Pajamas Media

110 Comments

1. huxley:

Everyday I’m surprised at the lack of critical thinking and basic knowledge in political discussions, and the substitution of feelings instead, often in the form of angry attacks.

Obama said in his famous race speech that we need to continue the national conversation on race. I’m not so sure about that but I am sure that we need a national conversation on the conduct of the national conversation.

Jun 20, 2008 - 8:56 am 2. dan:

i’m beginning to believe the emotions our electorate are so predictable and easy to manipulate that i’m beginning to wonder… well, i’m beginning to wonder whether 9/11 wasn’t *designed* to do this to our country. because i just finished ion mihai pacepa’s Programmed to Kill, which argues the KGB was responsible for JFK’s assassination, and also Anatoliy Golitsyn’s New Lies for Old, which among other things alleges that Soviet strategies for subverting the West were based on Western responses to actual crises – Lenin’s New Economic Policy and the post-Stalin Hungarian revolt primary among them. These responses were then used to politically split the West in later strategic operations.

Now, both of these authors are controversial, to say the least. Leave that to one side.

What I’ve begun to be struck by is the way the political environment post-9/11 sort of resembles the post-Kennedy Assassination divisions – not exactly, but suggestively. I should add that I do believe the 9/11 attack was really the work of the KGB/FSB – after all, Arabs can’t do anything right, and this whole alQaeda thing, regarded historically, would be the most successful thing they’ve done in about 1000 years.

In any case, I’m beginning to wonder about the role of disinformation. Some of the idiocies passing as criticisms are, even on an emotional level, suspiciously absurd. Suspiciously, I say.

Jun 20, 2008 - 9:11 am 3. David Thomson:

“Right. Your feelings are your truth.”

This is why I describe Barack “Barry” Obama as our first major postmodernist presidential candidate. He is attracting people who don’t really give a damn about the issues. They simply “believe in change.” We are living in very dangerous times. Obama is essentially running something of a fascist campaign. The emphasis is on trusting the Anointed One.
Faith is required. Rational thought is pushed to the side.

Jun 20, 2008 - 9:24 am 4. Roark:

Objective solution; Use reason! Read Ayn Rand and related works.

Jun 20, 2008 - 9:27 am 5. Lynn:

I found your article excellent. I have had the same conversations with my daughter about her recent experiences in high school. What also struck me was how wise the young people you talked to are.

Jun 20, 2008 - 9:41 am 6. Ed Wallis:

“David Thomson,” a penny for your thought on this, sir: YES, learning logic is important…or, as you word it…“Rational thought is pushed to the side.”

Buuuttttt: Can we possibly agree that, just as important, “moral thinking/morality” is a vital element in forwarding – let alone preserving (yikes!) – civilized culture.

That seems to me to be lacking in this discussion so far.

(Have a wonderful weekend, everyone!)

Jun 20, 2008 - 9:43 am 7. Jeremy:

To assume that the lack of critical thinking being taught in the public schools is an accident is to ignore the plain facts. Remember that we are borrowing the Prussian school system. A populace that cannot dissect an argument to assess veracity is easier, by far, to “pacify.”

Rand only followed relativism to its logical end (what I want is the most important thing). You’d be better off reading Neil Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death” and anything by John Taylor Gatto.

Full disclosure: Homskoold.

Jun 20, 2008 - 10:05 am 8. Sandra M:

I see great hope for the future in the homeschooling movement.

My grandmother, a language teacher, taught me to read when I was 4. Obviously, she used PHONICS, not the epistomologically disastrous look-say method. Once I had that skill, there wasn’t much Manhattan’s Marxist Mafia, dominant in our schools, could do to destroy me.

I always had a first generation American’s intense love for this country, but It wasn’t until I was in my 60’s that I finally found an American History textbook that reflected my love for this country and it was written by a Brit, Paul Johnson, whose HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE I recommend to everyone.

Luckily, as a child I was prone to chronic bronchitis, so I happily shared my bed with The Count of Monte Cristo, (from whom I got my curriculum) , and Sherlock Holmes who imbued me with a desire to learn logic, which only intensified when I met Ayn Rand, the “sorceress of reason.” Her best gift was introducing me to the works of “The Master of Those Who Know” Aristotle.

I am not a great logician but I try. Decades ago, I used to work logic exercises in logic texts, the greatest text I found being LOGIC: AN INTRODUCTION by Lionel Ruby, which is especially good on scientific method and research which is very applicable to those with allergies and health problems. I also recommend his very entertaining THE ART OF MAKING SENSE, which resulted from 10 radio talks called “How to Think Logically”. Ch. 13 covers The Logic of Gambling and Ch. 17 The Logic of Sherlock Holmes. Enjoy!!!

I wish I had found John Saxon (former Marine) and his mathematics texts as a child. They are so good, that I once saw burly math teacher cry on 60 minutes because they were replacing the Saxon texts with books more profitable to Texas bureaucrats and teachers. Textbook publishers will pay and pay well to get their books selected.

I always hated the dingy public schools with barred windows, loud bells, indifferent teachers and a curriculum designed to baffle and dismay a child. John Taylor Gatto’s DUMBING US DOWN explained my loathing for school which co-existed with a real desire to learn.

Today, the homeschooling movement is so organized and powerful that when an idiot Congressman who knew how powerful the teachers; unions were spoke out on the floor of the House against homeschooling, the Congess was inundated with more angry mail than they’d ever received on any issue.

I deeply regret virtually almost every day I ever spent in school and this even includes a good part of 4 years of college and a year in graduate school Just give me the books and get out of my way. Let me learn at my own speech the subjects I want to learn and let me find creative ways of studying subjects of not much interest to me such as jigsaw puzzles for the states and countries of the world with capitols and other pertinent matters listed. I wish I’d known of CLEP and could have studied on my own and taken exams for college credit. It would have saved me a lot of time. Because of another role model, Bill Buckley, I did learn from debating in college and writing a column for the school newspaper. Other than these extracurricular activities, I learned from books not lectures. I’m an ADDer and start to think while someone is speaking so I miss part of what’s being said. With books I can underline and post tape the parts most important to me.

If vouchers were given to students and their families instead of money to schools, schools would immediately improve, which is why leftist bureacrats and teachers will fight to the death against school vouchers, lest parents destroy a system designed by the Prussians and adopted by John Dewey to produce obedient soldiers and workers.

Jun 20, 2008 - 10:16 am 9. RE:

We’ve let the war against common sense, critical thinking, and discernment rage virtually unchallenged for decades in our public school system. We are now reaping the harvest of our complacency.

Jun 20, 2008 - 10:25 am 10. BackwardsBoy:

It’s becoming more and more difficult to find truth and logic in a world where you are told that perception is reality. We are all falling victim to what amounts to electronic peer pressure. For example, disagree with someone who believes in climate change and see what happens. Emotionality has become a substitute for rational thought. In order to properly evaluate an issue, one has to remain somewhat detached emotionally. “Trust your feelings, Luke” only works with the Force.

Jun 20, 2008 - 10:28 am 11. J.G.:

Dogmatic Catholics like you, Elizabeth Scalia, and like your relative, Justice Anthony Scalia are not the ones to discuss critical thinking. I’ve read some the articles on your The Anchoress website, and I’ve read the latest ruling by Justice Scalia concerning habeas corpus. That kind of thinking will bring back the Inquisition. With regards to home schooling, infusing kids with the ideas and “stepford” thinking of their parents will only lead more division within our society. Your definition of critical thinking based on strict Christian ideology does not scratch the surface of critical thinking defined by the Greeks.

Jun 20, 2008 - 10:46 am 12. Geoff:

just a few random thoughts…

I think the uncritically-thinking masses have always been around, and now, since it is much easier for them all to voice their views from the safety of a screen, we’re hearing a lot more from them. I’m not so sure that this is a new phenomenon… just one made easier by our society’s evolution.

As far as relativism, I think the issues surrounding so-called “postmodern” thought are complicated and most people don’t want to critically engage the epistemological quandries raised by various thinkers. I mention this because I do believe that most people begin with a basic idea and build their beliefs from there. And too many people have built their beliefs on either 1) there is no truth (which is self-defeating) or 2) there is truth, and I HAVE IT! If these are seen as the only two options, it’s no wonder that cynicism will begin to hold sway.

Also, I think it’s worth pointing out that this is not a phenomenon limited to one side of the political debate. Poor thinking is rampant on all sides.

Jun 20, 2008 - 10:49 am 13. J.G.:

Sorry, it’s Antonin Scalia.

Jun 20, 2008 - 10:49 am 14. Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord:

The problem is that while Real Truth exists… its a fuzzy and difficult thing to find sometimes. We see the Truth, most often, through a glass, darkly. Our neurological systems take in data from a Real World. Then, as it begins to process that data, it runs into our preconceived notions and beliefs. If we believe all of the GOP are liars, our neurological system will shade the data to support it. If we believe the Dems are all Marxists, our neurological system will shade the data to support it.

In the book, Prometheus Rising, the author discusses “two actors” in the brain. The thinker, who has ideas, beliefs, dogmatic truths and preconceived notions… and the Prover, who does its best to manipulate the data to prove the Thinker correct. Humans, are trapped by the very system that has ensured our survival… the data we collect for food, safety shelters doesn’t require the sort of system that parses through our own preconceptions and biases. Post-Modernism, particularly the bastardized concept of it that gets taught in college campuses, screwed the pooch… rather than facing the reality (that there is a reality, its just damn hard to see it clearly without our own biases) they take the lazy and easy approach… they simply don’t look.

There appears to be some evidence that the Executive Branch was not particularly honest with us. Now, it may have been seen as spin (provide the evidence that supports us, don’t provide the evidence that doesn’t). It may have been a case of Thinker/Prover (I think Saddam was involved, Here is the Proof). It may have been that Bush wanted to see the experiment happen and was willing to inflict mass causalities to achieve it. It may simply have been incompetence.

However, to think that one of those views IS THE RIGHT VIEW, means either our Thinker and Prover are setting us up, or we’re satisfied with looking through a tinted window and guessing.

There is Truth, it’s just extremely tricky to accurately define it. Yet, most Americans, most bloggers, most comments, most of the MSM completely miss the difficulty… they see the world that they want to see and they don’t really question it much.

Scepticism, not post-moderninsm is what we need more of. Scepticism of our government, scepticism of both parties equally, scepticism of our religious leaders, our news reporters and anyone who makes any claim on THE TRUTH.

Jun 20, 2008 - 10:56 am 15. mishu:

There’s a billion dollar advertising industry that tries to separate you from your money using a rhyming jingle. Logically, you wouldn’t believe women would find you irresistible if you use a certain brand of pit stick but the imagery and jingle still gets stuck in your head and you reach for that brand regardless. That’s what the left was able to do with this issue on Iraq. They got a rhyming jingle to convince people as opposed to reasoned logic.

It doesn’t matter how many people were stating the same thing as George Bush prior to the invasion of Iraq. It doesn’t matter if they were on the other side of the aisle. It’s the jingle that remains. As demonstrated by the flawed thinking in JG’s post, the truth is what people agree upon not what really “is”.

Jun 20, 2008 - 11:05 am 16. Greg Toombs:

J.G. – Boy, you sure know how to write an authoritative rejoinder to the above article.

Way to go in combining your ad hominem attack on the author with irrelevant, vague citations from other websites and issues, and complete it by announcing the end of the world as we know it in reaction to one of her peripheral points!

All in all, you’ve contributed a response proving the point.

Well done, sir.

Jun 20, 2008 - 11:07 am 17. Obi's Sister:

Back Off JG: The post wasn’t about religion or the lack thereof, if you even bothered to read it at all.

Elizabeth, I agree with your observation that our young people lack these important skills. Public schools, at least where I live, teach to the test now. Like your teacher friend, there isn’t time for “anything else.” The tests rule everything from teacher merit raises to state/federal funding to teacher/student ratios. Mean parents like me encourage outside reading and debate and independent thought. The fact that the majority of young adults get their “news & politics” from Comedy Central is a sad state of affairs!

Jun 20, 2008 - 11:15 am 18. Joe Buzz:

It is as if the events of 9/11 caused an explosion in the middle of our collective sanity. Many were pushed out of the realm. The BDS sufferers and Truthers were flung to the edge, some past. The negative impact of that event is a “there” to which few will “go”.

Jun 20, 2008 - 11:32 am 19. Sandra M:

The purpose of the American educational system is to provide compliant workers who will obey their managers. Horace Mann went to Germany and adopted the Prussian Volkschule (people’s school) a compulsory school system, which had as its purpose to produce soldiers who accepted orders which gave us both World War I and the horrors of World War II, in which the excuse for atrocities was that soldiers were merely *obeying orders.*

Schools for the wealthy and elite, on the other hand, prepare their graduates for leadership; hence, the arrogance of Obama, John Kerry and other Harvard et al types.

In the Middle Ages, the first three topics taught were grammar, logic and rhetoric (persuasion), called the Trivium. The next four subjects studied, the Quadrivium, were arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy.

Jun 20, 2008 - 11:36 am 20. David Wynn:

I would be concerned about a couple of things in this article.

First, I don’t think the definition of truth from a philosophical standpoint has much effect in policy discussions or decision making. All the theories acknowledge multiple perspectives, whether or not there is a core “real” truth that they correspond to or not. Either way, it seems diversity of perspectives is important when seeking truth.

Second, I’d be wary of citing sarcasm and the Daily Show as the primary motivator in the decreasing demand for truth. I think it has far more to do with inundation of political views that claim good guy vs bad guy status. When presented so often with viewpoints that claim to be irreconcilable, perhaps the only thing to do without going mad is sit back and laugh. This doesn’t mean they don’t want truth… just that they’re tired of being forcefully inundated with several versions of it.

Third, I think I’d be wary of saying we need more “logic.” I actually agree with the idea that we need more logic, but I think people often describe their opinions and biases as logical, and then defining what is logical goes back to defining truth… and the argument starts over again. It doesn’t have to be this way, but I think it’s what most often happens.

Jun 20, 2008 - 11:45 am 21. newton:

JG, you just proved her point by issuing your own version of “STFU, idiot.”

And how the heck do YOU know if she’s related to Justice Scalia? Are you a genealogist?

JG is yet another reason to homeschool your child…

Jun 20, 2008 - 11:55 am 22. dan:

“That kind of thinking will bring back the Inquisition.”

This is sheer ignorance and pomposity. I know we should cherish civility, but enough – shut your f-cking pie hole.

Jun 20, 2008 - 12:09 pm 23. newton:

Based upon my own experience in public schools in my younger years, I can say that there is little critical thinking encouraged. Colleges have become just about the same with the dominance of Political Correctness. The results are obvious to see: a populace that is illiterate in logic, civics, and even the fundamentals of economics. A dumb and malleable populace that loves a good show but can’t stand to think, or even calculate, the consequences of their actions.

I realized how especially damaging it has been with the whole controversy of the Dubai Port Ops deal from a couple of summers ago. I was amazed at how little people know of international commerce, let alone maritime commerce. My husband is in the maritime industry and so are just about all of his buddies: they had zero problem with it. Everyone else who had no clue about maritime issues, however, made a huge stink of it.

One quote that I saw at this one old encyclopedia that I found at an antiques store in Aransas Pass says it all: “It was not the Barbarians that destroyed Rome, but the free circuses.” Maybe Comedy Central will write the epitaph for the United States of America. I don’t count on it.

Jun 20, 2008 - 12:09 pm 24. Roark:

DAVID WYNN said: “Either way, it seems diversity of perspectives is important when seeking truth.”

REBUTTAL—”Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions—and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or falsehood of his designations of essential characteristics.”—Ayn Rand

Jun 20, 2008 - 12:13 pm 25. Joanna:

David Wynn: The Daily Show is more dangerous than it seems, in my opinion: Laugh, and you’re in with the cool kids. Don’t laugh, and you have to go sit with the band kids and the A/V club. (No offense meant to either group, it’s just that they’re typically not the “popular” crowd.) I have no doubt that if you challenged John Stewart to his face, he’d gladly debate you — but his audience would boo and heckle and automatically discount everything you say unless he himself conceded that you had a point. The problem isn’t with the host, it’s with the slavish, mindless devotion of his followers.

Jun 20, 2008 - 12:19 pm 26. TheGrandMufti:

Maybe JG just has a dry sense of humor.

Jun 20, 2008 - 12:35 pm 27. RE:

Cultural and moral relativism are enemies of critical thinking.

That they are enthusiastically embraced, taught, and promoted by the left is no accident.

Jun 20, 2008 - 12:42 pm 28. Mary:

Yes, critical thinking is on the decline.

When I was a freshman at university, one of the required courses was Critical Thinking, and mine was taught by a great instructor. We learned that you can quantify just about anything using Venn diagrams. Just as Aristotle (and Ayn Rand) said, you can prove A really is A.

(If I wasn’t so intellectually lazy right now, I’d apply them to the “Bush lied” situation, but, well. On the other hand, intellectual laziness is part of the problem — so guilt will probably compel me to look into it.)

I’m reminded of huge flocks of birds that, aggregately, turn suddenly from one direction and fly, in sync, in another. There truly does appear to be some kind of weird group-think taking place in the national/global zeitgeist — except it’s schizophrenic — split nearly evenly (Obama/Hillary, Obama/McCain, global warming acolytes/deniers, moonbats/wingnuts, etc.). Creatures like myself, and others here, who don’t buy into any kind of groupthink are increasingly rare.

But not extinct!

Jun 20, 2008 - 12:44 pm 29. Jay Manifold:

“Roark,” that’s some “rebuttal.” Ayn Rand lived before mass collaboration came along, so she gets a pass (though I expect she had a good grasp of the “wisdom of crowds” effect of, for example, the investor community). No reasonably aware person today should claim that truth cannot be strengthened by the participation of many different, and differing, individuals.

Jun 20, 2008 - 12:55 pm 30. Lynn:

newton: “A dumb and malleable populace”

Please tell me you are not a teacher. All your students would start out with an “F” and by the grace of your good will might work their way up from there. Oh the peasants! Oh the Peasants! Give them circuses and they want bread crumbs too! You should have taken away their bread crumbs so they would be too weak to rise up.
As far as global commerce goes…All I know is since we have been in a so called global economy, I have been more and more restricted in my travels. And finally….are you ever in danger of drowning when it rains and you forget your umbrella?

Jun 20, 2008 - 12:56 pm 31. Paul M Hupf:

If someone can determine for himself what truth is, so can the next person and the next person and so on. Carry the foregoing to its logical conclusion and there is no such thing as truth. Chaos and anarchy can only result. Christ told Pontius Pilate that he, Christ, “came into the world, to testify to the truth.” Pilate’s reply: “What is truth?” Pilate then gave in to those demanding the death of Christ, even though he, Pilate, stated publicly that he found Christ innocent of any wrongdoing.

Jun 20, 2008 - 12:56 pm 32. bour3:

I persist in reading comments to on-line articles because I insist there’s got to be something in there that adds to the conversation and leaves me a little smarter. Alas, with predictable certainty, I must sift through the dross to get at it such are the remarks worked up to make me more stupid.

Let’s see, Roark recommends reading Rand to enhance critical thinking and predictably, a Rand hater chimes in within two posts, “No! Don’t read that, read this instead.” Then adds an untrue statement about Rand thats boxes her writing into his narrow perception of it. So I check out the books Jeremy recommended, sure enough, predictable narrow-minded drivel.

The original article mentions surprise at ad hominem attack instead of questioning substance. Sure enough, There’s J.G. right on cue, attacking the author for being Catholic, then switching the subject to something he’d rather talk about, a justice’s recent opinion. Every sentence another fallacy, as if touring the world of fallacy, post hoc attribution, Catholicism leads to opinion of habeas corpus, then a slippery slope to inquisition. J.G., a reference to what a pope said to clarify a point doesn’t necessarily mean the opinion about relativism and critical thinking derives from Catholicism. You loon.

A suggestion to you two schizophrenics, or ADD sufferers, try, TRY to stay on topic. It’ll make sorting through your comments so much easier. <–wishful thinking. Like that’s ever going to happen.

-*-*-*-*

To the rest, thank you.

Jun 20, 2008 - 12:58 pm 33. Django:

Elizabeth – Thank you, thank you, thank you for writing this. It’s one of those things I’ve been thinking for a long time but could not have articulated as well as you do here (due to my deficit of critical thinking skills? ha, ha). I’ve run into the described lack of critical thinking skills in many conversations both in person and on the internet. The STFU “I don’t need facts, I have opinions” mentality is disturbingly pervasive throughout our society.

Jun 20, 2008 - 1:08 pm 34. moptop:

The media leave out so many important facts that, even if you engage in critical thinking, you cannot come to a reasoned conclusion. For instance Obama says that all of the terrorist behind the ‘93 WTC attack were caught and behind bars. You never get any mention that the one that wasn’t was in Iraq, where he held a passport when he came to the US in the first place. There is a nearly complete media ban on reporting any information that might, if taken into consideration, provide any justification for the war in Iraq.

I am not sure that critical thinking is dead, it is just too hard to get complete information on any subject due to biased journalism, and the fact that most of our information comes from agenda driven news orgs. If the information in the report, which was all commonly known, had been more widely reported and discussed, I am not sure that the kind of know nothing venom you see in those comments could survive.

If I have the power to control what you know, I have little fear of your powers of critical thinking, and little fear of your right to vote.

Jun 20, 2008 - 1:08 pm 35. johnbrown:

In the book “1984″, one of the characters makes the point that waging war is one way that a society maintains its grip on reality, since it cannot afford to ignore physical facts without losing the war: “When you are discussing philosophy, or religion, or morality, 2 plus 2 can equal 5; when you are building a rifle, 2 plus 2 have to equal 4″. The United States (and its allies in the developed world) do not face the prospect of losing a war that will endanger our homelands (which might account for the lack of intelligence in our political debates); however, in order to maintain our standard of living, we have to be able to build things like houses, automobiles, computers, and a million other things requiring critical thought. No political party will long survive if it allows the United States to suffer a serious decline in our standard of living, and this will ultimately force a certain minimal level of critical thinking upon us. So long as our machines work properly, does it really matter what our
politicians and pundits say?

Jun 20, 2008 - 1:14 pm 36. Roark:

Jay Manifold, truth has no fundamental relation to “differing” individuals or the “participation” of many “different” individuals. Truth is truth regardless of what an individual(s) may wish it or claim it to be. Opinion cannot measure fact, only the objective observation of reality qua reason. “Difference” is not a primary factor in discerning truth from untruth. At best, all difference can do is distinguish one concept from another via conceptual abstraction between two entities. You are also incorrect of your smear of Ayn Rand.

Jun 20, 2008 - 1:25 pm 37. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Elizabeth Scalia
RE: Signs of the Times

This sort of comportment is all too typical of too many people these days. And it’s not limited to the so-called ‘Liberals’ and ‘Progressives’. I find it happens just about everywhere. Even on allegedly ‘Conservative’ and ‘Libertarian’ web-sites. And it usually comes from people who use nom des blogs to hide their real identity. However, some of them have the courage to post under their real names. But not many.

The place is going not-so-quietly stark, raving ‘mad’. And if thinks continue as they are, I will not be surprised to see violence. It may even have already begun….witness the arson attack on the Texas Governor’s Mansion.

RE: What Is Truth?

Paul M Hupf brings up an excellent point, vis-a-vis Pilate and Christ. What IS ‘truth’? Who decides what it is?

In a totalitarian state, the ‘politically correct’ get to say what it is. I’m reminded of the famous truism of Communism, “Today’s truth is tomorrow’s lie.”

In an allegedly democratic state, it should be based on proven evidence. But try to present that sort of proof to people these days and you end up like Hiatt. Or worse. I’ve been ‘killed’ on a number of venues for presenting what I honestly hold to be the ‘truth’ of various matters. And doing it, essentially, the same way I’m doing it here and now. But those people don’t want to hear it.

Now, if I’d been an idiot, they probably would have let me continue, as an example of what my sort of thinking leads to. But no. Because I was being effective in my presentation, it was deemed that I should be ’silenced’.

Well…I tried. And they’re welcome to their ever-narrowing echo chambers.

RE: The Funny Think Is….

….these people think themselves the epitome of ‘liberalism’. Indeed, they are not. They are their own little dictators in their own little realm where they have the (1) power and (2) opportunity to ‘kill’ the opposition.

I can imagine what they’d be like if they got their hands on REAL power.

There IS one strong correlation with respect to these people….

…the vast majority of them are atheists.

And this brings us back to the idea of “What IS Truth?”

I recommend people look at Matthew 7:24-27 for a clue. An obscure one, but if you think about it, you might understand.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out. But only for those who are REALLY looking for it.]

Jun 20, 2008 - 1:28 pm 38. newton:

Lynn. Take a hike.

Jun 20, 2008 - 1:30 pm 39. Roark:

The near utter lack of critical thinking in todays world, and the USA in particular, is the by-product of adapting the wrong philosophy of living to one’s life. Something cannot be true and untrue at the same time, but the garbage taught in most universities teaches one that there are no absolutes, thus relegating critical thinking and abstraction practically into oblivion. The problem of todays decay of reasoning minds is one of philosophy. The popular philosophy of the day, which is reflected acutely in colleges, is one of subjectivism and existential nihilism, which can explain in large part the popularity of hacks like Obama, because the general philosophy at large in the USA is one that despises greatness, achievement, and personal responsibility, and instead embraces vicitimhood, altruism, and subjective whim worship. No wonder so many unthinking people look to Obama as a messiah, he does there critical thinking for them; he is the ultimate subjectivist standard they have adopted as their own.

Jun 20, 2008 - 1:35 pm 40. alan:

Logic? Critical thinking? Truth? Forget it. What counts is the narrative. People adopt a narrative that suits them and select a few facts to convince themselves they are right. Palestinians can fake atrocities and victimization and the media and public lap it up unquestioningly because it fits the accepted narrative even if it is blatantly false. Muslims can insist that Islam is the religion of peace because, despite constant evidence of practices and preaching to the contrary, people won’t abandon that comfortable narrative. Obama, his wife, his pastor, and many of his followers can vilify America with impunity, even when their charges are demonstrably false, because the accepted narrative says that’s OK because they’re blacks. Rarely can critical thinking trump the narrative, the Big Lie, whatever you want to call it. So why do we persist in trying?

Jun 20, 2008 - 1:46 pm 41. sestamibi:

John Brown beat me to the “1984″ reference, so let us also remember O’Brien’s claim that he could “float off this floor like a soap bubble” if he wished to, and that he didn’t because the Party didn’t wish it.

One thing I would add is that the war on “logocentrism” seems to have escalated in tandem with the ascendance of women in power. Expect in the future the whole outdated notion of presumption of innocence (especially in sex crimes or accusations of “sexual harrassment”) to be scuttled in favor of a legal framework in which any man can be put away on any woman’s mere say-so. Expect in the future more Darren Macks as well. At least he committed a crime (murder of his ex-wife and attempted murder of the family court judge involved) that can be objectively observed.

Jun 20, 2008 - 1:48 pm 42. Dave the Engineer:

I think it is fine that people are not taught critical thinking skills. It means those of us that possess these skills will have jobs forever, well into our old age and we’ll be able to charge more for our rare skills. The fact that the country will fall apart is kind of a bummer. But for the most part I can avoid the dumbest of the dumb by avoiding MacDonald’s, shopping malls, universities, professional sports, politicians, government offices and such like. I do most of my shopping via the internet and most of my own repairs / maintenance and farm out the rest to provenly reliable people with the necessary critical thinking skills. Eventually the dummies will all die off and we can start over.

Jun 20, 2008 - 1:52 pm 43. Wacky Hermit:

Lynn: “Please tell me you are not a teacher. All your students would start out with an “F” and by the grace of your good will might work their way up from there.”

Funny, that’s how it always worked in my classroom. Students fail by default unless they show me through their work that they deserve a higher grade. What do you think I ought to do with a student who never shows up for tests and hands in no assignments, give them a C because I’m so nice?

I too bemoan the personalization of truth. I’ve spent literally hours trying to explain to students that believing they’ve done their math problems correctly is not the same as doing them correctly, that there’s actually an answer that’s objectively, provably correct.

Jun 20, 2008 - 1:54 pm 44. sbw:

Karl Popper reminded us the strengh of science is its ability to test falsification, not truth.

It’s almost too late for the valuable lessons because no one can be taught anything they don’t care to learn. The only way to make the personal advantage of critical thinking accessible to them is through their own experience — this way: Think of an instance in your past when you thought you were right and got hurt because you were mistaken. That shows that sometimes you think you are right, not because you are right, but only because you are convinced.

If you can be mistaken and not know it, how are you going to discover where? Doubt is important because you bet your future on the quality of your mental map of reality. People who doubt their own certainty willingly interact with others to improve how they understand their world.

This carries over to society. Cultural behaviors may be relative, but the minimum behavior at the edge where two cultures meet is not. We call that edge “society.” Just as an individual values doubt, doubt is important for society. The strength of democracy isn’t that it gets things right. It doesn’t. But democracy codifies the humility we just might be wrong and commits to a process to learn where and try to do better.

Jun 20, 2008 - 1:58 pm 45. Don AZ:

We’ve reached a tipping point … indeed we may be past it. It used to be people would strive to insure what they said was essentially truthful. Then we moved into a phase where we stopped trying to relay the truth and simply relayed what we heard, be it truth or not. That was bad enough. But we’ve now moved past that and for many it is perfectly acceptable to advance a known falsehood, provided it fits within a personal objective of personal satisfaction.

And there lies the essence of it — personal satisfaction, either physical satisfaction (sex), or emotional (demanding I get what I want) is now central to people’s lives. There is a deep selfishness ingrained in most people … it used to be constrained by society that shamed people out of expressing it too much. Now it is exalted; “self-expression” (pursuit of the selfish) is the primary objective.

I doubt there’s any retreat from this … I believe we are on the downward slope. Irreversibly so.

Jun 20, 2008 - 2:21 pm 46. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Elizabeth Scalia, et al.
RE: Additional Thought…

““It doesn’t matter,” the young man, repeated. “People don’t look at ‘the truth’ as ‘the truth’ anymore. There’s just what you believe, and how the other guy is wrong.” — A Student cited by Elizabeth Scalia

…on the potential for violence.

There’s a ‘truism’ about a critical difference between ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’. The premise is that Good knows the ‘Truth’ and is confident in it. Whereas ‘Evil’ is not confident with what it calls the ‘Truth’. I guess it has something to do with low self-esteem.

Therefore, whenever Good expresses the ‘Truth’, Evil always gets upset and lashes out at Good for saying things that contradict it.

The saying is this….

Good can tolerate the existence of Evil. But Evil cannot tolerate the existence of Good. Because Good will always be telling Evil where it is wrong and Evil cannot abide being wrong. Therefore Evil will always try to eliminate Good, in order to not be confronted with its own errors.

I think we’ve seen this played out throughout history. Dictators always kill those who criticize them.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -- Albert Einstein]

Jun 20, 2008 - 2:21 pm 47. Critical Times for Critical Thought | The Anchoress:

[...] and after talking to a teacher friend, a home-schooling friend and my son’s friends, I wrote this piece which is up at Pajamas Media just now: “Yeah, it is that simple. He lied, and we all know it. So [...]

Jun 20, 2008 - 2:39 pm 48. Critical Times for Critical Thought | The Anchoress:

[...] and after talking to a teacher friend, a home-schooling friend and my son’s friends, I wrote this piece which is up at Pajamas Media just now: “Yeah, it is that simple. He lied, and we all know it. So [...]

Jun 20, 2008 - 2:39 pm 49. ~Paules:

One of the ways I encourage critical thinking in the classroom is to include a true, false, or opinion exercise with each exam. True vs. false requires close reading and knowledge. If even one part of a statement is factually inaccurate, the answer must be false. Teaching kids how to discern fact from opinion is more difficult, but I have some rules. If a statement is a matter of personal taste or preference, the answer is always opinion. If two people can argue pro and con based on interpretation of facts, the result is an educated opinion. If one side can logically show that the ideas used to support the opposing view are factually wrong, we move from opinion to truth. You would be surprised; even kids as young as fourteen can be trained in logic.

Jun 20, 2008 - 3:00 pm 50. Porkov:

If a liberal education consists of practice in the trivium and the quadrivium, how did “liberal” obtain the onus it bears today?

For fiction that encourages critical thinking I would recommend Heinlein over Rand. Heinlein was a student of General Semantics, an essential tool for critical thinking, and it shows in his writing.

Available free on the internet: The Gift of Fire by Richard Mitchell.

Jun 20, 2008 - 3:08 pm 51. Lynn:

newton: “Lynn take a hike.”
That’s all I can afford to do right now.

Wacky Hermit: You want to take what I said to newton personal go ahead. Your students start the year with a “F”? As a teacher I expect you to think of your students as an “A” until they prove otherwise. Be part of the solution not of the problem. And don’t make them feel stupid if they don’t “get it” right away, most of them feel stupid already and don’t need your help (another words: be kind). Use your summer to recharge your batteries and give your gift of teaching but don’t expect thanks from them all (or their parents). You’ll always be disappointed. And last of all from my heart, thank you for teaching and caring about the kids.

Jun 20, 2008 - 3:26 pm 52. Seerak:

The funny thing about Roark’s pointing to Ayn Rand’s philosophy as the solution, was that Ayn Rand and Objectivism have long been the canary in the coal mine on this issue. We’ve been seeing this BS thrown at us since the 1950’s when she still lived. The mainstream has been travelling down this road for a long time.

I bet that all of you are just chomping at the bit to see where that road ends, eh?

Jun 20, 2008 - 3:30 pm 53. Dave II:

Wow. Lot’s of good comments on this article…I guess that shows critical thinking is not dead…at least not on this site!

Moptop- your comments are exactly what I was contemplating as I read the article! Say something enough times throughout the media (and let’s not excuse the Hollywood “entertainment” industry by ANY means…the ULTIMATE propaganda machine!) and IT BECOMES the TRUTH!

Any descenting or contrary view to what is “accepted” and “cool” is looked at as ridiculous and greeted with derision contempt. So there you have it… young people today, in fact ANYBODY who gets their opinions and information from MTV, movies, the latest rap song, even network news or just a “persuasive” and powerful teacher or professor at scool will be (and IS as we speak) lead to whatever conclusion is “popular” without questioning the existing reality or the “opposing” facts…because FACTS DON’T MATTER!

How else do you explain the popularity of Obama, a speaker who can “wow” a crowd, but with an actual resume and experience that should BARELY put him up for reelection in the state senate, much less as 1 of 2 people who will soon be President!?

Or the UNPOPULARITY of Bush…a man who has literally liberated MILLIONS from tyranny, with the support of a DEMOCRATIC congress at the time of Congress…but who now gets the “blame”… for what???

A war that is now virtually COMPLETELY being won and a country in Iraq that is now standing up on it’s own feet…but which the media will barely acknowledge, and the “popular” opinion will not accept…because it goes against the “message” and what has been drummed into them as the “TRUTH”.

And that TRUTH is only what I have been letting into my eyes and ears without thinking about, because it is just is TOO DAMN HARD to do my own thinking… and who has the time anyway????

Jun 20, 2008 - 3:55 pm 54. Larry:

What is truth? Ask this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

This is what awaits us when we start putting belief ahead of evidence.

Jun 20, 2008 - 4:26 pm 55. Chaz:

I’ve always seen truth as something independent of perception. On this, I’ll give two examples.

Driving along in a 2005 Chevy Malibu, the settings allowed the speedometer to display milage in MPH or KPH but not both. This was facilitated with the light on the speedometer displaying the appropriate setting. This could be changed through the central radio console. My friend was driving and I was riding shotgun, when he quickly exclaimed “I’m going 100 plus in a 55!” Immediately my perception was ‘that’s impossible. We’ve been going 55 for some time and I’ve noticed no noticable acceleration. Unless we got to 101 very slowly, which was a possibility, we’re still going 55 or somewhere thereabouts.’ I quickly checked the speedometer and told my friend of his error. He had changed the settings, only to get the feeling of driving 100+ MPH, but it did nothing to change reality.

Moral of the story: it’s one thing to change the speedometer settings. It’s another thing to accelerate.

The second example I’ll give is from science itself. Nothing in science is bent on proving anything true, but rather seeing if it is or isn’t false. This is simply because it’s so much easier! I’ll base my finding on the simplest thing possible: the atom, and the model by which we’ve seen the atom operate.

It went from a solid object (dalton) to a soft object (Thompson) to a mostly empty object with a very solid core (rutherford) to a nucleus made of protons and neutrons with electrons orbiting around it (Bohr) to something truly wierd where the electrons stay in regions around the nucleus (Scrodinger, et al). Which model was right? The last, as far as we can tell. Which model was important? All of them, because the discoveries of the previous helped shape the next one, which was the more correct one. If the track record is wrong, we may someday prove Heisenburg, Schrodinger, and heck, probably even Einstein wrong. We shouldn’t be afraid to do that: that’s what they’d want us to do if it was correct!

Jun 20, 2008 - 4:37 pm 56. Salmonella impeachment, gay marriage & more | The Anchoress:

[...] out much hope. That would involve, among other things, intellectual honesty and, truthfully, some critical thinking, which we’re short on these [...]

Jun 20, 2008 - 4:43 pm 57. vb:

Moptop: You are so right. Often as I read articles, I find myself waiting for the next bit of crucial information that doesn’t come. In TV interviews, half-developed thoughts are left hanging as the interviewer cuts to a commercial. The problem is compounded when we are polled for opinions as if those ill-informed opinions are worth something. In real life, we all have to make decisions based on incomplete knowledge, but at least we should have enough humility to try to fill in some gaps and perhaps enough general knowledge to know where those gaps are.

Jun 20, 2008 - 5:28 pm 58. David Wynn:

@Roark:

Ok, so you prefer to argue that objective reality exists. However, surely you also concede that human err when observing reality or truth in its pure form. As a result, a greater number of perspectives would allow you to search for commonalities which have an increasing likelihood of being “true.”

Whether or not you believe in objective reality has no bearing on the increased gain in multiple perspectives when it comes to truth.

Jun 20, 2008 - 5:30 pm 59. David Wynn:

@Joanna re: Daily Show:

I agree that the crowd follows, to their detriment, Stewart’s opinion to the all too closely. However, I’d argue that’s not because they set out to get there, but because they were forced there to due factors outside of the show. After all, you don’t blame alleys for the creation of crime. It’s just where people who don’t follow the law go. Likewise, Stewart pointing nearly solely to absurdities that don’t require a coherent worldview for legitimacy is just where those people end up.

At least, that’s what I think.

Jun 20, 2008 - 5:39 pm 60. dholway:

“David Thomson,” a penny for your thought on this, sir: “YES, learning logic is important…or, as you word it…’Rational thought is pushed to the side.’

“Buuuttttt: Can we possibly agree that, just as important, ‘moral thinking/morality’ is a vital element in forwarding – let alone preserving (yikes!) – civilized culture.”

It is ludicrous to try to divide morality from logic. If what you consider moral is illogical, then you need to figure out what is wrong with your morality.

Jun 20, 2008 - 6:09 pm 61. Pierre Legrand:

Typically brilliant essay Anchoress…we may disagree on some items from time to time but I admire your intellect.

We homeschool our children…well the 11 year old and 6 year old. The 5 year old boy will wait till he is ready.

My two girls are dazzling. The thought of putting them through the crap I went through when I attended “school/daycare” is disgusting to both my wife and I. We have debates every night at dinner and both of them stand their ground.

You know how little hope I have for my society from my rantings on my site but one can still pray that it works out to our childrens advantage.

Jun 20, 2008 - 6:52 pm 62. sbw:

Porkov — good advice to recommend Richard Mitchell. His book “Less Than Words Can Say” is a wonderful, important read that is also available free on the Internet. Google “Underground Grammarian”.

Jun 20, 2008 - 8:13 pm 63. Wacky Hermit:

Lynn: Too late, I already quit teaching. I live for that lightbulb-over-the-head moment and I do try to get through to my students that they are all smart enough to do this, because I firmly believe that. Once you crack that open, they learn like mad. But the nuts just got tougher and tougher to crack, until I finally got tired of trying. I mean, honestly, how do you teach any mathematics to a student who honestly believes that a person with an advanced degree in mathematics and years of teaching experience is just expressing her “opinion” (which is just as valid as his) on how the chain rule should be used? How do you teach a student who thinks he already knows it all and is just attending your class as a formality? How do you reason with the pre-med major with a B+ who thinks he ought to get an A because, well, pre-meds by definition get A’s and how many problems he got right is irrelevant, I should just set the curve so all the pre-meds get A’s? These students have all defined their school experience as something that precludes actual learning or performance, and until you can persuade them that there really are things they don’t know and can learn from you, they have rendered themselves incapable of learning. Sometimes that doesn’t happen before the end of the semester.

Honestly, sometimes the only thing that gets through to those students is getting a real live F, because they just don’t believe they can fail until they do. Better that they get that failure signal from me and it costs them a few hundred dollars to retake the class, than that they get it from employers, landlords, and bill collectors later on.

Jun 20, 2008 - 8:34 pm 64. Roark:

Seerak SAID,”We’ve been seeing this BS thrown at us since the 1950’s when she still lived. The mainstream has been travelling down this road for a long time.”

—What on earth does this sentence mean? Your critical thinking skills on this matter have obviously been found wanting.
The USA needs a lot more Objectivism, which itself values and applies critical thinking more than any other philosophy. Unfortunately the enemies of critical thinking and thinkers, despise all those philosophers who grasp and understand truth. Aristotle, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Ludwig von Mises, and Ayn Rand are considered anathema to truth when in reality they are the ones who have carried its torch.

Jun 20, 2008 - 8:55 pm 65. SukieTawdry:

Wait a minute. Public high school teachers are allowed to wear “Bush Lied” buttons??

Jun 20, 2008 - 9:11 pm 66. Roark:

John Locke, too, was one of the great philosopher’s. A renaissance of the mind is in desperate need.

Jun 20, 2008 - 10:24 pm 67. John Moore:

The problem goes well beyond the educational system. The media no longer seeks truth – rather, a narrative is adopted and once set, remains the story forever. Entertainment teaches amorality and discounts logical thinking. Logic, true learning and personal responsibility are just not part of the zeitgeist.

Ultimately, much of this derives from the cultural and “intellectual” upheaval of the sixties. A favorite saying at the time was “don’t trust anyone over thirty” – which can be interpreted as “make your own reality, ignore authority – earned or otherwise, do your own thing.” This self-centered emotional and intellectual movement needs and embraces relativism and “thinking with your feelings.”

As a complete aside, to Roark, Objectivism is an oxymoron, and Ayn Rand did not live her personal life by her own philosophy. Objectivists are among the most dogmatic people I know.

Jun 20, 2008 - 10:58 pm 68. Anna Keppa:

To those who think all “truth” is subjective, I always ask:

Do you think the subjective “feelings” of the engineers and technicians who built the plane you intend to travel cross-country at 500 mph and 35,000 feet are enough to ensure its physical integrity??

Do you think the “feelings” of those who study aerodyamics, metallurgy, and the physics of flight trump so-called “science? If so, who gets to decide which subjective feelings should be adopted as a model for designing an airplane?

If you think “feelings” trump truth, do you believe that each aircarft, say every 777, is built differently, based upon the fellings of the engineers and technicians working on the assembnly line that day?

Do you think the pilot’s “feelings” that he’s properly trained are enough to make you confident you won’t wind up as bloody gore msashed into the ground en route?

Are the “feelings” of air traffic controllers sufficient to allow them to know where the aircraft is vis a vis the thousands of others in US airspace at any particular time?

I’d say “it works every time” to make them see their intellectual error, but it doesn’t: some people are too brain dead to understand their idiocy.

Jun 20, 2008 - 11:17 pm 69. John D:

Reading the essay and comments reminds me of an important principle that someone taught me.

“Don’t make things more complicated than they need to be.”

Everyone seem to think that it’s the end of civilization as we know it and that it is caused by whatever their favorite hobbyhorse is today.

Here’s a couple of other truths.

Just because something is desirable doesn’t mean that it is feasible.

And the converse.

Just because something is feasible doesn’t mean that it is desirable.

Just because you want something to be true, (Bush was responsible for 9/11) doesn’t make it so. (Such a conspiracy would not be possible without thousands of people cooperating and keeping quite.)

There are certain truths in the world. Gravity and physics seem to work nicely. But when talking about people and politics, social interactions and such, there is no truth, there is only belief.

Most people don’t ask “how is that possible?” they just accept assertions that agree with their preconceived ideas.

Jun 21, 2008 - 12:42 am 70. Vince P:

For the past years as I’ve seen the rise of belligerent irrational Leftists (and a few oddball Righties), I continuously think of this

2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the hidden power of lawlessness is already at work. However, the one who holds him back will do so until he is taken out of the way, and then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will destroy by the breath of his mouth and wipe out by the manifestation of his arrival. The arrival of the lawless one will be by Satan’s working with all kinds of miracles and signs and false wonders, and with every kind of evil deception directed against those who are perishing, because they found no place in their hearts for the truth so as to be saved. Consequently God sends on them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false. And so all of them who have not believed the truth but have delighted in evil will be condemned.

This passage requires a people in place who have already rejected truth and are open vessels to believe that which is false.

In today’s world, in the past few decades we have witnessed the emergence of a world religion which thrives on deception, legitimizes deceit in order to aide its spread. A religion which declares Jews and Christians to be its enemy and they are destined to be destroyed by it.

Quran 5:73 “They are surely disbelievers who blaspheme and say: ‘God is one of three in the Trinity for there is no Ilah (God) except One, Allah. If they desist not from saying this (blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall them – the disbelievers will suffer a painful doom.”

Indeed. We are warned specifically about this doctrine.

1 John 2:21 I have not written to you that you do not know the truth, but that you do know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but the person who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This one is the antichrist: the person who denies the Father and the Son. Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. The person who confesses the Son has the Father also.

Jun 21, 2008 - 4:46 am 71. Vince P:

This is a great article.

Jun 21, 2008 - 4:50 am 72. Daniel J. O'Connell:

Perhaps there is hope, and not Obama-style. But true hope that Reason is not dead.

I’m impressed not only with the article itself, which was excellent, but with the rational responses, by far the majority.

Oh, particular thanks to Greg T for putting J.G. in his place. A true “Well done, sir”, to Greg.

Jun 21, 2008 - 5:21 am 73. Broadsword:

These are curious and curiouser statements: “Ok, so you prefer to argue that objective reality exists.” Preferences are beside the point. There are either universal truths, or there are not. Setting aside evidence and argument for the moment, with the exception of the following assumption,(you see, there is no escape), let us suppose there are no universal truths outside of opinion and individual perspective. Does such a belief have any consequences? I think, (not feel!), that it does, and must. Why? Person “A” asserts such and such. Person “O”, asserts this ‘n that. Person “Q” takes umbrage with both, (question: what is the source of the umbrage?), and hits “A” in the head with a brick, and stabs “O” to death with a knitting needle. Does destroying the competing points of view validate “Q’s” truth that there are no universal truths? Of course not; it just silences the opposition. (And it doesn’t matter at all to “Q”, whose universal truth is that there are no universal truths except personal preference, his preference is power, and he’s got the power to make it so. No troubling trifles like right and wrong trouble whatever dreams may come to him in sleep. Shall the laws on the sale and possession of knitting needles be rewritten? Other laws changed to mandating that bricks be made of straw? If you prefer this “truth”, please explaing how tweaking these trifles will tweak “Q’s” umbrage, and magically change his belief from power to right and wrong?) Or, (returning to Wynn’s words), have I erred in “…observing reality or truth in its pure form”…? (By the way, “pure form” is an assumption.) Did I perhaps miss the “…greater number of perspectives (which) would allow you to search for commonalities which have an increasing likelihood of being ‘true’”? (Another assumption which I’ll chase for a sentence or two. How does one know that “greater perspectives” have the “increasing likelihood” of both being and truth? Greater perspectives seem only to produce longer meetings. Sooner or later, the greater perspectives ought to be given their right name, hypothoses, and then tested to see if a theory can be postulated. And hypothoses are not tested against commonalities and likelihoods. Edison ran electric current through his hypothoses.)
Wynn’s last sentence, “Whether or not you believe in objective reality has no bearing on the increased gain in multiple perspectives when it comes to truth,”I think, needs a big “HUH?”. Plus some brilligs, and slithy toves, and a few fleeting winged porcines.

Jun 21, 2008 - 5:33 am 74. Jack Olson:

For a vivid example of how American colleges promote “narrative” over fact, look at the recent gang rape hoax at Duke University. Remember all those pot-bangers demanding that the lacrosse players, who were eventually cleared, be expelled or even castrated? Remember the Duke professors who said they didn’t want the accused players in their classes? Remember all the televised talking heads who broadcast commentary as though the accused had already been convicted? Today, they are no more apologetic about abusing wrongfully accused men than Tawana Brawley or Al Sharpton. If failure to teach critical thinking is a problem in secondary schools, today’s colleges aren’t interested in curing that.

Jun 21, 2008 - 5:45 am 75. Brian H:

Chaz:
physicists are disappointed that so far recent high-energy experiments have failed to disprove the Standard Model; it would not only be far more interesting if they did, but there might be some clue about how to reconcile the relativism-gravity model with the quantum model, neither of which can deal with the other’s “speciality” yet.

Logic is CONSISTENCY; do the conclusions actually follow from the postulates? The question of accuracy of the postulates is BEYOND and OUTSIDE logic. That’s where testing and attempting to disprove come in.

It’s too much to expect to know truth; you can only be honest in your efforts to find or state it. Dishonesty results in the “STFU. Now.” kind of response.

And here lies part of the problem in discussions: ad hominem attacks result from treating all disagreement with one’s own position as dishonesty. So probably the key to keeping disagreements civil and productive is teaching willingness to grant others some slack as to their honesty, and to offer them your own. But then to reject actual dishonesty, and do so by use of testable data and logical consistency.

Teaching critical thinking used to involve setting “The Prover” to work to justify positions one didn’t agree with. In high school debates, the teacher assigned sides to the teams by drawing “pro” or “con” out of a hat. Among other things, it demonstrated, frequently, how easy it was to talk yourself into things! But the basic lesson was that you could make “The Prover” work both sides, or multiple sides, in an effort to find the best “fit” to observable reality.

And then there is the question of Authority. I will close by noting that Vince P. quotes the Bible and Quran as though anything they had to say was VERIFIED DATA rather than opinion and viewpoint which the reader is urged to accept. News flash: nothing can be proved by reference to texts. That just begs the question, since it presumes they are true before you examine and assess them. For an honest thinker, the VERY BEST you can say about textual material is: “That’s a very interesting viewpoint, which may turn out to be useful. I’ll check it out!”

Jun 21, 2008 - 6:15 am 76. Brian H:

Pierre L.;
You have no idea how much hope having “dazzling” young brains like your daughters’ coming up provides.

Jun 21, 2008 - 6:23 am 77. Alan:

I like how you subtly pin the blame on the daily show and clinton. You can blame everything on popular liberals. If you were an academic feminist, you’d be subtly pinning it on misogyny or patriarchy. If you were a Nazi, you’d be blaming the Jews. Fortunately you do not seem to be either of those things, but the ’scapegoat for everything’ mentality is anti-intellectual and wrongheaded no matter what your personal philosophy.

Jun 21, 2008 - 6:35 am 78. Tim D:

The “dictatorship of relativism.” Ol’ Popey knows how to turn a phrase.

Jun 21, 2008 - 6:37 am 79. Marc:

The media is clearly pro-democrat/liberal. We saw this through Bush’s terms and most prominently now with BHO. I keep asking myself the same question, and that is, why? What is gained by bolstering this position through the media? Is it really a political agenda being foisted upon us, or is it that the message is more easily compartmentalized… a path of least resistance? Perhaps this is a “chicken and the egg” question, what came first, liberals in the media, or the liberal message from the media.

Furthermore, is this merely catering to the bell curve? The lowest common denominator is demanding simplified fodder for consumption…

Where is this all coming from? This gutless vile message. Cut and run, do what you want, easier is better. Where would we be if this sort of pervasive attitude beguiled the “greatest generation”? We had more casualties on one day in Iwo Jima than we’ve had in Iraq. Islamic fascism threatens everything liberals hold near and dear, but they want to appease them? I just don’t know, perhaps the sky really is falling. Tangential, sorry, but I feel its all connected somehow. Where is a Patton when you need one?

Jun 21, 2008 - 7:04 am 80. Dave_T:

Johnbrown said:

“So long as our machines work properly, does it really matter what our politicians and pundits say?”

Nothing operates in a vaccuum. Science and ideology are no exception to this rule. While I agree that science has honed and defended our critical thinking skills in the last couple of hundred years, this has only been possible because science and philosophy/ideology have led convergent paths, both based on rational thinking. This melding of free political thought and critical scientific thinking has led to the greatest advancements in civilization ever seen; freedom to think has meant freedom to create. Unfortunately this is changing; we are now seeing them on divergent paths, and the effects on critical thinking are disasterous. The objectivism and critical thinking of science and the intolerant dogmatism of postmodern leftist/Gramscian thought are completely incompatible. They are now engaged in a battle to the death, and the dogmatists are winning…
One only has to look at the baseness, nastiness, and irrationality of the “climate change” debate to see what happens when science becomes political. Any dissenting facts are buried, any dissenting ideas are howled down in the most vile terms, any critical thought is stifled… 2 plus 2 is simply NOT ALLOWED to equal 4, because it does not fit in with relativist ideology.
To see where this all will lead us, look to Nazi Germany or Communist Russia; the machines (both of science, and of the State) worked for a while, but eventually they broke down because the critical thinking required to keep them running, and to improve them, was silenced. Science was bent to fit political ideology, wasted on trying to produce the “perfect Socialist man”, or on cranks in white coats measuring skulls to prove who was, or was not “Aryan”… Nowadays, we see their modern equivalents in the explosive growth of psychological and “social science” quackery, all neatly packaged to fit political agendas. This is the path that Obama, Clinton, the “Greens”, and the “Security Uber Alles” crowd have planned for us, and our lobotomized public, drunk on reality TV, NASCAR, and celeb gossip are blindly following… Those who should know better have either been shouted down, or have gone over to the enemy; our schools produce mindless drones, our thinkers and political figures sell themselves to the highest bidder, and the vapid pronouncements of Hollywood celebrities are taken as religious truth, as they bloviate on subjects they know nothing about…

The machines are breaking down, as the power of critical thought that drives them slowly drains away. Not one person in ten thousand has the wit to see it…and when the machines finally stop, as they will if we continue to follow our present path, the explosion will echo across the planet…

Jun 21, 2008 - 7:25 am 81. House of Eratosthenes:

[...] opines further at Pajamas Media. This is why I like Anchoress — the subject to be explored, is what immediately popped into [...]

Jun 21, 2008 - 7:35 am 82. Roark:

John Moore SAID,”Objectivism is an oxymoron…”
—HOW is it an oxymoron?

John Moore SAID,”…Ayn Rand did not live her personal life by her own philosophy.”
—So you knew her personally?-and since when has anyone ever lived their lives strictly without err?(and don’t tell me Jesus Christ did)

John Moore said,”Objectivists are among the most dogmatic people I know.”
—Their are dogmatic people in all philosophies and walks of life, that’s called being a human being, but that is an irrelevant issue. The primary and most important issue is WHAT the philosophy teaches, ad infinitum.

Jun 21, 2008 - 9:34 am 83. Javelin:

From what I’ve seen of neo-con and theo con blogs, their devotion to truth and critical thinking is less than stellar too. This whole posts reeks of the biased, pseudo intellectual hypocrisy that is PM trademarked, and I am no fan of public schools either. Or in simpler terms, the pot is calling the kettle black. Anyone who runs an explicitly papist blog like the Anchoress should look in the mirror when it comes to simplemindedness and lack of critical thinking skills.

Jun 21, 2008 - 9:54 am 84. Javelin:

Basically the amount of simple minded ,uncritical thinking, full of every shoddy right wing Limbo-like cliches and dishonest, inaccurate generalizations (Don’t people here understand that gross generalizations lead to lies and falsehoods?), in this piece and in the predictably banal comments shows that these shallow thinkers are only concerned about the kind of critcal thinking that rubber stamps their simple worldview. Yeah, “Bush lied people died” is a little simpleminded, but when I hear a Catholic robot who supports the war that her Church opposed, I want to hear a good reason why she thought war was not only necessary to go to war, but she doesn’t have to sacrifice a thing for. Of course, the great thinkers here are never emotional, inaccurate or anti-intellectual and they are so spiritually superior too. Reminds me of the drivel you find at “American Thinker”: prolefeed masqerading as intellectual.

Jun 21, 2008 - 10:07 am 85. Jbl:

…when I hear a Catholic robot who supports the war that her Church opposed…

Now THAT is an oxymoron.

Jun 21, 2008 - 10:42 am 86. Lynn:

Javelin: If she were a Catholic robot, would she support the war? Here is a question for you: What would you fight for?

Jun 21, 2008 - 10:43 am 87. Steven Brockerman:

Geez; where have ya’ll been for the past few centuries? Or for the past 30?

(18th Century)
Kant: “I have found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith”

Man possesses 2 perspectives: the perspective of fact (Phenomenol) & the perspective of “pure reason” sans fact (Nounmenal). The first is based on the senses; the second is derived from truths achieved thru the imagination.

Hume: The analytic-synthetic dichotomy, i.e., the is-ought divide. Facts are objective, values (which derive from facts, btw) are not.

Cause & effect are mere probability, not certainty.

Etc.

All of which are, essentially, derived from Plato’s *primacy of consciousness* philosophy (the mind creates reality).

The two philosophers who stand alone against 3,000 years of primacy of consciousness philosophies, in one variant or another, stand alone for a primacy of existence philosophy (”Reality is identity; consciousness is identification.”): Aristotle & Ayn Rand.

This age’s resultant enshrinement of subjectivism is merely the product of centuries old philosophical thought that 99% of the people have come to accept as true. (Irony can be pretty ironic, can it not?)

What has caused this degeneration in Western epistemology–even after Plato was (partially)refuted by his student and, later, completely refuted by Rand? The wholesale, unquestioning acceptance by men of the ethics of sacrifice.

What? You didn’t think self-sacrifice referred to sacrificing one’s reason (and thus the truth) for the sake of the weak (with the weakest among us being the bovine; the lazy; the criminal; the tyrannical–the men without any self)?

That SELF-sacrifice doesn’t require jettisoning one’s mind (reason, judgment, integrity, honesty) and, with it, the truth if the facts condemn, rather than commend, the weak?

Lies, hatred, dictatorship, nihilism (i.e., emotionalism) for the sake of the weak.

Silly rabbits. Don’t you know that rason, facts and truth are the first thing that *must* be sacrificed?

But all that’s theory and philosophy and just a waste of time–or just for 2am bull sessions in the dorm bathroom.

Right.

Jun 21, 2008 - 11:00 am 88. Steven Brockerman:

Christ, quoting Popper re: the scientific method is like quoting a slut re: chastity.

Jun 21, 2008 - 11:07 am 89. rightwingprof:

I’m late to this, but I might point out that it hasn’t been that long ago that “critical thinking” meant teaching logical fallacies, syllogisms, and rhetoric. It changed, only over the last couple of decades, starting when the idea that teaching logic was (I kid you not) cultural imperialism, and the relativization of reality came soon after. The university writing program provides tutors to departments, for students who need help. Over the last few years I taught, we had more and more trouble with the tutors, who would argue with us that there is no “correct” answer, and we should rather place emphasis on the student’s creativity. It drove us to distraction.

Jun 21, 2008 - 1:02 pm 90. AST:

This phenomenon is the result of the desire to avoid serious discussions which may become heated. Everyone has the right to his own beliefs, but not to his own truth.

The tolerance of unpopular ideas in our society does not mean they should not be challenged. If that were so, freedom of speech would have no purpose.

Jun 21, 2008 - 4:31 pm 91. Godzilla:

As a lifelong dissident/survivor of the Jimmy Carter pogrom, two things occur to me:
1) The critical thinking ‘book-burners’ of today forget the ultimate power of memory (not to mention pre-revisionist books, hard-drives and superior genetic intellect).
2)As the man from Russia once said – “A bit of revolution, every now and then, can be a good thing.”
Remember who started this country – military, statesmen, distillers, farmers, industialists and fundamentalists. Lose the lawyers. Lose the professional double-tongues.

Jun 21, 2008 - 7:04 pm 92. Jean:

SukieTawdry wrote: “Wait a minute. Public high school teachers are allowed to wear “Bush Lied” buttons??”

They don’t in my school, and I’ve worked with some rabid Democrats. I can’t imagine any elementary or secondary school where such buttons would be allowed. Frankly, most teachers I’ve met are also very hesitant to wear union regalia (buttons, lanyards, etc.) although administrators don’t restrict them.

As for schools not teaching “critical thinking” – hoo boy! I spent the past four years with that as one my main goals. Another was grammar, which often led me to comfort myself with the thought that at least my students will be able to express their fact-challenged opinions with better grammar.

One of the biggest problems in regards to critical thinking is that students (and adults) tend to summarize sources instead of applying their own thoughts to the sources. They usually don’t discuss issues with their families, except in general; e.g. gas prices are too high and Something Should Be Done.

What I found helped a lot was walking students through examples of other students’ essays and columns written by professionals (e.g. the local paper and The American Thinker online). They could pick out the good points of good writing and eventually pick up what was missing from the bad writing. Then they learned to apply it to peer critiques and their own writing. However, if they were under pressure, they tended to fall back on summarizing and/or unsubstantiated opinions.

Jun 21, 2008 - 7:51 pm 93. unseen:

The biggest truth that our society has failed to remember is that government is a necassary evil. Our entire founding documents were drafted with this truth in mind. the government was split into three parts to portect us from government. government was shackled with limited powers to protect us. And like little children that don’t know better we have steadily lossened those shackles in the name of compassion. When the beast breaks free of its bindings and swallows us whole who will notice?

That is truth.

Another truth that has been forgotten is that all humans have two basic emotions when it comes to money. Fear and Greed.

Therefore if you KNOW these two truths you will always vote for smaller government and you will know that all government economic programs are bound to fail.

Jun 21, 2008 - 10:11 pm 94. Broadsword:

Long quote coming. (Skeptical dogmatic skepticists, skip to the end.)In his book Catholic Matters, Richard John Niehaus writes, “The gospel of Jesus Christ is what some literary critics call a meta-narrative. It is the story that encompasses all the other stories that we tell about the world, and about ourselves in the world. It is the story of the world, of which all the other stories are part. There are competing meta-narratives…In the century past, millions of people believed, or where told they must believe, in Karl Marx’s meta-narrative of dialectical materialism leading to the end of the state and the kingdom of freedom. Meta-narratives can be true of false. there is inescapably an element of faith in committing oneself to a meta-narrative. Jesus said, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life’-not a way, a truth, and a life. If he is the way, the truth, and the life, he is that for everyone and everything. Faith commitments are inescapable…In our reliance on what we call the laws of nature, in our dependence upon the reliability of mechanical and technological operations that few of us understand, and above all, in personal exchanges of every kind, we live by faith. The relentlessly consistent skeptic is ill-prepared for a world of inevitable risks. (Broadsword: note the obsession with “safe”, “safety”, “keeing us safe” etc, at play in political life.) Moreover, he violates the consistency of his skepticism by not being skeptical about his skepticism. A faith commitment to the doctrine of skepticism produces the meta-narrative that is the chief rival to explicit faith in the modern world, namely, the meta-narrative that there is no narrative. In this view, reality has neither point nor intention nor purpose and we will all depart this world by the same accident by which we arrived. One notes in passing that to speak of ‘accident’ is to assume the existence of something that is not accident, something like purpose, maybe.” As for my part, I prefer the former, not the latter “Tale told by an idiot” meta-narrative. Real men fall to their knees.

Jun 22, 2008 - 5:04 am 95. Vince P:

Brian: the reason I brought those verses up was merely to show that perhaps something more fundamental is going wrong in our society than simply not giving a class to studens in grammar school.

How many of you folks know people who support Obama yet these folks are completely unwilling to allow you to present them with any facts that might cause them to change their mind?

They’re not interested in the truth, they’re interested in some emotional justification/satisfaction.

Or how many have been at a lecture in college or watched on You Tube and the speaker could be talking about Islamic Terrorism.. and the speaker could spend 15 mintues doing the boilerplate “Of course not every Muslim is a terrorist, only 729300234789 of them are”, and then you’ll see a Muslim come up during the Q&A and fume at the speaker for saying every Muslim is a murderer, and her friends in teh crowd start making noises as if they were in an animal orgy. They are not seeking truth either.

And so . if one actively disregards the need to seek the truth, then there is no critical thiking.

I see this spreading more and more in our country.

And one day I remembered that bit of the Bible, about how people near the End Time will no longer value what is true.

And something evil will come up to take advantage of the minds of people looking to be deceived.

And to those of you out there who think religion is dumb.. that’s fine. I’m certainly not espousing a State religion. I am merely expressing my opinion.

Jun 22, 2008 - 5:10 am 96. links for 2008-06-22 « Force Majeure Farm:

[...] Critical Times for Critical Thinking As oppossed to whatever “feels” right (tags: fmfb) [...]

Jun 22, 2008 - 6:32 am 97. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Vince P
RE: Heh

“And one day I remembered that bit of the Bible, about how people near the End Time will no longer value what is true.” — Vince P

It’s later than many people care to think.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Dates in prophecy are closer than they appear.]

Jun 22, 2008 - 6:54 am 98. Honing your Critical Thinking Skills | The Anchoress:

[...] other day I linked to my most recent piece at Pajamas Media, which looked at the illogical responses we too-often see when a news report does not match [...]

Jun 23, 2008 - 2:21 pm 99. Two--Four:

[...] No shit.) So, I’m looking around, and taking in the comments here and there, and then I get to here, and it occurs to me as I’m reading: An enormous swathe of “the American people” (as they’re [...]

Jun 23, 2008 - 8:07 pm 100. Thomas:

Do you know why we do not teach critical thinking? Because once you learn that gateway skill you can not be controlled. So parents, teachers, the State, who want their kids to be this or that, religious, or conservative, . . . and never bigoted or an Atheist . . . simply refuse to let the intellectual cat out of the bag. So we get imitations of reason, simulacra of process, that are really just dressed up rationales.

“This is why God exists, Johnny . . .”

And to top it off we enthrone voting as the yardstick of values. Stealing with a vote is transformed through the alchemy of a vote into a legitimate enterprize.

“Gimme some of that here . . .”

I fear we are pissing away the last of our political human capital here and will soon be joining Europe and Africa in the everyday world of real politics.

Jun 24, 2008 - 1:51 pm 101. Thomas:

Broadsword

Heavy on the poetry light on the reasoning.

Jun 24, 2008 - 1:55 pm 102. critical bill 1000 times mp3:

[...] geometry, music … Ibrahim critical times for critical Thinking by Elizabeth Scalia AP …http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/The Arcade Fire &gt Elbows Music Blog AggregatorKip s Mid-Year Picks : Arcade Fire – Neon Bible mp3 [...]

Jun 25, 2008 - 8:52 am 103. Critical Thinking and Homeschool « Beagle Scout:

[...] Thinking and Homeschool Sandra M. comments on an article by Elizabeth Scalia, the Anchoress, at PJM. I see great hope for the future in the homeschooling [...]

Jun 25, 2008 - 9:28 am 104. Steve:

What a truly sad reflection on the author. Many Democrats disapproved of Bill Clinton’s skirt-chasing ways, not to mention his many forays to (at least) the brink of legality. I have no doubt that people like Ms. Scalia were jumping up and down about the many flaws of the Clintons, evidently some, perhaps out of jealousy and spite (neither of which are Christian) now imply that the Democrats are wretches to choose the candidate they deem most suitable.

Such writing wreaks of hypocrisy, falsehood and just downright despicable people.

Jun 29, 2008 - 6:28 am 105. Coralie:

On the blog above I analyze this post in terms of critical thinking, since that purports to be its subject.

Jul 3, 2008 - 4:40 pm 106. Jbl:

Your analysis has glaring inaccuracies.

Jul 4, 2008 - 1:08 pm 107. Coralie:

Sorry. Instructions indicated URL would be displayed by my name. Anyway, here it is again:
http://enddumbdown.blogspot.com
Basically, most of the above thread suffers from lack of questioning the original post.
First, Hiatt’s editorial used selective quoting and omitted important context. I direct you to a copy of the report itself. Google “Bush Administration Lied 935 Times? Not So Fast!” and link to report from there.
The “Not So Fast!” website favors Hiatt’s POV, yet if anybody actually reads the Senate report they will find that it is full of statements such as “but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community” “did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties,” etc. This was often the second part of the sentence.
Second, Scalia used selective quoting by using the STFU quote as representative of 1,643 comments, many of which made substantive points and cited evidence.
Also, civil discourse and critical thinking are not the same thing, although a basic minimum of civility is required for argumentation.
This post and thread are supposed to be about critical thinking and yet nobody questioned either Hiatt or Scalia or went back to the actual Senate report. Everything was taken at face value.
From there, people tended to jump into their own pet topics and ideologies, whether Ayn Rand Objectivism or homeschooling. Maybe it’s just more fun to vent one’s opinions but please don’t call it critical thinking.
Another dead end topic as far as CT goes is the deep philosophical discourse about whether truth is absolute or not.

Jul 5, 2008 - 8:22 am 108. Jbl:

Inaccurate analysis. Reread this piece. Hiatt is not misidentified, he is identified as an editor writing for an editorial page. 2 quotes from comments, not 1. Interviews a teacher and students.

Critical thinking must begin with accuracy. The analysis on your blog is inaccurate.

Jul 7, 2008 - 9:24 am 109. Coralie:

Jbl, you are letting through the camel and straining at a gnat.
Scalia says: “A friend who homeschools her children — and does it so well that the oldest has won a full academic scholarship to a university — was surprised that commenters would express such contempt not for the committee findings, which contradicted their worldview, but for the reporter who covered it.” She does not note that her friend misunderstood the situation.
Okay, 2 comments not one out of 1,643. My bad. But this kind of nit-picking is not critical thinking. You’re just defending the thread from this mean old troll.
Here is the point, and it is a much bigger one. Hiatt’s basic argument was based on intellectual dishonesty, quoting out of context. When he quoted the report that something was substantiated by intelligence, he repeatedly left out the second part of the sentence. And in some cases, the Administration’statements “were not substantiated by the intelligence.”
Scalia did not go to the original source, the Committee Report but ran with Hiatt as if Gospel. First mistake. Then she mischaracterized the Hiatt comments as being mainly insulting and without substance on the basis of TWO comments.
So, what do you think critical thinking is?
Does it have anything to do with misquoting, or sweeping generalizations?

Jul 7, 2008 - 2:31 pm 110. Thinking Toward Survival › Critical Thinking Definitions:

[...] opinions. In another post I’d like to analyze a very long thread about critical thinking on http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/ which contains some good insights but also many examples of people getting off-track and [...]

Jul 30, 2008 - 7:28 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: