Critical Thinking [View all]

[H2O Man]

“Learning without thought is labor lost;
Thought without learning is perilous.”
-- Confucius

The concept of “critical thinking” provides us with the best way to make sense of the world around us. This is true in terms of the social, political, and economic reality that confronts us, as individuals, groups, a nation, and part of the human race. Perhaps at no time in history has there been such a need for critical thinking than today -- a time where an increasing number of resources is available for consumption, and we continue to poison the very environment that is required for human survival.

People define “critical thinking” in a variety of ways. For sake of this discussion, let’s go with a fairly general description: a mental discipline that involves open-minded gathering of relative information; a systematic manner of organizing the information; and an objective, rational analysis of that body of information. It is, not coincidentally, similar to the process that was taught as the “scientific method” when I was in grade school.

It requires that one be, to a large degree, emotionally detached from the issue at hand. Indeed, emotions are but one of the stumbling blocks that can derail critical thinking. Another stumbling block -- one that I have frequently wrestled with -- is, well, arrogance. Believing that you are pretty darned smart. This can lead to an unfortunate dynamic in the context of discussions ….one that is known in the world “snaky.”

Let’s consider the recent discussions on DU:GD about the death of President John F. Kennedy. Leave out any thought of who may or may not have been responsible for the assassination. Instead, focus entirely upon how people here think about, and discuss, that important event in our nation’s history. It is my belief that good and sincere people, capable of critical thinking, can and do reach very different opinions about “Dallas.” Likewise, people who exercise something less than critical thinking can and do reach very different opinions.

One school of thought puts great faith in the Warren Commission, and a wonderful book by former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi. The opposing school of thought has concluded that JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy; even among this group, there is an extremely wide range of belief regarding who was responsible -- the CIA and/or other military and intelligence groups; organized crime; Cubans in Florida who opposed Castro; big oil; and even, to some extent, the next two US Presidents (LBJ and/or Richard Nixon).

The Warren Commission’s Report was 26 volumes. Bugliosi’s 2007 book supporting the Commission’s conclusion is over 1,500 pages long. A resulting tactic of people who believe this version often ask those who are opposed to it, “Have you read the entire Warren Commission Report?” (Or Mr. Bugliosi’s entire book.) This tactic, incidentally, was made popular by Vince Bugliosi; it contains the unstated implication that anyone who hasn’t read one or both is incapable of having an informed opinion on them.

Now, let’s apply this same logic: there were literally hundreds of potential valuable witnesses the Commission never interviewed; agencies including the FBI and CIA withheld documents that had to do with things such as Lee Harvey Oswald’s connections with the said agencies; and literally tens of thousands of documents have been made public since Bugliosi’s book was published. Hence, literally everyone who holds or expresses an opinion does so, based upon an incomplete foundation (note: thousands of documents remain classified, and others were destroyed decades ago). Thus, either no person is entitled to forming an opinion, or we should be able to agree that people are capable of reaching a conclusion based upon what they have read.

There is a tendency to label certain schools of thought as “conspiracy theories,” and dismiss them as wild speculation or paranoid thinking. Yet, as we know, a Congressional investigative committee concluded that President Kennedy likely dies as the result of a conspiracy. More, Vince Bugliosi, shortly after retiring as a prosecutor, was involved with a civil law case that was based upon his belief that Senator Robert Kennedy was murdered in 1968, as the result of a conspiracy.

Thus, if we apply critical thinking -- and this isn’t about any one potential “conspiracy” -- we find a two-sided coin: because one case is not a conspiracy, does not indicate all others are not; and because one case is a conspiracy, does not indicate that all others are. Indeed, each individual case has to be considered and evaluated on its own merits.

The benefits accrued from critical thinking are not, of course, limited to considering conspiracy theories. An obvious example would be US military actions. Let’s take the nation’s response to 9/11. If one believes that our country was attacked by a foreign entity (I know not everyone does), then the response in Afghanistan was correct. But that hardly applies to the Bush-Cheney attack on Iraq. Indeed, by definition, the Bush-Cheney administration engaged in a conspiracy to fool the American public into supporting an action that literally had nothing to do with 9/11.

More, the example of Iraq highlights that stumbling block which can short-circuit critical thinking: emotions. In that example, the Bush-Cheney administration played upon the public’s fears and hatreds, in order to gain support for an immoral war. On top of that, they ushered in a set of laws known as the “Patriot Act,” that not only restricts “freedom,” but discourages citizens from critical thinking.

A common appeal to emotion that has too frequently been part of discussions on DU:GD is the insult. One need not use a magnifying glass to find examples on a daily basis here. Yesterday, for example, one OP implied that the belief that there was a conspiracy in Dallas is equal to a belief that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster. Discussions leading up to this month’s elections likewise contained numerous attempts to insult those with differing opinions. Threads with support for President Obama, and/or support for Hillary Clinton in 2016, almost always have some insults in them.

It can, of course, be fun to score debater’s points in an argument. It’s something that I am as guilty as anyone else here, in resorting to at times. It’s one thing to do, if a post is clearly the unintellectual property of a “troll,” and DU has had plenty of this species over the years. But it is a tactic that never enhances the value of a discussion or debate of serious issues among those who are here for the right reasons.

In my opinion -- for what it is worth -- the DU community would do better to focus on critical thinking, because the issues that confront us -- as individuals, a community, and a nation -- require our best efforts. Over the years, in a number of instances involving very serious issues, DU has acted as a grass roots think tank. Indeed, the quality of research, analysis, and discussion on this forum has reached far further than most people here are aware. The “Plame scandal” is perhaps the best example of this.

Any how, this is just the type of think that this old man thinks about while reading through the threads on DU:GD.

Thanks,
H2O Man