Critical Thinking Chapter for COVID19 Book
Pick up a copy of my book today! Signed copies are available through my site, or you can get a copy through Amazon (on Kindle too) and Barnes and Noble. Enjoy this free reading of my Critical Thinking chapter!
COVID19 - SHORT PATH TO 'YOU’LL OWN NOTHING. AND YOU’LL BE HAPPY.’: Welcome to the new Age of Tyranny
http://journalisticrevolution.com/published-books.html
Critical Thinking
“He is the best of all who thinks for himself in all things. He, too, is good who takes advice from a wiser (person). But he who neither thinks for himself, nor lays to heart another's wisdom, this is a useless man.” – Aristotle, The Ethics Of Aristotle (Vol. I), translated by Arthur Humphreys, 1902
Critical thinking using root definitions is a skill set that allows an individual, by themselves, to judge and settle disputes as well as set limits on what is considered to be morally ethical and correct manners of someone who has one’s behavior in society. However, critical thinking is much more than its root definition. Critical thinking is skillfully defining, intellectualizing, analyzing, and evaluating data and information gathered from all sources and producing belief and action in rhetoric that provides clarity and consistency through evidence and reason. The steps to critical thinking as a skill set, using the Trivium Method of Critical Thinking: Grammar (Input), Logic (Processing), and Rhetoric (Output) in that order. It is a never-ending process for determining the truth in any subject and situation. Critical thinking is a necessary skill for all to have if we are to enjoy a peaceful life and true freedom while respecting the natural rights of everyone around us.
Critical thinking has roots in western philosophy, from the influential philosophers Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Isocrates. Socrates, who lived from ~ 470 BC to 399 BC in Athens, was one of the founders of Western philosophy and is considered the first moral philosopher, a lover of truth and wisdom. The word philosopher comes from the word sophist but was used to differentiate between the negative aspect of sophist and a modest wise teacher, a philosopher.
Socrates created the Socratic method, a logical process with dialogue between individuals who ask and answer questions geared towards encouraging critical thinking between those discussing a topic at hand. He came up with this method when many in Athens started to view him as the wisest man in Greece. As he viewed it, this paradox was discussed by a series of questions that came to be known as the Socratic Method. The Socratic Method is used in which a defending point of view is questioned and refuted, giving the defending individual an opportunity to respond in kind. This process allows each debater to make an inquiry and instruction on the point of view while trying to elicit a clear and consistent expression that is agreed upon by rational thinkers. The back-and-forth of questions and answers is typical in debates, whereby a hypothesis can be eliminated when contradictions and logical fallacies are found.
This process took on a new form called the Scientific Method -determining truth from falsehoods by using laboratory-controlled experiments to test hypotheses. Science is not true or false but a process to determine if something is true or false. There can be many reasons why the results of research we are told could be incorrect. Many today see science as a belief structure -always true- but only if it confirms their biases (Science!TM), which makes it difficult to convince and persuade, not manipulate, others into thinking differently, even if laboratory studies show their point of view is potentially incorrect.
“If you are trying to get at me as a public health official and scientist, you’re really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you are attacking science.” – Dr. Anthony Fauci, MSNBC Interview, June 9th, 2021
Grammar, the art of letters, is a structured set of rules about words and phrases and the meaning behind those in an understandable format -words have objective meanings. In the sense of the Trivium, Grammar is the place we methodically and coherently gather factual data in its raw and root forms. It is the place where we gather root and modern definitions, themes, and context around the data. It is the place where objective reality is separated from subjective reality. It is a place to order the evidence into a systematic knowledge base. This body of knowledge is the foundation for Rhetoric. As new information is presented, it must be checked against the body of knowledge that has been previously collected to determine if it changes anything. Debating cannot start and end in the world of Rhetoric unless the goal is to control and manipulate others.
Root definitions are the earliest we can go back to a word’s meaning. Root definitions provide a foundation from which objective and subjective language can be separated and objective reality can be agreed upon. A major problem with communication in today’s society is that it is common to be sloppy or purposefully sophist when defining terms -making words extremely subjective. From a root definition, a theme presents itself with how the word was used and evolved.
“A definition is the start of an argument, not the end of one.” – Neil Postman, Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk : How We Defeat Ourselves by the Way We Talk and What to do About It, 1976
Many words have themes and topics attached to them that have relationships to other identified characteristics, creating the subject and focus of what is being discussed. These connections and relationships play into context, a communicative tool that provides the framework of the event and resources for the interpretation of that event. Context can provide evidence of when and why the meaning of a word changes during an event. Context comes with its own common vernacular -its colloquialism- which includes everyday speech, language, and slang, which can alter and change the meaning of a word. Now, this doesn’t mean the use of the word is correct, only that the usage of the word changed during that period. It is still a subjective word usage and doesn’t reflect the truth of the definition and theme. Words can be broken down into greater detail if required, but the purpose of a word shouldn’t change unless you want to be a sophist.
Objectivity is the condition or quality of being a tangible thing, something presented to our senses. Objectivity requires the ability to think critically about an object or subject, reducing the subjective opinions of oneself and external influences. Objectivity is required to seek out, determine, and understand the truth of our reality. This truth is only as strong and correct as the information and data used at the start of the process. Grammar requires objectivity, or the truth will constantly shift and move, never being really understood. Trusting in a body of knowledge must be based on factual and observable objective evidence, not made up of subjectivity that convinces us of something that isn’t true. Reality is based on facts, rules, laws, and principles, while our interpretation of this reality is subjective and tends to be wrong.
Logic provides the ability for self-growth by processing the knowledge base collected during Grammar, then removing paradoxes, fallacies, and biases that we all have within ourselves and removing these from the rhetoric of others. Logic came from the Greek root word Logos, meaning word, reason, speech, and idea. Words convey meanings and ideas, and they must be rooted in objective reality to be effective, or confusion will remain. Logic, when used properly, should reflect the rules on how to process reality. Some people’s perception of logic might be less logical than that of others. We need to be careful because the semantics of a single word can change the truth conditions within logic. This is another reason why the first step of the Trivium -Grammar- is so important, especially regarding root definitions. Logic and the concept of truth are found and discussed in all fields of study in everyday life we find ourselves. We use Logic to process information to determine whether it is subjective -relative- or objective -absolute. The why of a subject is answered during the Logic process of the Trivium, bringing us toward a systematic understanding of the subject being discussed. Even during the Logic process, if new information is presented, we must move back up to Grammar and start the process over.
A paradox occurs when one’s statement contradicts one’s stated opinion; it is an analysis examining contradictory information in which conclusions are used to justify or reconcile the conflicting information. One of the oldest known paradoxes is the Epimenides paradox (~600 BC), when Epimenides, a Cretan, claimed that “all Cretans are liars,” creating a paradox and a fallacious generalized statement. This statement can be true or false depending on the meanings behind the statement as well as the subjective opinion being used to view the statement. Is he lying or telling the truth? Many paradoxes are only subjective twists in language using words within a statement that could have multiple meanings, creating confusion and paradoxes. Many different paradoxes arise from sophistry and the use of only rhetoric.
Western logic started and flourished under Aristotle creating Syllogism and Term logic, but Stoic logic and Propositional logic also held sway during that time. Syllogism is a logical argument using deductive reasoning based on two or more propositions viewed as either true or false. The difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is that the conclusion of inductive reasoning may be probably true, while conclusions of deductive reasoning are certainly true. The conclusion can be false using inductive reasoning, so premises are viewed as either strong or weak versus valid or invalid, as with deductive reasoning.
Logical fallacies are broken into two categories: formal and informal fallacies. Fallacies are reasoned thoughts and statements with defects in the logical structure that misleads and deceives those receiving them. The difference between the formal and informal variants is that informal fallacies are valid in form but have one or more false premises, making the conclusion false. A few of the significant logical fallacies I see being used en masse are:
· Appeal to Authority “I am a doctor, so you should trust me without question” or “Government said x to be true, so it must be true”
· Appeal to Emotion “Think of the children!” or “Think of the hospital workers!”
· Ad hominem “You are selfish if you do not do this!”
· Idiom Moving the Goalposts “two weeks,” “get one or two injections, and you can stop wearing masks,” or “only one booster is needed”
Additionally apt is the Broken Window fallacy -coined by French economist Frédéric Bastiat in 1850- is an illusionary concept used by governments, where someone breaks a window, someone else fixes it, then people cite the exchange of money, resources, and labor as proof that the economy is growing and is healthy. Bastiat used this parable to show that the money spent to fix the broken window is not a net benefit to the economy and society.
We need to look at facts and the process of science to avoid the pitfalls of fallacies, but be wary of using it as a crutch. The Argument from Fallacy -or Fallacy Fallacy- is the fallacy that uses the assumption that if the statement has a fallacy, therefore, the conclusion is false. We know that a conclusion can be true even with logical fallacies found within. There are countless logical fallacies in existence, and we will continue to discover more as we evolve and grow in the field of Logic.
Cognitive bias is an expedient means of processing information and data. I want to mention here that not all cognitive biases are useless or irrational, e.g., heuristics: “rule of thumb,” but it must be remembered that it is a practical method, so it is not perfect. The human brain uses heuristics to practically solve problems and learn by speeding up the process to solution and resolution. From this process, biases are formed to help process the information quickly. Most of the time, cognitive biases have paradoxes and fallacies found within them, creating a bad mental habit that further degrades an individual’s critical thinking skill set. As long as we are aware of these mental shortcuts and that they need to be challenged with the truth and evidence, we will continue to grow our skill set in critical thinking.
Once we start removing our paradoxes, logical fallacies, and cognitive biases, we will begin to gain a systematic understanding of the presented information. This systematic understanding of information grows as we increase our knowledge base, setting us up for the final step of the Trivium, Rhetoric. Even with objectively factual evidence, we will most likely have flawed rhetoric if we have poor and inefficient logic. Proper Grammar and Logic are fundamental to understanding reality and consciousness.
Rhetoric is where we ask and answer the how questions. This is where we turn the knowledge base of the objective reality of a subject, and the evidence that supports it, absent paradoxes, logical fallacies, and cognitive biases that we find, into systematically usable knowledge and understanding of the conclusions from Grammar and Logic. At any point when new information is provided, the process repeats in a never-ending cycle of determining truthful Rhetoric. Sophists have mainly used rhetoric to manipulate others without the use, or incorrect use, of Grammar and Logic.
Rhetoric started in Mesopotamia, ~2000 BC, with Akkadian literature containing enormous amounts of text regarding mythology, science, letters, legality, and rights. Still, the structure for Rhetoric we know today started with Aristotle's stand against sophistry. Aristotle’s work on Rhetoric came in the form of three books which looks more like student notes potentially not meant to be published. Aristotle viewed rhetoric as having three means of persuasion: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Ethos is our habitual character, beliefs, morals, and ideals at an individual and community level. Pathos is the potential pain and suffering of the experience of going through something and the appeals made to the emotion and ideals of that experience. Logos is our speech, discourse, and accounts of a given situation tempered with reason and understanding.
Isocrates was one of the ten Attic orators that pushed rhetoric -the art of discourse- as a primary art form emphasizing eloquent public speaking above all, not necessarily the truth. Dialectics and rhetoric are different in that dialectics are used for truth-based discovery where the purpose of the discourse is to come to a reasoned truth; rhetoric without a subjective logic like emotional appeals. Isocrates started the first academy in Rhetoric as he felt that rhetoric was the best tool to inform, persuade, manipulate, and motivate others in political life using heuristics. Isocrates’ main work on rhetoric was written in Against the Sophists, in which he responded to some of the negative criticisms of sophistry at the time. Isocrates was the main reason the word sophist took a negative connotation still seen today. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle’s negative view of sophistry came from orators having a weak knowledge base, faulty logic, and providing rhetoric that was used to control and govern the minds of society.
Rhetoric concerns itself with the effects on the audience more so than if the statements being made were true and correct or if the statements purposely omitted facts. This is different from the Rhetoric of the Trivium, which focuses on the systematic understanding of objective reality’s truth; facts should not be omitted nor overlooked. Therefore, Rhetoric must be accompanied by Grammar and Logic. This is good to remember when rhetoric is being spoken to us since most politicians are skilled rhetoricians. If it doesn’t have proper Grammar and Logic, chances are it is being used to manipulate and control, I mean to govern, you.
If new information changes our rhetoric, then so be it. We want the truth, correct? We must accept that we could be wrong and be willing to move from deeply held beliefs and biases to seek our reality’s truth. Trust in your ability to learn critical thinking as a skill set, but it starts with the understanding that we must address our logical fallacies and hard-held beliefs. Everyone has fallacies and errors in their thought processes, believing in things that are not factually true, so it is up to us to correct our thought processes.
“I part with the book with deep seriousness, in the sure hope that sooner or later it will reach those to whom alone it can be addressed; and for the rest, patiently resigned that the same fate should, in full measure, befall it, that in all ages has, to some extent, befallen all knowledge, and especially the weightiest knowledge of the truth, to which only a brief triumph is allotted between the two long periods in which it is condemned as paradoxical or disparaged as trivial. The former fate is also wont to befall its author.” – Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, 1819