Thinking Clearly

Those who read this blog with any regularity likely know that I make frequent reference to the importance of critical thinking. As I have said before, it is an ideal toward which I am always striving, never claiming to have perfected the skill.

When I was teaching high school seniors, we did a unit on Orwell and the use of language combined with an examination of rhetorical devices and logical fallacies. I would have the students clip things out of the newspapers (yes, they were still fairly widely-read in those days), and they would tell the rest of the class what language errors and logical fallacies they found. The results were mixed, as there is a certain maturity, intellectual level and contextual knowledge needed for sustained critical analysis.

Nowadays, given the bombardment of arrant nonsense that social media and extreme websites embrace and spread, critical thinking is more important than ever; admittedly though, it goes against a strong and widespread inclination to indulge in what I call lazy thinking. 

Real thinking can be hard work, but the following helps in our efforts to spot and refute bad arguments.

1. Appeal to ignorance

This is when a lack of evidence is interpreted to mean a claim is real – rather than placing the burden of proof on the person making the claim. It's a fallacy that commonly underlines arguments for conspiracy theories. Ask one of the estimated 10 million-plus people who believe that lizards run the world about the evidence for their claim, for example, and they might counter, "Well, these lizards are too clever to leave any evidence – that's what makes this situation so dangerous! How can you be sure it's not true?" You might wind up scratching your head, but, hopefully, it's not because you've been persuaded; it's because they've set you the trap of the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy.

 

 2. Ad hominem

This is a fallacy in which a claim is rejected on the basis of an aspect of someone's character, identity, motivations, or even the relationships they have with others. Think of the health professional who is told that they are only recommending vaccines because they must be a shill for Big Pharma, or the research of climate scientists being dismissed on the basis that they must be ideologically motivated.

3. Slippery slope -

This is the argument that taking one step, or putting into place one measure, will inevitably lead to more and more drastic measures – like an object sliding down a slippery slope. [It could be called the Domino Theory of the mind.] It's particularly common in debates over policy. Think of the argument that some opponents of same-sex marriage made against legalising it in places like the US or Europe. In 2016, researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles found that many people who were against the policy were persuaded by the argument that it would lead to greater sexual promiscuity across society, and threaten their own way of life. This particular argument is fallacious because, rather than debating the policy change itself (whether same-sex marriage should be legalised), the policy was dismissed because of the fear of its predicted outcome (the breakdown of traditional society).

4. Strawman

I see this one on social media, especially, all the time. It's misrepresenting the argument of the other side to make it seem more ridiculous, and therefore easy to defeat. Think of someone who puts forth a nuanced argument that excessive sugar intake may raise the risk of health issues like heart disease. A strawman response would be, "Oh, so what, sugar is killing everyone and should be outlawed? That's absurd!" This distorts the original argument, making it easier to defeat – a strawman.

 5. Appeal to authority

This pernicious argument holds that someone's credentials, fame or reputation alone prove that they must be right. If people perceive someone as an authority, they have an innate cognitive bias to assume they have expertise in all things (even subjects they have no background in). 

More problematic still is the version known as "appeal to irrelevant authority". Our tendency to believe something because, say, a celebrity states it, even if they have no expertise at all in the topic at hand – a classic tendency in today's influencer-obsessed world. But "irrelevant authorities" aren't always so obvious. Take arguments about climate change, for example, when sceptics quote someone like a theoretical physicist as an expert – despite the fact that theoretical physics generally has very little to do with climate science.

 

6. False dichotomy

Presenting a complex scenario as if there are only two either-or, often opposing options, rather than multiple options. Think of that famous, often-recycled and even ancient phrase, famously used by President George W Bush shortly after 9/11: "You're either with us or against us." It implied to the international community that they had only two options – back the United States completely, including in its invasion of Afghanistan, or consider themselves enemies. In reality, of course, there were a spectrum of other options nations could take, and kinds of allies (or enemies) they could be.  

7. Whataboutism (also called whataboutery)

Sometimes considered a type of red herring – a logical fallacy that uses unrelated information to redirect away from the argument's flaws – whataboutism is intended to distract attention. It describes when, normally in response to an accusation or a question, someone responds with their own accusation. 

In politics, one of the most infamous examples has been when Russia is accused of human rights violations, and its leaders respond "Well, what about the West?". While a whataboutism can serve to illustrate hypocrisy, it deflects from the original argument.

There is no magic elixir that inoculates us against the ignorance so pervasive in the world today, and the problems will only be compounded by the increasing use of AI. Whether it will prove a winning or a losing war remains to be seen, but do we have any real choice other than to fight the good fight?