This is the first installment of my "Crash Course in Critical Thinking" series, republished to this group for those interested in exploring critical thinking a little more deeply. It identifies the goal of critical thinking, and why it matters.

Critical thinking, contrary to what many otherwise intelligent, well-read people appear to believe, is not about criticizing everything. It is about epistemic adequacy (knowing what we're taking about), about questioning everything... not about criticizing them for the purpose of being "critical". In this series you will learn about why it's important to question premises or claims we are asked to accept as true.

Each installment deals with a basic principle or rule of critical thinking. However, the series is only a high-level overview of what critical thinking is. It's not a workshop on how to master the skills of critical thinking. There are several valuable resources available for going deeper. Where to start?

Here is a helpful, low-cost introduction to critical thinking for anyone interested:

https://a.co/d/7mbOwO9

To get the most out of the series, follow the posts in the order presented (chronologically).

From the time of the ancient Greeks, we've known that perception alone is an inadequate and misleading proxy for reality. It marked the essential distinction between Plato and his brilliant student Aristotle, 2400 yrs ago. And it's been with us ever since.

Perception (the five senses) must always be tested against the available evidence to verify or falsify the truth claim behind the appearance when the outcome matters. Recognizing this is the first step in critical thinking.

One of the major contributions of the ancient Greeks (Athens in particular) was the formal discovery of reasoning, of thinking things through, cause & effect; and, as discussed in yesterday's post, the distinction between perception & reality.

It was the beginning of emancipation from a world of nature gods, superstition, and unseen forces that were believed to dominate, control, and determine the fortunes and outcomes of Kings and city States; wars, famines, and pestilence; and the birthright of warriors, merchants and peasants.

More importantly, it enabled the development of democracy and Western science. Since then, the West has had a love-hate relationship with reason, through the Christian era and Middle Ages, the Scientific Revolution (a.k.a. the "Age of Reason"), the Enlightenment, into the modern world. And now, most recently, the destructive and deconstructive forces of postmodernism.

Today, we are experiencing a noticeable return to a pre-rational model of decision making, one that increasingly prioritizes emotion, tradition, and "lived experience" over reason, empiricism and science. The predictable result has been a troubling polarization of people and groups along political & ideological lines, a resurgence of state-sponsored discrimination and identity politics, producing a growing, ever deeper and increasinly irreparable division within families and communities, between friends, and across our cultural landscape (a.k.a. culture wars). In that world, everybody loses.

If there is to be a way back from this troubling drift in our Western approach to constructive dialogue and conflict resolution between groups as well as individuals, it will be found once again in setting aside decision-making based on anger, vitriol, and raw self-righteous emotion, in favour of reason tempered by emotional intelligence, and enabled through critical thinking. It's not yet too late; but the window is rapidly closing.

Here is the link to one low cost resource that will serve as helpful, user-friendly introduction to the framework and basic skills of critical thinking:

https://a.co/d/7mbOwO9

Very few occupations today (whether in retail or fashion, labour or construction, the trades or professions) are so benign and undemanding that they do not require problem solving. The question is, how equipped are we, really, to engage in problem solving when the problem itself is not one we have trained for or faced before?

Most of us have been trained in the specific skills or methodologies of our occupation or craft. And with experience comes an intuitive, almost automatic reaction to the challenges or problems that present themselves to us for resolution on daily basis. But sometimes (indeed, often) a new problem or challenge presents itself to us, either in our occupation, family or social lives, that is novel, unexpected, or irresolvable using our basic knowledge, experience, or tools of the trade?

What to do?

Enter critical thinking. Critical thinking enables us to break down most problems into bite size pieces (using Ockham's Razor and other tools), to develop hypotheses and alternatives, and to test these postulates against the framework of our experience. It can, and will, make us better problem solvers. And that's good for everyone.

This series is only a high-level overview of what critical thinking is. It's not a workshop on how to master the skills themselves. There are several valuable resources available for going deeper. Here is a helpful, low-cost introduction to the art and science of critical thinking to help get you started:

https://a.co/d/7mbOwO9

We all operate on an unconscious platform of assumptions and biases, many or most of which are unexamined and merely accepted as given. Critical thinking aims to make us aware of this idiosyncrasy in our thinking, and how a flawed assumption can adversely impact our reasoning, problem solving, belief formation, and decision-making.

Think of it this way: if you're buttoning up a shirt or sweater and you start with the button in the wrong hole at the bottom, nothing works out right after that.

For more information on how to get started, see the low-cost introductory resource:

https://amzn.to/3wkRnW8

(No, I have no financial or other interest in the book, royalties, or anything of the sort. My only interest is in encouraging more people to begin taking the art and science of critical thinking more seriously as we struggle to sort fact from fiction in a labyrinth taking us ever further away from a shared understanding that whatever the question, issue, problem or claim, there is only one truth about it, though there are many perspectives. But as we have already seen, perspective and bias are very different from truth.)

Critical thinking is about discovering the truth whenever the truth matters. And when does it not matter?

With politicians, activists, and just ordinary people attacking each other from both the Right & Left without pausing to seriously consider the claims of the other side, we might be forgiven for concluding it matters very little anymore. But we would be mistaken.

While the truth comes as an enemy to those who refuse to greet it as a friend, it comes to no one in any matter of controversy who is not willing to test the evidence for and against the truth claim, and to follow it wherever it leads, however uncomfortable it might make us feel.

We often find ourselves investing time, money, emotional energy, even our reputations and relationships, in causes, beliefs, programs, or sure-fire schemes without really thinking them through... until we wake up one day to realize we are in so deep we have lost perspective, feel trapped, and don't know anymore what is true or how to find our way back.

In some cases we fear changing course will come at too great a cost, financially or in the loss of group affirmation or support networks, that we decide just to shake off the awareness something is seriously wrong and choose to blindly follow the path of least resistance (losing more of ourselves with every step).

This is called the "sunk cost fallacy" in critical thinking. Awareness of this fallacy can help put things back in perspective. Critical thinking shows us how it's rarely too late to turn things around... to make up for lost time, to recover our souls.

This series is only a high-level overview of what critical thinking is. It's not a workshop on how to master the skills of critical thinking. There are several valuable resources available for going deeper. Where to start?

Here is a helpful, low-cost introduction to critical thinking for anyone interested:

https://www.amazon.ca/.../ref=cm_sw_r_apan_i...

Movie stars, sports heroes - indeed celebrities of all kinds, including popular politicians (popular often for wrong reasons, or popular with certain groups), trendy talking heads and media gurus, and even cult leaders, all share one thing in common: they possess an aura, a charisma their followers find irresistible. And there's the rub.

No matter how popular or attractive, no matter how many followers they have or how many "Likes" on Facebook, critical thinking teaches us to always question, to always scrutinize and test the claims they make, the assumptions they embrace, and the motivations that animate them. How? By learning the basic skills of critical thinking.

This series is only a high-level overview of what critical thinking is. It's not a workshop on how to master the skills of critical thinking. There are several valuable resources available for going deeper. Where to start?

Here is a helpful, low-cost introduction to critical thinking for anyone interested:

https://www.amazon.ca/.../ref=cm_sw_r_apan_i...

Knowledge is a natural product of reason, science, learning, self-improvement, and growth. We acquire knowledge through study, reflection, and applied experience. Once acquired, it becomes our possession.

Ask anyone how difficult it was for him or her to acquire their knowledge of, say, history or physics; of geometry or algebra; computer technology or video production; psychology, medicine, or law; of gardening, carpentry, or just about any art, craft or science we largely take for granted... and you are likely to hear it required time, effort, and disciplined practice, often over a period of years. Yet, once acquired, it became part of their DNA, as it does ours.

Remember this the next time you are engaged in teaching someone a new art or skill, a new form of abstract thought or theory, or engaged in dialogue or heated debate. Just because you now know what you didn't know before you knew it is no justification for assuming the knowledge you now have is universally known or shared. That is the "assumed knowledge" fallacy in critical thinking.

Integrity is defined as "moral soundness; honesty; unimpaired by corrupting influences." This is both the condition and the outcome of authentic critical thinking.

One must possess integrity to pursue the evidence wherever it leads, even when it pits us against the maddening crowd, or, worse, our support network or group. To pursue the truth through critical thinking, we must not only be willing to stand alone against the prejudice of unexamined popular opinion and beliefs; we must be equally willing to accept the results of our pursuit of the truth, even when the results turn out to undermine or entirely discredit our own cherished beliefs (this has happened to me more than once, with life-altering changes). It requires integrity to stand our ground in the face of opposition, uncertainty and doubt, even, sometimes, at the loss of social popularity or cherished relationships within the identity groups and echo chambers from which we have drawn comforting, if misinformed or disinformed, validation.

This series is only a high-level overview of what critical thinking is. It's not a workshop on how to master the skills of critical thinking. There are several valuable resources available for going deeper. Where to start?

Here is a helpful, low-cost introduction to critical thinking for those interested in learning more (no, I derive no financial or other benefit from making this recommendation, other than the satisfaction of knowing that at least some of you may take my entreaties seriously enough to investigate critical thinking a little further, and begin enjoying the confidence it can bring to your life and search for truth).

In our last installment of the series we covered what I call "The Integrity Principle" of critical thinking. Integrity we might say is the engine of critical thinking; the desire for truth, its fuel.

Today, we carry the Integrity Principle one step further: to its logical and necessary extension. Not only does integrity demand that we follow the evidence wherever it leads (even if it results in undermining of our own cherished beliefs or otherwise requires us to stand against the currents of popular culture), its logical and natural extension demands that we defend unpopular opinion or truth claims when those claims have been rigorously investigated, tested, and found to be true... even if this means exposing ourselves to the unthinking, uninformed, visceral reactions of those (even, sometimes, those we love or otherwise admire) who have not taken the time or shown us the intellectual courtesy of serious consideration.

This series is only a high-level overview of what critical thinking is. It's not a workshop on how to master the skills of critical thinking. There are several valuable resources available for going deeper. Here is a helpful, low-cost introduction to critical thinking for those interested in learning more.

https://amzn.to/3wqjvXE

This post introduces the two overarching principles of critical thinking: skepticism & objectivity.

Skepticism (as used here) is about maintaining a healthy and constructive suspicion of claims, opinions, beliefs or narratives presented baldly as incontrovertibly true, but without empirical data or evidence against which the truth claim can be tested.

Objectivity is about recognizing the real world in which we live. A world where perception is recognized as subjective, capable of innocent error or unscrupulous manipulation. And where truth corresponds to a mind-independant reality. A world where the laws of nature bend to no prescribed ideology or outcome. It is the ability to step outside our operating paradigms to scrutinize the claim, opinion, belief or narrative at arm's length, rather than blindly accepting at face value, detached from all the noise that all too often accompanies these claims.

We have such a marvelously exaggerated estimation of ourselves. The reason adopting critical thinking as a way of life is so powerful is that it begins by focusing the searchlight of accountability on ourselves. It enables us to critically evaluate our own contributions to the results (good or bad) we produce.

We live in a culture today that is increasingly losing this sense of individual responsibility, this sense of accountability. In its place we have adopted a victimhood culture that fosters dependence, that blames society or "system" for our failures, while ensuring everyone knows we are responsible for our successes. This is the "self-deluding" bias in critical thinking.

Here is the link to one low cost resource that will serve as helpful, user-friendly introduction to the framework and basic skills of critical thinking:

https://a.co/d/7mbOwO9

Accountability is a scary word for many people. The idea that we might be judged and actually found to be wanting? Yet, it needn't be. In fact, the very opposite. So how to escape the fear of being judged, of being held accountable?

The secret is to begin with ourselves. To look within. The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates is credited with having said the unexamined life is not worth living. Let's take a closer look. Rightly understood, accountability begins with:

* Accepting responsibility for our actions

* Taking ownership of our mistakes

* Being accountable for our results

Accountability is no stranger to the art of critical thinking. But all too often that lens is focused outward, on the failings, actions, or beliefs of society, or of others, or even of the "system". It takes no genius, or anyone skilled in the art of critical thinking to hold others accountable. But what of ourselves? Isn't this the rught place to start? It is difficult to admit we are responsible for our actions, for our decisions and efforts (or lack thereof). It is easier to make excuses. To quote Nietzsche: "Human, all too human".

It is through the disciplined practice of critical thinking applied to ourselves that we can best begin to acquire a healthy, self-critical, mature awareness of our all-too-human limitations: our weaknesses as well as our strengths. It is only then that we can begin holding ourselves to account. And only then will we have earned the right to hold others to account too.

Here is the link to one low cost resource that will serve as helpful, user-friendly introduction to the framework and basic skills of critical thinking:

https://a.co/d/7mbOwO9

Not one of us is immune from conscious and unconscious bias. It's part of our DNA. Very few of us care to admit it, but this doesn't change the fact that not one of us is.

William James rightly observed how we often delude ourselves into thinking we're thinking when all we're really doing is rearranging our prejudices. Jonathan Haidt writes in his best selling book "The Righteous Mind" about moral intuitions, what he describes as the "nearly instantaneous perceptions we all have about other people", the things they do or believe, and how these intuitions often "feel like self-evident truths", making us absolutely certain that those who see things differently from us are not only wrong, but untrustworthy, or worse. Surely this can't always be true.

Critical thinking not only gives us the tools to critically examine our assumptions and thereby distinguish between our thoughts and biases, but a mindset that makes us aware of these biases, and how these must always be tested in the crucible of self-examination.

Dr. Daniel Kahneman is an accomplished psychologist who also won a Nobel Prize in Economics.

In the quote below, Dr. Kahneman identifies science as the search for objective truth: truth that is mind-independant; that lies outside us, separate & distinct from subjective perception.

Decisions based on subjective perception or experience are more closely related to what he calls "fast thinking," which is quick, intuitive, and unreflective. Objective truth, on the other hand, is the goal of science and is more closely related to what he calls "slow thinking," which involves deliberate, conscious reasoning.

Critical thinking enables us to more easily distinguish between the two modes of thought. Most of the time in our everyday lives "fast thinking" is all we need or want. It happens instinctively. But when important decisions or serious action needs to be taken, it's essential that we shift to "slow thinking." This is where skill in critical thinking distinguishes itself.

For anyone interested in pursuing the "fast thinking/slow thinking" model more closely, here is a link to Daniel Kahneman's book on Amazon:

Thinking, Fast and Slow: https://a.co/d/feSg6Jd

Perhaps more than anything else, getting this lesson, really getting it, will put you on the right path toward becoming a critical thinker.

Too often we simply accept at face value truth claims, nutty hypotheses, conspiracy theories, and a whole litany of misinformation we read or hear from friends, colleagues, family... or worse, our social media groups or "friends", our echo chambers, and, yes, perish the thought, even mainstream media, without question.

Next time someone makes a bold claim, in writing or in person, in a social media post or even in an article in the mainstream press, radio or T.V., ask yourself or them, "How do you know that?" What's the evidence? Have you checked the source? Have you verified the source's source? Is it reliable? In other words, peel back the onion. Always ask the next question, and the next question after that.

Will it make you a nuisance? No doubt it will. Remember Socrates. But it will make you an informed, reliable nuisance others can depend on when the truth matters.

In the last installment in this series we described knowledge as having the right answer; intelligence as formulating the right question; and critical thinking as instrumental extension of intelligence. In short, always asking the next question. I included a number of test questions we might consider asking in our pursuit of knowledge, and validation of truth claims.

Today we go one step further. Assuming we have asked all the "How do you know that?" and all the "Why?" questions, what then? To test the hypothesis, we need to go one step further and ask, "Why not?" This last question will force us to examine our own assumptions and biases (cognitive & unconscious); it will enable us, at the same time, to scrutinize the hypotheses or truth claims of others still more rigorously.

William of Ockham was one of the Middle Age's leading empiricist thinkers (long before Locke, Berkeley & David Hume). He was not a determinist. He believed that the natural order of things does not imply the inevitability of any predetermined outcome. We have to look at how things actually are (not at what we suppose they are or must be).

What he is best known for is a principle of reasoning that has come to be known as "Ockham's Razor". It argues that where two or more competing or alternative explanations exist for any given phenomenon or state of affairs, the simplest one (the one with the fewest assumptions) is more likely correct.

Ockham's Razor has been adopted and applied ever since, including in the fields of military strategy, medical research, evolutionary biology, even at NASA in aeronautics and space research. It is an indispensable tool of critical thinking. One you want tucked securely in your arsenal.

The last installment dealt with one of critical thinking's secret weapons: Ockham's Razor. Today we highlight another "Razor": Hanlon's Razor.

While tongue in cheek, Hanlon's Razor exposes an all too common, all too human, flaw in the operating assumptions we uncritically take on board: the quick, unreflective, attribution of malice, sinister motives or hidden secondary agendas to the decisions or behavior of others we find peculiar, or odd, or eccentric.

With few exceptions, we ought first question our own knee-jerk reactions. Are they rational or visceral? Are they themselves triggered by some unexamined or unresolved insecurity, conflict or trauma? Or is what we perceive as peculiar, odd or eccentric just that: peculiar, odd or eccentric, even if we give it the fullest benefit of doubt?

It's remarkable how often we discover, having gone through this little exercise, that, well, the behavior wasn't malice after all... but just plain old stupidity!

This series is only a high-level introduction to critical thinking. It's not a workshop on how to master the skills of critical thinking. There are several valuable resources available for going deeper. Here is a helpful, low-cost introduction to critical thinking for those interested in learning more.

https://amzn.to/3wqjvXE

Today we tackle a truism many of us have a hard time accepting.

For some reason we often assume the world owes us a living, a "just" share of outcomes regardless of our individual effort, merit, or contribution... that any inequality of outcome is or must be the result of some form of injustice, bias, or cruel joke. It's easier to accept such a rationalization for unequal outcomes than acknowledge that sometimes it might just have something to do with us, or that no one is really to blame. It might not be a cosmic or systemic conspiracy.

Of course, it might be the result of injustice. That still happens far too often wherever or whenever that little demon "human nature" decides to make an appearance. As a lawyer representing the interests of clients, I encounter injustice of this kind far too often still in my practice. What to do?

Critical thinking enables us to face the world as it is, to acknowledge that there are not always clean, simple answers to complex dilemmas or to troubled personalities. It behooves us to always reserve judgment until we've worked out the causes, thought through their effects, and have engaged in critical self-reflection... critical, that is, in the sense that we are willing to look at ourselves, at our shortcomings and idiosyncrasies, no less than at our strengths and successes, soberly and reflectively.

By doing this, we might just conclude, at the end of the day, that, well, sh*t happens, the world is not always a just place, but that is no reason to throw in the towel, to cry "foul" at the slightest offence, or, as my brother Paul Nadeau often says, no reason to visit the "Poor Me" Hotel, or drown our miseries in the "Why Me" lounge.

This installment identifies an inescapable dilemma in critical thinking: How to critically analyze and validate first principles? And whether that is even feasible, or desirable?

Sometimes referred to as self-evident truths, as axiomatic, or as "clear and distinct ideas" (René Descartes), first principles are the foundational baseline of reasoning, behind which we cannot effectively go. They are not deducible from prior hypotheses or axioms. They stand on their own.

One example, borrowed from Aristotle, is that good is always to be preferred over evil. This is an axiomatic, almost indisputable principle (defining what we mean by "good" and "evil" is where the controversy resides; not the principle itself). Another is to "Do no harm". And still another: the "Golden Rule" itself. All of these are common examples of first principles that are not readily deducible from ancillary hypotheses.

Critical thinking squares this circle with first principles by recognizing that hypotheses must be drawn from somewhere; that it is always useful and necessary to question sources and test hypotheses. But not indefinitely. One of the virtues of critical thinking lies in its ability to recognize the futility of deduction where the inescapable result of that pursuit is eternal regress (Aristotle).

Today we examine why we so often fail to produce the results we are looking for, despite our best efforts.

It often boils down to this: method. Possessing the knowledge or training, even the skills and experience, is often not enough. More often than not, it's how we apply that knowledge or training, those skills and experience, that marks the difference between success and failure.

Critical thinking is a disciplined method, a reservoir of tools, attitudes and cognitive techniques (including, for example, Ockham's Razor) for identifying root causes, unexpected curve balls and/or opposition, that all too often seemingly conspire to thwart genuine progress and reliable outcomes. All other things being equal, he or she who has learned the principles of critical thinking will always be ahead of he or she who hasn't. And the results they produce will be far more reliable.

Today's installment is one few people would associate with critical thinking. Yet, if we recall that critical thinking begins with an honest, sober, critical awareness of ourselves and our assumptions, the pieces fall into place nicely.

Critical thinking is not about solving every problem, winning every argument, or acing every project. It's about questioning every assumption, testing every hypothesis, and falsifying (or seeking to falsify) every claim. This includes the claims we take on board about ourselves, our insights & capabilities.

The "Never Quit" fallacy is a reminder that critical thinking and a sane estimation of ourselves are not mortal enemies. Quite the opposite. Critical thinking, rightly understood, engenders humility. It reminds us that we are human, and that sometimes the problem can't be solved, the argument can't be won, the project can't be aced... or at least not now. It reminds us that sometimes "enough is enough", and that's okay.

Today we focus on one of the cognitive biases that is so subtle even Charlie Munger misses it in his list of 25 cognitive biases: the cognitive bias known as the "Dunning-Kruger Effect".

But first, what are "cognitive biases"? There are several popular, technical definitions one can look up. My definition, distilled from a long history of learning & applying critical thought, is this: they are the biases (assumptions or inclinations), often unconscious, that govern, drive or influence our decisions or reactions.

The "Dunning-Kruger Effect" is one I find particularly intriguing and relevant today. The most glaring example that comes to mind is the contemporary social media phenomenon where people, without having studied an hour of epidemiology, biochemistry or law, are instantly transformed into "experts", knowing more than the scientists and other experts who have devoted their lives to studying the root causes and operations of the phenomena or issues under immediate consideration.

And how have these people become overnight "experts" on questions they have never studied formally or in any depth? From friends who "heard" or "read" it somewhere, of course. On Facebook, or Twitter, or YouTube... This is the stuff of the "Dunning-Kruger Effect". Yet, just a moment of detached reflection will show that facts and science and study, and the rigorous application of critical thinking, still matter when the goal is the honest search for truth and reliable results, and not the garnering of political or ideological points.

This series is only a high-level introduction to critical thinking. It's not a workshop on how to master the skills of critical thinking.

There are several valuable resources available for going deeper. Here is a helpful, low-cost introduction to critical thinking for those interested in learning more.

https://amzn.to/3wqjvXE

This installment focuses on the most common unconscious bias shared by people from all walks of life across our culture today, including politicians, lawyers, journalists, professors and students, administrators, politicians... even scientists, researchers, and engineers (did I mention politicians?)

I'm talking, of course, about confirmation bias. Unlike many or most unconscious biases often driven subconsciously by politics, ideology or religion, confirmation bias is more subtle. It is grounded in our very human desire, our felt need to be right, to be affirmed.

This desire, this felt need to be right, drives us to seek affirmation of our belief or opinion, and blinds us to evidence or rational arguments that might disturb or challenge our settled assumptions. Whenever we feel uneasy about some idea or proposition that runs contrary to one of our cherished beliefs or opinions (but don't know why), and instead of taking time to critically evaluate and test that cherished belief or opinion against the threatening idea or proposition we set out to find evidence to support it, we can know to a moral certainty that "confirmation bias" is at work.

Critical thinking enables us to recognize confirmation bias, and gives us both the tools and the confidence to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

This series is only a high-level introduction to critical thinking. It's not a workshop on how to master the skills of critical thinking. There are several valuable resources available for going deeper.

Here is a helpful, low-cost introduction to critical thinking for those interested in learning more.

https://amzn.to/3wqjvXE

A footnote on "confirmation bias" from Karl Popper.

Karl Popper, one of the 20th Century's leading philosophers of science, believed in the value and necessity of seeking to falsify hypotheses rather than to confirm them. This put him at odds with the verification principle espoused by Morris Schlick, Rudolph Carnap, and the logical positivists of the Vienna Circle in the 1920s & 30s.

His thinking has been a profound influence on my approach to critical thinking. Here is his articulation of critical thinking from the applied knowledge and experience of this leading 20th Century thinker.

The "Falsification Imperative" follows as a logical extension from the last two posts on confirmation bias.

In our installment on confirmation bias we discussed the "felt need" to be right, to be liked and respected for our opinions and beliefs, and how the very natural, human tendency is to seek confirmation to vindicate those beliefs and opinions. Yet this is exactly the wrong approach... if getting at the truth is our goal.

Why? Because our beliefs and opinions (truth claims) can be, and often are, wrong, or at least not entirely correct. And if they happen to be wrong (or not entirely correct), how are we to know they are wrong or not entirely correct if we merely fall into the trap of seeking evidence or arguments that serve only to confirm that belief or opinion?

The answer, as Karl Popper powerfully argues, is to seek to falsify the belief, opinion or truth claim, rather than to blindly confirm it. One can "confirm" an hypothesis 100 times, or 1000 times, in science and still fall short of certainty that the hypothesis is correct or true. Falsify it once, that is all you need to know it was neither true nor entirely correct. Later this week I will elaborate further on Karl Popper's falsification imperative.

This series is only a high-level introduction to critical thinking. It's not a workshop on how to master the skills of critical thinking. There are several valuable resources available for going deeper. Here is a helpful, low-cost introduction to critical thinking for those interested in learning more.

https://amzn.to/3wqjvXE

A sequel to my post earlier this week from Karl Popper on the falsification imperative.

Karl Popper believed in the value and necessity of seeking to falsify hypotheses rather than to merely confirm them. This put him at odds with the verification principle espoused by Morris Schlick, Rudolph Carnap, and the logical positivists of the Vienna Circle in the 1920s & 30s.

The quote in the infographic below is his take on falsification from his book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" (1959). This, in a nutshell, is the "falsification" imperative, one of the core lessons of applied philosophical reason (along with his doctrine of demarcation) that we owe to Popper, and one of the most effective tools in the critical thinking arsenal.

Last week we zeroed in on "confirmation bias" and the "falsification imperative", including Karl Popper's take on both.

One inescapable conclusion emerges from these posts: You can't "confirm" a belief or truth claim without appealing to an outside source; you can't "falsify" an hypothesis or empirical claim without relying on relevant data. Data, i.e. sound, objective, rigorously tested data, is the sine qua non of critical thinking.

Yet data alone, without context or applied reason, is a dead letter. Data must be sought and researched, its sources examined and questioned; and if found presumptively reliable, critically analyzed... then rejected, modified, or adopted, in whole or in part. Only then can you claim with any authority to have provisionally established your hypothesis.

In this installment of the series we take a pragmatic turn, from theoretical analysis to practical application of critical thinking in operation. We begin by zeroing in on one of the more disingenuous gambits that a person engaged in debate can default to when he or she find themselves on the losing end of an argument (rather than facing up to the real possibility they just might be wrong).

It involves the deliberate misrepresentation or exaggeration of an opponent's argument. It is on a par with pesky "red herrings" (irrelevant information or side issues introduced into a dialogue for the purpose of distracting the parties from examining the real issue).

I've run into the "strawman" gambit a few times this past couple years with people who don't share my views or perspective about certain political or cultural issues, including:

* The necessity of reasonable Covid-19 protocols, vaccinations and mandates;

* Whether the 2020 U.S. election was "stolen" from Donald Trump;

* The recent occupation of the Nation's Capital by "protestors" who had little to no regard for the harm they were causing local residents & business owners by their actions;

* The dangers of "Critical Theory" (not to be confused with "critical thinking"); and more...

I also run into it from time to time in my law practice. Wherever it rears its head, it is the art of the disingenuous; a refuge of the weak.

The key here is "deliberate" misrepresentation. It is not a "Strawman Gambit" when the other *honestly* (i.e., mistakenly) mischaraterizes the position he or she is attacking. But if he or she has not taken the time to consider and evaluate the argument they are attacking, and has elected instead to construct and attack a caricature of the other's argument rather than face the uncomfortable prospect of being found to be wrong, he or she has sought refuge in the "Strawman Gambit".

The opposite of the "Strawman Gambit" is the "Steelman Solution". I will post on this one next time.

This series is only a high-level introduction to critical thinking. It's not a workshop on how to master the skills of critical thinking. There are several valuable resources available for going deeper.

Unlike the "Strawman Gambit" I posted on earlier this week, the "Steelman Alternative" is the opposite of the "Strawman Gambit". It is a far more constructive model of engagement when the parties are genuinely interested in knowing the truth as opposed to winning the argument or scoring points. Note that I said "constructive", not easy.

One of the great models of "steelmaning" an opponent's arguments was the 13th Century's leading scholastic philosopher-theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas (in his "Summa Theologia"). It involved posing the question generically along the following lines, for example: "Whether the world has always existed?" (It always took the form of a "Whether..." question). Acquinas then put forward the strongest arguments he could muster for his opponent's position, as fully and fairly as he could. Only then would he attack the argument (often very differently than he might otherwise have done, understanding his opponent's position far better now than he had before).

Steelmaning requires the discipline of applying the robust "critical thinking" skills we have been learning in this series, beginning with the counter-intuitive acknowledgment that we are not always right, that we can be wrong, that as 'unlikely' as it might be, we might actually learn something worthwhile from our opponent if we work at "steelmaning" his or her argument.

I said "not easy but constructive" earlier. Why? Because, it isn't easy. It is counter-intuitive. By way of example, I don't always take the time to do this myself. And I know better!

Occasionally I refuse to steelman the opposing party's argument because, well, I "know" from my own experience, research or reflection that I am "right", and my opponent is, well, "wrong". And how do I "know" this? Well, I just do. My unexamined moral intuitions couldn't be that far off, could they? Or could they?

Yet even if my moral intuitions turn out to be correct, how am I to know that? Or maybe they are mostly correct, but missing an important piece; and maybe, just maybe, my opponent or interlocutor has a small piece of the truth I'm missing. In short, by not taking the time, I lose something. I lose the chance to learn more, to fill in the small, and occasionally large, spaces in my knowledge or understanding.

If the goal is uncovering the truth & deepening your own understanding of the issues and why you are so certain you can't be wrong (and not merely scoring points, winning the argument, or looking good), steelmaning your opponent's argument or position is a great place to start.

This series is only a high-level introduction to critical thinking. It's not a workshop on how to master the skills of critical thinking. There are several valuable resources available for going deeper. Here is a helpful, low-cost introduction to critical thinking for those interested in learning more.

https://amzn.to/3wqjvXE

As I prepare to wind down this series of posts on critical thinking, this installment brings us back full circle to the beginning of our journey, and the gold thread that has animated the series throughout: that we ought never to accept at face value claims presented as true, without evidence or scrutiny, no matter how we feel about the truth claim itself, or how much it validates our beliefs or makes us feel good.

One of the pioneers of the 18th Century Western liberal Enlightenment was Denis Diderot (1713-1784), best known as the co-founder and chief editor of the first encyclopedia, aptly referred to as the Encyclopédie. He earned his degree in philosophy at the University of Paris, and managed to offend just about everyone in the France of his day (beginning with the Catholic Church and government authorities) for his dogged, uncompromising pursuit of truth through evidence and science.

In his Introduction to the Encyclopédie, Diderot wrote: "All things must be examined, debated, and investigated without exception, and without regard for anyone's feelings". Ouch! Not a popular sentiment in this rapidly disintegrating, postmodern culture, where "feelings" are King, and "lived experience" valued as highly, if not more highly, than empirically discovered, tested and reasoned knowledge in a growing number of domains, including, most surprisingly, in academia, journalism, and law.

Yet it's been said, and with much justification, that "facts don't care about your feelings". And they don't; nor should they. Facts are facts. They are our connection to the real world as it is, not as we wish or think or feel it should be. This is not to say that people shouldn't care about feelings. Of course we should. Feelings matter. The feelings of others matter (no less than our own). We ought never run roughshod over them. At the same time, we ought never allow anyone's feelings (including our own) to thwart, sabotage, or determine our search for, and interpretation of, the facts, or to otherwise hijack our search for the truth.

Critical thinking enables us to cut through the noise of emotion-driven narratives. It enables us to follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if the upshot of that search produces facts or outcomes that make us uncomfortable or hurt people's feelings. This is not a call to weaponize facts to advance or defend some personal, ideological or political agenda. That is the very antithesis of what I have been advocating in this series on critical thinking.

It serves no one to trivialize the reality or depth of another's pain, fear, or brokenness. Empathy, compassion and love are the tools we are given to bring healing and wholeness to the pain, loss and brokenness of family, friends, even strangers and enemies.

It is, rather, a call to submit all truth claims to objective factual scrutiny regardless of how we feel, or how much we have invested the claim. Here is where the tools of critical thinking find their place. It is in this space, where reason and empirical analysis are allowed to work, that truth can be found, and healing can begin.

This series is only a high-level introduction to critical thinking. It's not a workshop on how to master the skills of critical thinking. There are several valuable resources available for going deeper. Here is a helpful, low-cost introduction to critical thinking for those interested in learning more.

https://amzn.to/3wqjvXE

One of my newer members who read my last post about beginning to wind down this series asked if I could produce an infographic summarizing my view of critical thinking. This is that infographic. It succinctly summarizes both the goal and essential methodology of critical thinking.

In my next and final post in this theoretical phase of my Critical Thinking series, I will summarize the attributes required of anyone that wishes to take critical thinking seriously. After that, I will begin a series that unpacks what critical thinking is not.

This series is only a high-level introduction to critical thinking. It's not a workshop on how to master the skills of critical thinking. There are several valuable resources available for going deeper. Here is a helpful, low-cost introduction to critical thinking for those interested in learning more.

https://amzn.to/3wqjvXE

This is the final installment in the theoretical segment of my introductory series on "Critical Thinking". In it I distill the key attributes and conditions of critical thinking.

Thank you to those who came along for the ride and supported me through the series. I hope you found it useful, and that it at least piqued your curiosity to know more about the fading art and science of critical thinking.

Learn critical thinking; and learn to apply it. If you do, no one will ever be able to bamboozle, gaslight, or seduce you again with unexamined political or ideological mantras. It will give you confidence to stand your ground under nearly any condition. It will teach you the importance of never accepting anything at face value unless you know the source to be reliable (and even then only with a healthy pinch of salt). It will teach you that rapidly disappearing art, one that stands today on a precipice of extinction: Thinking. Thinking rationally, slowly, and critically.

Later this week I will launch the next segment in the series, i.e. applied critical thinking. I will be examining what critical thinking is NOT; how its terminology and authority have been hijacked by scoundrels; and how you can apply the basic principles we learned in this first segment to resist the seductive allure of false thinking and shallow narratives.

Join me.

Robaire

Today I begin the next segment of this series on critical thinking. This segment will focus on applied critical thinking, and will explore more directly what critical thinking is and is NOT.

We will begin with an introductory installment about epistemology, i.e. what knowledge is, how we acquire it, and what we mean when we hold that something is true. We will explore questions like, how do truth claims relate to the real world? and whether it is still possible to claim a shared reality in a postmodern universe?

The next three or four installments after that will involve unpacking and differentiating critical thinking from "Critical Theory" in its multiplicity of intersectional forms. These installments in the "Critical Theory" segment of the series will unpack, question and explore the underlying assumptions, origins and goals of "Critical Theory" through the lens of critical thinking for the purpose of clarifying and better understanding the different manifestations of the movement, and evaluating their value as truth claims.

The first couple instantiations of "Critical Theory" after distinguishing "Critical Theory" from critical thinking will be Critical Race Theory. We will define Critical Race Theory in its own terms, relying on its own sources, questioning, exploring & testing its assumptions, origins and expectations.

In the weeks that follow we will do the same with Critical Pedagogy, Critical Gender Theory, White Guilt & White Fragility; Postmodernism; Polarization, Fragmentation, and Tribalism; Wokeism and Cancel Culture; Gaslighting and Pseudorealism; Donald Trump & the Alt-Right; Q-Anon and White Supremacy; the bizarre but growing movement of so-called Sovereign Citizens; Historical Revisionism, Storytelling and Lived Experience, to mention only a few. An ambitious agenda to be sure.

The goal will be a better understanding of the values and truth claims advanced by these different movements and ideologies. In the interest of full transparency, I will be persuing this project more as a student (not an expert) approaching the culture wars and resulting identity politics from a centrist liberal perspective: one that recognizes the value of competing narratives, viewpoint diversity, and rigorous, informed discourse in the search for truth and common ground in a pluralistic, Western liberal democracy. The tools will be those of critical thinking.

It is not my intent to debate ideologies on this Page or in this Group. There are more than enough platforms on social media (Twitter Instagram, etc.) and in the mainstream media (CNN, Fox News, The New York Times, etc.) for that. This Page, this Group, is dedicated to a better understanding of these issues, and how they impact our lives, both directly & indirectly. The goal is discourse and understanding, not victory or vindication. The Group rules will be strictly enforced.

And finally, given that critical thinking begins by questioning our own sources and assumptions, the interval between installments will be substantially longer than in the first segment of the series. Unlike much of the public posturing on both the Right and the Left today, my goal will be to present the competing narratives as fairly and objectively as I reasonably can. To that end, whenever I am presenting a personal opinion, I will say so. In all other cases, I will reference my sources for critical scrutiny.

Thank you.

Robaire

Returning from a much-needed vacation this weekend. Although the itinerary and weather contributed greatly to the down time, the real qualitative difference is spending the time with the one that makes all the difference in your world.

Today we address an important foundational question around which critical thinking finds its purpose and raison d'êtres: Truth. Or, more specifically, how do we *know* what is true? And more specifically still, how do we *know* what we know?

This is the subject of that branch of philosophy known as "epistemology".This $64,000 word is derived from the Greek word "episteme" which means knowledge. But what is "knowledge"? How do we acquire it? What is the relationship of knowledge to truth?

To begin, different truth claims require different sorts and cogencies of evidence. A truth claim about the weather calls for a different quality or kind of evidence than that required by a Judge or jury in a murder trial. And both of these call for a different quality or kind of evidence than does a truth claim, say, about climate change or systemic racism. But in every case, unless the truth claim can be falsified by evidence, it cannot stand as a truth claim: only as belief or opinion.

In his dialogue "The Sophist", Plato argues through the person of Socrates that knowledge is that which is timeless, universal, necessary, and certain. It is that about which we cannot be wrong. And therefore objective and true. The paradigm example is mathematics. The result of an algebraic calculation (given the same set of variables) will be the same in Paris or Rome as it is in New York or Saudi Arabia. As such, it is distinguished from belief or opinion about which we can be wrong.

But is this right? For the "sophists" knowledge referred to a kind of belief - beliefs that were most strongly held in the polis or society at the particular time. It was a word they used when they wanted to say that the belief was not challengeable (at least not challengeable there and then). Knowledge for them was always particular, contingent, probable, and uncertain. In a word, realivistic.

If we take these definitions seriously (and they couldn't be any more different), we have to ask ourselves "How do we go from knowledge that is particular, contingent, and only probable - to knowledge that's timeless, universal, necessary and certain?" Thomas Aquinas, 13th Century scholastic philosopher-theologian, relying on Aristotelian philosophy, argued that a claim or proposition is *true* if it corresponds to reality, i.e. if it matches the way the world is (referred to as the "correspondence theory of truth").

To complicate things even further, along comes Michel Foucault and the other postmodernists in the 1980s who argued that *knowledge* and *truth* bear no relationship to objective reality - that knowledge is simply the product of power relations in society, i.e., those that have the power determine what knowledge is, and thus what truth is, and impose it on society. A view reminiscent of the sophists, yet one that has gained considerable traction in some quarters in recent years.

The problem with these theories is that they are incommensurable. They can't be reconciled - at least not easily - with each other. Enter science and its method of testing truth claims. Science relies on evidence. It is empirical and (at least in theory) neutral & objective in that it develops hypotheses through deductive reasoning and analysis that it then subjects to rigorous testing. If the hypothesis survives the testing protocols, it is then, and only then, accepted as "provisionally" true. In other words, it survives as a reliable scientific hypothesis (as "true") until overwhelmed by accumulating anomalies, and eventually falsified (Karl Popper). In other words, even scientific hypotheses are only provisionally true. They are dynamic, not fixed, and are always open to change as a result of new evidence and ongoing rigorous scrutiny.

Clearly, it is neither practicable, necessary, or even desirable, for us to conduct rigorous scientific experiments when presented with truth claims - even important truth claims- in our daily lives. But the core empirical values and principles of the scientific method offer a useful approach to evaluating truth claims in our everyday lives: that truth claims must correspond to reality; that all important truth claims should be scrutinized and tested by reliable empirical evidence; and that the results themselves must lead to reasoned, measured conclusions that align with our experience of the real world. If they don't, or if they create cognitive dissonance, this is likely a sign that the competing assumptions should also be revisited.

In the coming weeks and months we will be subjecting a number of contemporary truth claims to rigorous scrutiny through the application of critical thinking.

Nice to have you join us.

Robaire

"Critical Thinking" is NOT "Critical Theory". It is in some respects the very antithesis of "Critical Theory".

Critical thinking refers to a mode of thought that invites rigorous scrutiny. It deals with epistemic adequacy (knowing what we're talking about). It is the product of reason, and the centerpiece of the scientific method. Its goal is to encourage deep analysis & dialogue while minimizing visceral reaction and confirmation bias, in order to get at the truth.

"Critical Theory" on the other hand is a cynical approach to language and culture that denies objective truth claims in the pursuit of radical political change for the purpose of correcting what it sees as systemic racial and cultural bias and oppression. It refuses to engage in honest, open and constructive dialogue with competing perspectives for fear that engaging with both sides of an argument will be seen as speaking into - and thereby legitimizing - the dominant narrative (regardless of whether that narrative is true or not).

Truth, as generally understood and accepted, is largely irrelevant to "Critical Theory", whereas it is central to Critical Thinking.

***********************************************

(P.S.: For those just recently joining the group, scroll down to Installment #1. There are 36 x 1-2 mins. installments, each addressing a different dimension of critical thinking. All future posts during this next segment of the program will deal with current social, cultural and other critiques through the lens of applied critical thinking. Understanding even a little about the the tools themselves will enhance your understanding of the critiques.)