A topic that is sort of off the mark for me this week is thinking about the act of critical thought in discourse. As I explained last blog post (because that is what this is, a blog), I have returned to academia. This is for some reason a divisive topic, even in Canada where I reside. Why? It seems to be a popular theory among the far political right wing that higher learning institutes are a cesspool of hard left thinking, but hands on experience would tell me that this is simply not the case.
Are colleges and universities more liberal in their collective political leaning? Yes, there is no denying this fact, however the idea that these higher learning institutes are indoctrination factories doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In fact I have found that all ideas in general are put under a microscope for discussion in seminar style classes and while on some topics professors and instructors can get a little preachy most are there to teach you how to critically think about a topic. The idea of critical thinking in and of itself is not something that is new. It is the principle of taking a piece of information and seeing if it holds up to what we know to be factually true and logically consistent. If ideas fail to meet these basic criteria, it is hardly the fault of the faculties at these institutes for pointing it out and teaching people how to see it and deconstruct it.
There is not going to be a debate in this post. I'm not going to take one side or the other in this post. I am not going to proselytize my view point because at the end of the day it will only appeal to those who agree with me and galvanize those who disagree to become further entrenched in their way of thinking. I am by no means myself above this line of thinking, in fact I was recently called out on it and had to stop and take a breath. Critical thinking does not come naturally to the human condition. What does come naturally is wanting to belong. So it is easy to find a group of people that agree with you and then get stuck in that line of thinking to preserve your place in this community you've found yourself in. To put up a fence or wall and push away anything that might endanger your sense of belonging is natural to the human condition. We are social creatures and we want to belong.
So what's the problem? Where we are, what community we are in, isn't always the right place and are unwillingness to learn and question ourselves is the issue. It isn't that we aren't questioning the facts because we aren't getting that far. We seem to be at a place as a society in the west where if someone questions something we believe they are questioning our being and our identity. The mind set of so many is incongruous with critical thought and the end result is a persons personal truths are being mixed up with what is actually true. This, mixed with the appeal to authority and appeal to popularity fallacies have allowed idea and opinion to manifest as truth when indeed it is not in the same realm. This is not to say that you cannot have an opinion but it is a critical part of thinking to be able to distinguish your own opinion from what is fact. Some things are in fact entirely opinion based, like what your favourite colour is, what you like to eat for dinner, or your style choice for clothing. Some things however are not open to opinion, like for instance, the earth being round, the United States of America electing a felon to the Office of President or non lactose-free milk sending me to the washroom for an extended stay. Stating things that are in direct opposition to empirical data that can be replicated regularly and easily is not the truth. Using the fact that science has not explained everything is not a gotcha moment and you certainly are not being intellectually honest.
It seems almost paradoxical in its nature. We are at an age and era where information is readily available and accessible, especially in North America yet so few seem to be equipped to use the knowledge available too them. It's my opinion that this is in fact a demonstration of the horizon problem. The horizon problem is best summed up with the old adage, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. A larger explanation is that a person who knows very little learns a small thing and knowing very little believes they have learned a earth shattering amount of information. This is because if you do not know very much then you do not know that you do not know. Or to put it another way, the more knowledge you accumulate the more you know that you do not in fact, know. The inverse is that when you know very little you are unaware of just how little you really know so by acquiring a small amount of information you believe you have acquired a wealth of knowledge on a subject and are then a self deemed expert. This all ties back to critical discourse in any subject. Reading a small piece of information about a topic you know nothing about and then you draw a fallacious conclusion about it based off what little you understand, you fill in the gaps with what you think works, and because we champion “our truth” we are unwilling to hear that we really do not know or understand the subject at hand.
Of course not everyone is like this. Those would be the people who are happy to critically think, challenge their own knowledge and belief and broaden their own horizon. While most people have at least a small ability to do this I find it increasingly likely to find someone who doesn't critically think about what they are saying, has a small horizon and refuses to broaden it or the one that has recently become popular, arguing in bad faith.
Who argues in bad faith? People who engage you in an argument and have no intention of following the decorum for logical and factual thinking in arguments. These are the kind of people who have made up their mind, believe themselves to be intellectual but refuse to accept any empirical evidence of your point or provide any substantial empirical evidence for their own argument resting entirely on “you're wrong” as their argument. An argumentation style that is most prominent in dogmatist and those that use rhetoric fuelled speeches. These are commonly found among religious apologetics and political argumentation.
I won't delve to much into religious dogmatism, simply because I cannot add anything to this argument that hasn't been said. The bad faith arguing of religious apologists is well known. Why people both to engage with it, I cannot rightly fathom. On the other hand the political polarization that is going on is symptomatic of a whole other problem.
I'm not a political science major. I am not a sociology major. I am a psychology major in the early days of my degree. I am neither qualified nor equipped with the tools to dissect the political landscape from a social psychological perspective. That being said, from my limited view on the first rung of the ladder even I can see a real problem with the way things are and are headed. I don't have answers. People seem to be swayed by a cult of personality that Donald Trump has successfully created around himself. So successful in its creation that not even 32 felony convictions, being held civilly liable for defamation and stealing top secret white house documents and keeping them next to a toilet deterred people from voting for him.
This was supposed to be my thoughts on critical discourse. I may have fallen off topic at the end but I think it all wraps up pointedly. I did not delve further into my thoughts on America (as a Canadian) because I very much have no desire or want to get political. I will say this though. Just because someone is politically conservative doesn't mean they are Republican and just because someone is Republican does not go to follow that they are MAGA.
Till next time citizens of the galaxy,
SciFiDad