As I mentioned before, I have several reviews to share with you. I actually read and reviewed these a while ago, but only just got around to polishing them.
A Short Course in Intellectual Self-Defense
Normand Baillargeon takes the whole "self-defense" metaphor pretty seriously. Take this for example: "Your brain is territory that an enemy wants to occupy by persuading you of certain things." The writing has a tendency to go to such extremes occasionally, but it is a very good book.
In particular, his chapter "Thirty-one Strategies for Fostering a Critical Approach to the Media," near the end has an excellent list of tips. They are very practical, which is something I like in books on this subject. They are rather involved--one suggests reading the past fifty articles by a given author when analyzing a given op-ed.
Another bias that shows through clearly is his love of Noam Chomsky: the front cover even says "release your inner Chomsky." He quotes Chomsky once or twice within, but generally it doesn't seem to unbalance the work unduly. The exception is in the aforementioned chapter of 31 strategies which includes, as number 25, "Read Chomsky." A list of recommended authors wouldn't have been remiss, but giving Chomsky his own point? A bit much.
I don't know very much of Chomsky; indeed, what I do know mostly comes from cursory research after reading this very book and some unrelated research I did on his work on mass media*. Since he seems an advocate of critical thinking, I suppose his inclusion is somewhat appropriate. I still think it's a bit extreme—perhaps the book ought to have been titled "A Chomskean Approach to Critical Thinking."
Anyway, don't let the author's politics dissuade you from reading this useful text. It is a practical introduction to critical thinking and recommended to any student of critical thinking.
The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
This book is more of a case for science and against psuedoscience, rather than a "how-to" book on critical thinking. Nonetheless, it has excellent parts and can be read as a manifesto in favor of rigorous checking of claims. Carl Sagan is an engaging writer and comes across as very human and sincere, important in a book on a subject that could easily be cold and dull.
This book does belabor points. Lee Dambert, in his Los Angles Times review, writes that eight chapters of UFOs "seems a bit excessive."Since the points are made well and illustrated with copious examples the book is saved from becoming a rant; Dambert himself considers this issue "a minor quibble."
Some people have found this book to be anti-religion or partisan. The book ends with two chapters Sagan wrote with a co-author that deal with politics. However, the main thrust of the book is basically non-political and as a whole can't be described as partisan. (Sagan himself considered the last two chapters non-critical.) The anti-religion claim is a bit harder to shake. Certain religious practices and beliefs would easily fall under Sagan's definition of "baloney." Examples would include faith healing, astrology, and probably miracles in general.
While Sagan was an agnostic, it's harder to make a case that this book is an attack on religion generally. He doesn't group religious belief explicitly with belief in psuedoscience or try to replace it with science. Certainly the skepticism he discusses in The Demon Haunted World is popular among atheists, but certainly critical thinking is compatible with religious faith, even if "skepticism" is.
Probably the closest he gets to condemning religion is the chapter "The Dragon in my Garage." Sagan informs us that he has a bona fide dragon in his garage. However, he tells us that the dragon has the power of invisibility and so we'll just have to take his word for it. He argues that such is the nature of many allegedly true supernatural phenomena: any non-appearance of the supposed effect is explained away, so it can never be disproved. This is a similar to popular lines of reasoning employed against the existence of a god, and so it could be taken as a justification of agnosticism. That may be the case, but I think Sagan was more concerned with psuedoscience than religion and I think most religious readers will get plenty out of it anyway.
One of the best-known parts is the baloney detection kit. (In fact, Normand Baillargeon includes a summary of it in his book.) Even if you find the main text tedious, before returning it (or selling it) skip to chapter 12, where the kit is. It consists of nine warning signs that something is, well, baloney.
So there you have it: two good starting texts on critical thinking. Look for more in the coming weeks: I just finished two books and am writing up reviews now.
* Specifically, his work with Edward Herman on "Manufacturing Consent." In it, they lay out a theory of mass media called the Propaganda Model.
Showing posts with label Critical Thinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Critical Thinking. Show all posts
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Preliminary Resources for Critical Thinking
Even though I consider my personal study of critical thinking to only have just begun, I already have some useful resources. I do consider this list incomplete and I welcome suggestions, or even criticisms of these sources. Starred items are those I'm hoping to read (and review) in the (near) future.
Books
The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan. A convincing case for science and against a host of irrational beliefs, especially pseudoscience. Has the famous "baloney detection kit" (courtesy of Google Books), which you should definitely check out, even if you don't read the entire book. Update(5/01/11): Review.
A Rulebook for Arguments, Anthony Weston. Seems to focus on constructing good arguments, rather than identifying bad ones. Since that is very useful, I'm going to have to read this one. A recomendation from Kevin deLeplante (see below for his video series).
A Rulebook for Arguments, Anthony Weston. Seems to focus on constructing good arguments, rather than identifying bad ones. Since that is very useful, I'm going to have to read this one. A recomendation from Kevin deLeplante (see below for his video series).
A Short course in Intellectual Self-defense, Normand Baillargeon. More specifically on critical thinking. The author cheerfully admits a bias towards the ideas of Noam Chomsky (The cover reads "unleash your inner Chomsky"), but useful nonetheless. Update(5/01/11): Review.
Videos
The Critical Thinker, Kevin deLeplante. An ongoing series on critical thinking. Covers topics ranging from logical fallacies to rhetoric. Also available as an audio podcast.
Critical Thinking, QualiaSoup. A quick introduction. Also see his videos 'The Problem with Anecdotes' and 'Open mindedness.'.
Websites
The Fallacy Files Probably one of the first sites I encountered. Comprehensive, but not always the most clear.
Humbug!, Jef and Theo Clark. Seems to have good explanations, but has a distracting watermark on each page. Also available as a physical book (with no watermarks).*
Badarguments.org Have not signed up for the email service (yet?), but the non-subscription part of the site is a helpful practical tool.*
In the near future, expect longer reviews of at least the books and maybe some of the websites and videos as well. In the meantime, enjoy!
Edited 5/01/11 to add links to reviews and change the italicized entries to starred ones.
In the near future, expect longer reviews of at least the books and maybe some of the websites and videos as well. In the meantime, enjoy!
Edited 5/01/11 to add links to reviews and change the italicized entries to starred ones.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
The Importance of Critical Thinking
I debated about whether or not to post this study. It's a study on misinformation in the 2010 election, but you may have heard of it as the "Fox News Viewers most misinformed." The press release doesn't emphasize that angle however, and neither does the report(PDF). The reason is probably because misinformation was present among virtually every group polled--Fox News was merely the worst, not the only perpetrator.
I think looking at general misinformation is a better angle, because, to me, the levels of misconceptions are too high, regardless of the network/source. We can't let CNN or MSNBC off the hook because one study showed their viewers to be slightly less likely to believe a popular myth.
This study does have some problems, though, that this video by How the World Works points out. For some of the misconceptions, the truth is somewhat more complicated than the questions posed by the survey suggest. For example, the question about the healthcare reform bill doesn't distinguish between the bill itself and related bills also necessary for healthcare reform. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was instructed to tally up the costs for H.R. 3590, aka the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aka Healthcare Reform. However, for political reasons, various healthcare reform-related bills were separate and not part of the CBO's tally. So it is both correct and incorrect to say that healthcare reform would increase the deficit: the primary bill won't, but various other bills probably will. Actually, it's even more complicated than that, but given the question's wording, I think the study authors were actually correct to label the answer they did as correct. (For a full explanation, see my addendum.)
The video insists that the study is worthless for this and other reasons, but I think the validity of the majority of the questions means the study is still valid. Therefore, I suggest that you read or skim the study (or if you prefer, the generally hyperbolic news coverage of the study) and ponder the question I'm pondering: how do I (as a voter and citizen) avoid misinformation?
I cannot provide links to magical, error-free reporting or a web browser that marks untruths for you in purple underlining (green and red are taken, see). I do want to suggest a real-world alternative, and that is critical thinking. Critical thinking is basically thinking hard about your own beliefs and opinions and considering why you believe X and not, say, Y. I don't know a lot about critical thinking, though, and really anyone can always learn more.
Enter Critical Thinking
Fortunately, I found an excellent resource for critical thinking. It's a video and audio podcast series. You can get them on the author's website or on iTunes (video). The author, Kevin deLaplante, (aka PhilosophyFreak) has identified five key characteristics: Logic, Argumentation, Rhetoric, Background Knowledge, and Beliefs and Views. I am not an expert on Critical Thinking, but I find this to be a helpful way to look at it, especially after going through his videos.
Critical thinking is a fundamental part of fact-checking (i.e. what I do here), but I think it has a more personal aspect. Dr. deLaplante used the phrase "taking responsibility for your own beliefs" to describe this aspect of critical thinking. It is the idea that you understand not only your own position, but the alternatives. This isn't a cursory, "how-can-I-debunk-this" understanding, either. Dr. deLaplante says that critical thinking should let us be able to articulate our opponents' positions to their satisfaction. Thinking critically is about having solid reasons for your beliefs and understanding the alternatives.
This is an ongoing effort, obviously: new information is constantly coming in and we need to filter and make sense of it all. Naturally, a lot of that sense-making and filtering comes from within our existing worldview. Our beliefs, values, and ideas (i.e. our worldview(s)) are like "rules" for processing the information. Critical thinking brings not only incoming information, but also the 'rules' up for evaluation. Some 'rules' are more fundamental than others: ideas about human rights are more central than ideas about a particular politician, for example.
Of course, some of our ideas and beliefs are essentially transcendental: ideas about freedom, God, and our country aren't primarily informed by history, biology, or economics. Such beliefs are tied to our culture, family, and self and may be the product of tradition or personal experience. These may be the most fundamental and important, but are at least partially out of the realm of critical thinking.
A quick aside: a lot of my ideas here are works in progress. As I think, read, and discuss, these ideas may very well change. If you have any links, books, films, articles to recommend, comment! Even more importantly, if you have any of your own ideas, comment!
Bringing it back to the study
Unfortunately, most writing on critical thinking doesn't go too deeply into how it works in a world bombarded by information. Part of the reason I like the podcast above is that it seems to be a practical course. It doesn't cover a lot of the practical side. People, even curious people committed to understanding, can't walk around researching every claim they hear every day. We can infer that sometimes, claims will have to be ignored, but the series doesn't make explicit how to think critically when there's so much to think critically about.
Besides fact-checking, one of my hopes for this blog is to write about fact-checking and how we can implement it in our daily lives without spending all our time either verifying or guessing. This practical issue is why I felt like critical thinking may be an unsatisfactory solution to the problem pointed out by the study. Many of the people in the study do read the newspaper, watch the news, and think about things. They do their homework, in other words.
On the other hand, the study didn't cover exactly what people did beyond watching news. I assume some people went beyond a 30 minute nightly program and conversations with family and friends, but how many? I assume practices like checking multiple sources, reading background information, and evaluating claims based on existing knowledge (rather than accepting them at face value) help, but how much? As I read and write more about critical thinking, I hope to answer the practical question: what tactics are most effective, time- and understanding-wise?
This was accidentally published with the wrong date. I'm actually not positive about the precise date I posted the article originally, but I'm adjusting it to my best guess.
I think looking at general misinformation is a better angle, because, to me, the levels of misconceptions are too high, regardless of the network/source. We can't let CNN or MSNBC off the hook because one study showed their viewers to be slightly less likely to believe a popular myth.
This study does have some problems, though, that this video by How the World Works points out. For some of the misconceptions, the truth is somewhat more complicated than the questions posed by the survey suggest. For example, the question about the healthcare reform bill doesn't distinguish between the bill itself and related bills also necessary for healthcare reform. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was instructed to tally up the costs for H.R. 3590, aka the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aka Healthcare Reform.
The video insists that the study is worthless for this and other reasons, but I think the validity of the majority of the questions means the study is still valid. Therefore, I suggest that you read or skim the study (or if you prefer, the generally hyperbolic news coverage of the study) and ponder the question I'm pondering: how do I (as a voter and citizen) avoid misinformation?
I cannot provide links to magical, error-free reporting or a web browser that marks untruths for you in purple underlining (green and red are taken, see). I do want to suggest a real-world alternative, and that is critical thinking. Critical thinking is basically thinking hard about your own beliefs and opinions and considering why you believe X and not, say, Y. I don't know a lot about critical thinking, though, and really anyone can always learn more.
Enter Critical Thinking
Fortunately, I found an excellent resource for critical thinking. It's a video and audio podcast series. You can get them on the author's website or on iTunes (video). The author, Kevin deLaplante, (aka PhilosophyFreak) has identified five key characteristics: Logic, Argumentation, Rhetoric, Background Knowledge, and Beliefs and Views. I am not an expert on Critical Thinking, but I find this to be a helpful way to look at it, especially after going through his videos.
Critical thinking is a fundamental part of fact-checking (i.e. what I do here), but I think it has a more personal aspect. Dr. deLaplante used the phrase "taking responsibility for your own beliefs" to describe this aspect of critical thinking. It is the idea that you understand not only your own position, but the alternatives. This isn't a cursory, "how-can-I-debunk-this" understanding, either. Dr. deLaplante says that critical thinking should let us be able to articulate our opponents' positions to their satisfaction. Thinking critically is about having solid reasons for your beliefs and understanding the alternatives.
This is an ongoing effort, obviously: new information is constantly coming in and we need to filter and make sense of it all. Naturally, a lot of that sense-making and filtering comes from within our existing worldview. Our beliefs, values, and ideas (i.e. our worldview(s)) are like "rules" for processing the information. Critical thinking brings not only incoming information, but also the 'rules' up for evaluation. Some 'rules' are more fundamental than others: ideas about human rights are more central than ideas about a particular politician, for example.
Of course, some of our ideas and beliefs are essentially transcendental: ideas about freedom, God, and our country aren't primarily informed by history, biology, or economics. Such beliefs are tied to our culture, family, and self and may be the product of tradition or personal experience. These may be the most fundamental and important, but are at least partially out of the realm of critical thinking.
A quick aside: a lot of my ideas here are works in progress. As I think, read, and discuss, these ideas may very well change. If you have any links, books, films, articles to recommend, comment! Even more importantly, if you have any of your own ideas, comment!
Bringing it back to the study
Unfortunately, most writing on critical thinking doesn't go too deeply into how it works in a world bombarded by information. Part of the reason I like the podcast above is that it seems to be a practical course. It doesn't cover a lot of the practical side. People, even curious people committed to understanding, can't walk around researching every claim they hear every day. We can infer that sometimes, claims will have to be ignored, but the series doesn't make explicit how to think critically when there's so much to think critically about.
Besides fact-checking, one of my hopes for this blog is to write about fact-checking and how we can implement it in our daily lives without spending all our time either verifying or guessing. This practical issue is why I felt like critical thinking may be an unsatisfactory solution to the problem pointed out by the study. Many of the people in the study do read the newspaper, watch the news, and think about things. They do their homework, in other words.
On the other hand, the study didn't cover exactly what people did beyond watching news. I assume some people went beyond a 30 minute nightly program and conversations with family and friends, but how many? I assume practices like checking multiple sources, reading background information, and evaluating claims based on existing knowledge (rather than accepting them at face value) help, but how much? As I read and write more about critical thinking, I hope to answer the practical question: what tactics are most effective, time- and understanding-wise?
This was accidentally published with the wrong date. I'm actually not positive about the precise date I posted the article originally, but I'm adjusting it to my best guess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)