy of a circular argument occurs when the conclusion is identical to the premise. There is no independent support for the conclusion other than the initially offered position. Often this will consist of different forms of expression, but the content of the phrase remains the same.
Example: “Clear cutting housing sites is just plain bad. Just look, no trees!”
Begging the Question:
Begging the question involves implying the answer, or another truth claim within a question. This is a favorite of biased news reporters by asking questions that are not really questions or by framing questions unfairly.
Example: Reporter to President: “What good will a wall along the border do for all those poor suffering immigrants when everyone sees families being separated without any legal representation, health care, or subsistence pay because of your uncaring and harsh policies?”
Either/Or, Excluded Middle fallacy:
This fallacy occurs when two contrasting options are considered without any consideration of any other available positions.
Example: “You’re either for me, or against me.” Or “You’re either for gun control or one of those radical NRA people.”
Distinction without a Difference:
This fallacy involves drawing a distinction between two concepts that are the same.
Example: “I didn’t steal it; I just didn’t ask before I took it.”
Moral Equivalency:
When contrasting two issues of unequal moral content in the same manner, one is using the fallacy of moral equivalency.
Example: Equating all acts of war with terrorism; or equating the care of humans with the care of animals.
Proof By Lack of Evidence:
The proof by lack of evidence occurs when one claims that something must be true due to any lack of evidence otherwise.
Example: “There must be sharks in this lake, because I don’t see any signs that there aren’t.”
Appeal to Emotion:
Using emotional responses to justify an offer or position is performing an appeal to emotion. Appealing to pity, fear, or urgency are all ways that advertising entices individuals to purchase or act in certain ways. Although some appeals may be genuine, many are offering in an effort to manipulate a person’s beliefs or actions; and as such are forms of malicious propaganda.
Example: “Now is the time to buy silver and gold. If the stock market crashes and all your investments vanish, you’ll want to protect your family by having some precious metals as solid value. There has never been a better time to buy than right now.”
Faulty Assumptions:
We’ve all done this…having been asked to read a description of an accident or crime, then answer questions about the “facts” we recall. Later, what we regarded as “facts” of the incident were only our assumptions of the characters’ roles and motivations…their actions and purposes. It is a way in which one “short-hands” the events of each day, that is to make certain assumptions. But faulty assumptions can also lead to faulty perception and understanding.
Non Sequitur (Latin: “it does not follow”):
The term non sequitur is a general one that is used frequently to convey the situation when a conclusion is not adequately supported by its premises or contains a gap in reasoning. It is often used in various fallacies to describe conclusions drawn by others without consistent valid reasoning from the original propositions.
By now it should be clear that we live within a confusing world of fallacy, both those self-derived and those offered by others. So, how is one to negotiate through this mire of misinformation and misrepresentation? The answer lies in the discipline of logic. Logic provides the tools with which to approach decision-making in a manner removed from the attachments of emotion or fallacious reasoning. In terms of moral responsibility, it is an essential skill to acquire and to exercise.
3. Proper Use: Motivation and Intentions
Action theory holds that the process of making decisions is rooted in one’s needs, then transitions to one’s motivations and intentions. Because of this, it may well be wise, in the sense of making good decisions to ask oneself what his or her needs, motivations and intentions are in making the decision one chooses. Honestly dealing with personal bias or emotionally charged attitudes before taking action, sometimes is the better part of valor.