I was talking with a friend the other day about critical thinking skills. He wondered aloud if it were possible to teach such a skill. To his surprise, I said "yes, certainly." Critical thinking is a philosophical discipline, a fairly well-defined one in fact, and well worth learning. Yes, you can be trained on it, although as with many things, you can never completely master it. It's a lifelong journey.
One of the most useful ways to learn critical thinking as a specific, definable skill is to study logical fallacies. Logical fallacies have been fairly well-defined for many years; indeed, some have been defined and well-understood for centuries.
It's important when contemplating fallacies to realize that an assertion can be based on a logical fallacy and still be true. It is not the case that bad reasoning always gives you a wrong result. Example:
Harry Truman was a great President because he was from Connecticut.
The most obvious fallacy here is that it is a non-sequitur: Presidential greatness is not measured by the state a President comes from. The other logical fallacy is a contrary-to-fact or false-to-fact hypothesis: Harry Truman was not from Connecticut.
So here we have an argument based on two logical fallacies. Does this mean Harry Truman was not a great President? Of course not. You may argue about whether he was or not, but you should strive not to base your arguments, pro or con, on logical fallacies.
The proper response, when a friend argues with you and uses a logical fallacy, is not to suggest that his conclusion is wrong. It is to note that the conclusion is based on faulty logic.
The proper response when you realize you've committed a logical fallacy is to do your best to admit it right away. If you're honest, you'll either revise your argument, or revise your conclusion. If you're cowardly, you'll try to get away with it and hope no one notices.
That last is the tough part: have you got what it takes to honestly evaluate your own arguments, bite the bullet, and admit that you've said something that isn't logically supportable?
I must admit that when I first started reading about the concept, and about various forms of fallacy, I began to realize that I tended to use some of them more often than I wanted to admit. Once I did admit it, however, I realized a lot about how to improve my thinking, and my arguments.
There are entire books written on this subject, using some fairly arcane language and some pseudo-mathematical models that look like this:
If all A's are C's, and all B's are C's, A <> B.
I don't generally go in for that. Maybe because I'm more verbal than visual, and because you need entire books to describe things that way, I find it to be overkill. Instead, I have a list of a couple of dozen common fallacies that I use as a convenient reference. And what I plan to do is formally write that list up, and start describing it here.
First up will be my personal favorite: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
[offstage observer, sotto voce]
Psst! Dean! Missouri not Connecticut. Truman was from Missouri
I think your idea to explain some of the rules of logic is excellent. My political views lean slightly to the Democratic side, but most of the political sites I read are quite conservative. Your's and Rachel Lucas' are daily reads for me, mostly because the posts are well-thought. It's the extended comment sections on many blogs which are the real entertainment for me. A good number of people seem not to know at all how to go about logically building an argument.
I took a symbolic logic class in college to fulfill part of my philosophy requirement. I actually enjoyed it quite a bit, partly due to the texts we used. Many of the exercises used comic strips, newspaper articles, advertisements, and other instances of popular culture for examples. There definitely was a lot of symbols involved, but I didn't think it was too much. Anyways, if anyone is interested, the books we used were Introduction to Propositional and Predicate Logic, second edition by Howard Pospesel.
Dean,
I am very, very glad to see somebody finally tackle a subject that is very close to my heart. I personally believe a course in either introductory logic or strategies of rhetoric course should be required for every single high school student. This should include an introduction to logical fallacies.
I run into repeated logical fallacies when speaking to anybody these days. I receive blank stares or hostile treatment when I refer to logical fallacies in others’ arguments. I guess they “feel” insulted when their logical fallacies are pointed out. People are totally deaf, dumb and blind to what logical fallacies even are.
Somehow or another you are repeatedly able to choose some very interesting, relevant topics to discuss on you blog. I hope this topic fulfills its potential to be interesting, and informative.
We used “An Introduction to Logic” textbook by Levi at WMU to fulfill our philosophy requirement. I recommend “The Power of Logical Thinking” by Marilyn vos Savant. I found it in the Gwinnett County Library two years ago.
I hope you also cover the most used fallacy of all: the tu quoque argument. This is not really an argument at all. It simply involves tossing an accusation back to an opponent. I have heard tu quoque arguments repeatedly since the genesis of the Clinton Presidency. Pundits currently elevate it by alternately naming it a moral equivalence argument; but it still is a fallacious argument.
I think it would be very useful to teach formal logic in college (as part of liberal arts programs.) However, they're almost sure to screw it up. I recently saw a logic course offered at a major university, evidently for liberal arts, and it was so esoteric that a math major would have had a hard time of it. If most students learned anything from it, it was in the same sense as a dog "learning" to understand English.
What would be very good would be a course in "how to know when things are true." Could include a bit of formal logic, rhetoric, scientific method, and elementary statistics. Very unlikely to happen at any mainstream college, though...
Ara: I know that. Read again, more closely. ;-)
I don't know what's up with higher education these days, I really don't. I'm at a fully accredited 4-year university and I am routinely stunned at the poor quality of the teaching and the level of knowledge shown there. And at the overt politicization of so many issues.
Last night, in class, I was treated to a lecture on how corporate corruption in America didn't become such a big problem until Dick Cheny become Vice President, and how much more technically advanced Russian MIG jet fighters were than American fighter planes, and about how much more advanced technologically and economically most Asian countries are compared to the United States.
This, by the way, in a class on business administration.
By the way, I'm not exaggerating. At all.
It makes me understand why think tanks have become such a hotbed for research, and why people say America's grad schools are among the world's best, but that American undergrad degrees are just jokes anymore.
Oh, by the way, I've had two classes on critical thinking. I learned nothing in them, but did get some useful reference material. BUt I'm glad to hear other recommendations. ;-)
Next up: either tu quoque (since Kevin brings it up), or, amphiboly. Haven't decided yet.
Dean,
Perhaps higher education these days is simply a business. I never once thought colleges as only higher institutions of learning. I realized they were a business from the day I enrolled at Western Michigan. I find all colleges in either the yellow pages or the business pages of a phone directory.
Now I sometimes wonder if colleges are interested in churning out classes than they are interested in the quality of student output.
Dean:
Itchy trigger finger. Sorry.
:^)
Let's discuss amphiboly first, because last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas.
Maybe you could tell me how he got into my pajamas in the first place.
Looks interesting... I've been in love with logic (the more abstract kind) ever since my long-ago days in the field of mathematics. Although-- quirk of the way my mind works, or whatever-- for me there's never been any real separation between logic on this more abstract level, and logic on the more "flesh and blood" level of logical fallacies, rhetoric, and whatnot.
Critical thinking is regarded by many as a pseudo-subject. Logic is the real discipline. However, learning logic does not teach people to think critically as critical thinking in the real world is about much more than avoiding invalid arguments or even recognizing 'informal fallacies.' I guess it's a start, though.
What is better, to study lingustics, or to learn another language? Languages are much more fluid and less precise.
I find that studying logical fallacies establishes a very strong base for building critical thinking skills.
Dean,
My thoughts on studying logical fallacies is that it does not by itself make you a more logical thinker. But it does tell you how poor arguments are commonly constructed. Hopefully, it will help you steer clear of logical fallacies thereby making you a more mature person and a more rational thinker and arguer.
Dean, good analogy. Street English is not textbook English is not linguistics. But among linguistics, and the study of particular languages, and the real-life speaking of those languages, there are many fruitful connections. Fruitful albeit often indirect!
Miel, "pseudo-subject"??! Is "pseudo-subject" anything like "subject, boo, hiss"? Subjects may differ in scope, in utility, in formality, in rigor, in the dignity we accord them. But what, pray tell, is a "pseudo-subject"?