Originally written in Chinese on Jan. 15th, 2023: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/kUr2jwbTCOzzm0cXi-1BXw Below is the English translation using Kimi large lab:
This article discusses the importance of critical thinking and provides a comprehensive review of the book "Critical Thinking Skills For Dummies."
At the end of last year, I wrote an article titled "Sharing Some New Product, Service, and Research Direction Ideas," where the second idea was about an "automated critical thinking assistant." I believe that if I could only learn one skill, it would be critical thinking. Critical thinking is essential for individuals, communities, nations, and even the world. It helps individuals make better decisions, and when more people think impartially and discern right from wrong, communities, nations, and the world can effectively discuss and analyze complex controversial topics, negotiate peaceful and effective strategies, and avoid conflicts, infighting, and disastrous extreme policies. Therefore, the author started searching for and reading relevant books during the holiday season. The first book chosen was an introductory one, "Critical Thinking Skills For Dummies."
The "For Dummies" series may seem like beginner's books, but they are actually of good quality. However, the author found this particular book challenging to read due to its weak logical structure and content that often digressed, making it difficult to grasp the key points or actionable information. It took considerable effort to read the book twice: once for a rough read and the second time to extract key information for notes. Despite its flaws, the book contains valuable information, such as details on Hitler's brainwashing techniques, the greatest weaknesses of human nature that often lead to disasters, the essence of the "compare before you buy" critical thinking process, and analyses of some of the most influential arguments in history. Thus, the author took advantage of a long weekend to write a detailed summary and review of the book.
Critical thinking can be broadly defined as "reasoning and reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do" (Norris and Ennis, 1989). Specifically, it involves collecting information before taking action, carefully analyzing, interpreting, and understanding it. After scrutinizing the evidence provided, one makes logical inferences. It requires handling and considering information, challenging and analyzing data, and then drawing a defensible and justifiable conclusion while avoiding logical fallacies, unfactual opinions, and subconscious biases.
The book provides a broader definition: critical thinking is actually a series of skills and understandings, including the ability to play with words, sensitivity to context, feelings, and emotions, and (the most difficult skill to cultivate) maintaining an open mind to achieve creative leaps and gain insights.
Education essentially stimulates the strengths of human nature and curbs its weaknesses. Learning critical thinking is essentially correcting the biases in natural human thinking (Natual Human Thinking). Natural human thinking includes several categories of thinking: stubbornness, conformity, system building, and denial.
- Stubbornness is easy to identify. These are people who form their beliefs by stubbornly adhering to their initially preferred views—no matter what evidence is provided or how the environment changes. If asked to prove their views are correct, they can thoroughly find facts to support it while refusing to investigate anything that contradicts it. Their thinking merely rearranges their prejudices.
- Conformity thinkers are the majority of people. They respect anyone or anyone who displays "authority." They form their views in group discussions, the ideas taught by professors, or, in the absence of authoritative figures, they believe consensus is the correct view. When they search for content online, they prefer safer platforms like Wikipedia (as they imagine!) and are reluctant to visit individually operated websites. As Peirce said, people with this way of thinking are socially useful members because they contribute to social harmony and cohesion. Although they may also be found throwing eggs at tyrants and persecuting minorities. But in terms of thinking, they are useless.
- System builders try to fit everything into a pre-existing mental framework. They are a more complex version of the stubborn. They firmly believe in and study what they consider to be scientific thinking. They operate similarly according to scientific principles in practice. System builders are willing to consider new information, but they may refuse if it requires dismantling existing structures to understand the world.
- Denial is the group of people who no longer believe in anything. This smaller group, formerly consisting of gullible people, has turned to the opposite extreme due to unease with events. They no longer believe in anything and instead suspect everything. They are a group that has lost meaning for all positive political work.
It is clear that the author of the book does not completely negate people's natural thinking patterns. The majority's conformist thinking has many positive implications. First, it saves energy; it is very taxing on the brain for everyone to critically think about every piece of knowledge or information. Most of the time, it is effective and correct to conform, trust authority, believe in the government, and even follow feelings and intuition. In this way, the knowledge accumulated by society can be pyramid-like, cascading smoothly from top to bottom. Second, it increases social harmony and cooperation. Everyone knows what it would be like if there were too many contrarians in a crowd, unable to get anything done due to constant arguing.
After discussing the advantages of people's natural thinking, the author also lists the obvious disadvantages of conformist thinking:
- Most people do not have a real understanding of most of the views they hold and cannot provide evidence and reasoning when asked why.
- It prevents you from seeing new possibilities, which is not conducive to invention, creation, or innovation. New knowledge and technology always break mainstream and traditional thinking patterns.
- It leads to unexpected pitfalls. There are many logical fallacies and biases in people's natural thinking.
- It makes people susceptible to manipulation by ill-intentioned individuals, such as propaganda, brainwashing, incitement to violence, and financial scams.
- It prompts people to draw wrong conclusions and make poor decisions. Many people make grave mistakes in significant medical, employment, investment, and interpersonal relationship issues due to conformity or logical traps.
The author naturally mentions the famous book by Daniel Kahneman, "Thinking, Fast and Slow." This well-known book about thinking has many reviews, so the author does not elaborate here. The book essentially discusses a dichotomy of human thinking modes: "System 1" is fast, instinctive, and emotional; "System 2" is slower, more deliberate, and more logical. Starting with Kahneman's own research on loss aversion, the book describes the rational and irrational motives or triggers associated with each type of thinking process and how they complement each other. From framing choices to people's tendency to replace a difficult question with an easy one, the book summarizes decades of research showing that people are overly confident in human judgment.
Public relations, marketing, and political propaganda are typical behaviors for manipulating public thinking. Understanding their common tricks helps to become immune to them.
The pinnacle of political brainwashing is Hitler's propaganda. The book devotes a significant amount of space to analyzing how Hitler and his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, brainwashed the German people, leading to one of the greatest disasters in human history.
Hitler clearly wrote about the propaganda techniques used in his book "Mein Kampf": "The art of propaganda consists in understanding the emotions of the masses and finding ways to attract the attention and touch the hearts of the masses through psychologically correct forms... The capacity of the masses to accept things is very limited, their wisdom is small, but their power to forget is enormous. Based on these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must repeatedly emphasize these points in slogans until every member of the public can understand the content you want them to understand through the slogan."
Hitler acknowledged that he learned the black magic of propaganda and brainwashing from the British. He thanked the British War Office for showing him the operational details:
- Limit information to a few points and spread it through slogans.
- Design slogans specifically for mass consumption, which can influence public opinion more than arguments.
- Appeal to the emotions of voters to attract attention.
- Repeat with relentless persistence.
- Avoid debates whenever possible.
- The intellectual level of propaganda content must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence of the people it targets. The larger the number of people it aims to reach, the lower its pure intellectual level must be.
After reading Hitler's seemingly simplistic but extremely effective techniques, the author feels a sense of sadness for humanity.
- Brainwashing = short, low intelligence, emotional slogans + repeat ten thousand times + avoid debates.
How did Hitler's Nazism mobilize people's emotions? Essentially, it had only one philosophical pillar—prejudice. It succeeded because prejudices against other races or religions, or against the elderly (or young people!) or the sick, no matter how heinous or unreasonable, always lurk not too deep in everyone's hearts. It can be said that favoring or mistreating others based on identity politics or discriminating against entire groups of people based on certain labels, rather than judging individuals by their actions, is the darkest weakness of human nature. We must always be vigilant against the resurgence of this kind of thinking.
The Nazi imagination of "inferior humans" included categories such as Slavs, "black people," and even their later allies: Japanese and Italians. Hitler used a crude imitation of Darwin's theory of evolution to explain the importance of his pure blood theory to the German public: "Any cross between two beings of not entirely identical levels will produce an offspring that stands between the levels of the two parents. This means: the offspring may stand higher than the parent of the lower race but not as high as the higher parent. Therefore . it will later succumb in the struggle with the superior. Such mating goes against the will of nature, which aims to cultivate all life to a higher level. The premise is not about superiority or inferiority, but about the total victory of the former. The strong must dominate and must not be mixed with the weak, thus sacrificing their own greatness."
This notorious argument, which seems plausible but nefarious, can be refuted using critical thinking. The essence of Nazi propaganda was based on prejudice. Its success lay in the prejudice against other races or religions, or against the elderly (or young people!) or the sick, no matter how outrageous or unreasonable, always hidden not too deep in the hearts of every individual. It can be said that favoring or mistreating others based on identity politics or discriminating against entire groups of people based on certain labels, rather than judging individuals by their actions, is the darkest weakness of human nature. We must always be vigilant against the resurgence of this kind of thinking.
The common persuasive techniques used in today's public relations, marketing, and political propaganda are similar to Hitler's techniques. Short and repetitive advertising slogans are ubiquitous in television and radio commercials. Political propaganda's slogans and labels for opponents are standard operations. Other common tricks to influence others' thinking include:
- Associating products/services with positive people, scenes, and scenarios. This leverages psychological characteristics by using emotional transfer, allowing people to associate the good impressions of positive people and things with the promoted products/services. Common positive figures include successful people, handsome men, and beautiful women. Beautiful scenery speaks for itself. Beautiful scenarios often include seemingly happy families enjoying themselves at home or in nature.
- The bandwagon effect. This exploits the majority of people's conformist thinking patterns. By repeatedly boasting that others are doing or believing something, it persuades the masses.
- Expert opinions. This exploits the majority's blind trust in authority. It's the so-called information that starts with "authoritative release" or "scientific consensus."
- Using ambiguous rhetorical phrases. Propagandists can make any unproven, exaggerated, and outrageous claims, as long as these claims are accompanied by rhetorical words like "may," "can," "could," "some," or "many" (may, can, could, some, or many).
- Flattery to enhance your sense of superiority. Those who want to sell something to you are the best and most appreciative people in the world. They admire your taste and judgment and believe that you, as an elite (beautiful woman, handsome man), should enjoy the top products and services. "You have such good taste, when you see something, you know it's a good thing!" "You need quality," "You deserve top products!"
After reading so much about the advantages and disadvantages of natural thinking, the author is eager to know how to break free from natural thinking patterns and embrace flawless critical thinking. The author of the book is indeed a critical thinker and, even though he knows the benefits of critical thinking, he warns readers that critical thinking also has many side effects!
- You may become disliked for expressing non-mainstream ideas. People generally dislike contrarians and pessimists.
- You may become unhappy by seeing too many problems. It is truly: "The only true heroism in the world is to see life's truth and still love it."
You may point out the emperor's new clothes and end up in prison or even face death. There are too many historical and real-life examples.
However, the advantages of mastering critical thinking are also many:
- you can cultivate innovative thinking, such as discovering errors in the assumptions hidden in mainstream views, logical loopholes, factual defects, and thus discover new business/investment opportunities, new knowledge, and new products and technologies.
- You can avoid significant personal safety, medical, economic, and interpersonal relationship misjudgments.
So readers should decide for themselves whether to take the red or blue pill: do they really want to be the kind of person who sees too much and is unhappy, or do they want to be a carefree and happy person?
The author advocates that the smart way to see the world is to accept the harsh fact that everything you know may be wrong, and if necessary, you should start from scratch to sort out the relevant arguments and reasoning. Or ultimately end with "no assumptions can be established, all viewpoints on the issue should be overthrown," which means that there are currently no viewpoints worth holding on the issue.
With this big mental preparation, the specific self-cultivation of critical thinkers includes:
- Tolerance: Critical thinkers are happy to hear divergent views and enjoy real debates. They accept new ideas and welcome criticism.
- Analytical ability: Critical thinkers do not accept any conversation that does not conform to standard forms. They want arguments constructed in a scientifically and logically sound manner, with reasons provided and reasonable conclusions drawn.
- Confidence: Critical thinkers must be confident to dare to verify the views put forward by others—especially those of authoritative/official figures.
- Curiosity: Critical thinkers need curiosity. Although curiosity may have killed the cat, it is the basic element of new ideas and insights.
- Seeking truth: The mission of critical thinkers is "objective truth," even if the facts prove that this will destroy their previously held beliefs and long-standing beliefs, and go against their own interests. This requirement is really high, essentially abandoning personal interests in pursuit of objective truth.
It seems that not everyone is naturally suited to be a critical thinker. People's personalities are diversely distributed across multiple dimensions, and everyone has strengths and weaknesses in self-cultivation dimensions such as tolerance, analytical ability, confidence, curiosity, and seeking truth. Some people are naturally narrow-minded, poor at analysis, doubt themselves, unwilling to explore new things, and prioritize personal interests (truth be damned). Without后天的训练, it is not easy to change.
The thinking process can be seen as a process of processing a series of facts, opinions, and then inferring new facts or opinions. Therefore, understanding the difference and connection between facts and opinions is meaningful.
Facts are statements that can be proven true or false through objective evidence or verification. They are based on observable and verifiable data. For example, "The Earth is round" is a fact because it can be proven through scientific evidence and observation.
On the other hand, opinions are statements that express beliefs or viewpoints. They are subjective and may not be provable as true or false. For example, "This is the best ice cream in the world" is an opinion because it is a matter of personal taste and cannot be objectively verified.
In summary, facts are objective and verifiable, while opinions are subjective and based on personal beliefs or viewpoints.
However, the author of this book points out that in the ever-changing real world, the distinction between facts and opinions is not always clear. Even so-called hard scientific facts sometimes become a matter of opinion debate. The core is that the nouns expressing facts can often be redefined, and which definition is reasonable is just an opinion.
A typical example is the question of how many planets there are in the solar system. The previous consensus was nine planets, including Pluto. However, science in the late 20th century showed that Pluto was different from the other eight large objects orbiting the sun. Pluto is much smaller than Mercury, only two-thirds the size of the moon. Its orbit is tilted, eccentric, and crosses Neptune, unlike any other planet.
In the early 21st century, astronomers discovered other objects orbiting the sun in the outer solar system, with masses very similar to Pluto. They were named Sedna, Quaoar, Ixion, Varuna, Makemake, and Haumea. Many are close in size (but not exactly equal) to Pluto. All of these have tilted, eccentric orbits; quite a few cross Neptune. In 2005, Caltech astronomers Mike Brown, Chad Trujillo, and David Rabinowitz discovered an object believed to be 27% larger than Pluto. Brown first named it Xena, which was later officially named Eris by the International Astronomical Union (IAU).
It seems clear that if Pluto is the 9th planet in our solar system, then Eris should be its 10th. If Eris and Pluto are planets, why not also Makemake and Haumea? Why not 15 planets in the solar system? Or 40? A similarly staunch camp insists that these objects are not worthy of the status of planets, including Pluto. They assume that our solar system contains only eight objects worthy of planetary status, ending with Neptune.
Recognizing this issue, the IAU created a revised definition of a planet in 2006. The number of planets in our solar system was reduced to 8: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. They also created a new category called dwarf planets, which are not really planets at all, including Pluto, Ceres, Eris, Haumea, and Makemake. The IAU's definition of a planet and the subsequent reclassification of Pluto as a dwarf planet have generated unprecedented levels of public interest and discord. Even in the scientific community, it is widely acknowledged that the current definition of a planet is poor, so there is still no consensus on the definition of a planet.
This example illustrates that facts must be expressed in words, and words have definitions, but how to define them is always a matter of subjective opinion. Especially the ambiguity of natural language allows different definitions to coexist. In critical thinking, one must be sensitive to the definitions of key terms in the discussion and be aware of the tactics used in debates to deliberately use ambiguous definitions to create confusion.
The book explains critical thinking from several different application scenarios, such as how to read critically, write critically, analyze arguments critically, and construct one's own arguments critically. Often, the key points and steps mentioned overlap. I have combined the steps of critical thinking from different application scenarios into a unified set of steps as follows:
1 Understanding the Problem: The purpose of thinking is to solve a problem, so it is essential to comprehend the background of the issue.
- Redefine the problem as needed: For example, the original redesign of a lawnmower -> a machine that helps people maintain their lawns // approaching the root cause or deeper customer needs.
- Due to the ambiguity and vagueness of language, it is crucial to define the key terms of the problem clearly. Often, the root of disputes or errors lies in different people using the same word with different connotations.
- Collect Data and Information
- Distinguish between primary and secondary sources of data. Primary source information is the original material from the period involved, unfiltered by interpretation or evaluation. Examples include personal letters and diaries, original research papers, speeches, news clips of events, photos and posters, census or demographic records, physical samples such as plant and animal species, or archaeological findings.
- Secondary sources are articles or books about other people's opinions, research, or writings. They are explanations and evaluations written afterward. Textbooks and encyclopedias, which we often refer to, are sources of secondary information. They often cite and paraphrase information from other sources, such as foundational scientific discovery papers.
- Assess how open the proponents of a particular idea are to their methods and data. The credibility of a closed party is greatly diminished. This reminds me of the FDA wanting to delay the release of the data it relied on when authorizing Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine by 55 years in 2021.
- Handling and Analyzing Data and Information
- Consider the number of free parameters present; many scientific reasoning models have numerous parameters, and changing the initial values of these parameters can alter the model's projected results.
- Use text and various charts to present information: There are many details here, with knowledge graphs, mind maps, tree diagrams, flowcharts, etc., all being useful for helping understand information and uncover hidden connections.
- Use a dump list to handle information: Then filter, sort, and simplify the list.
- Check beliefs, assumptions, and opinions, and weigh them against facts.
- Extract the key steps of reasoning in an argument, such as distinguishing the premises, conclusions, including intermediate conclusions. Facts, opinions, etc. Good arguments already have connective words indicating the steps of reasoning, pro and con arguments, conclusions. For example, "firstly," "secondly," "on the one hand," "on the other hand," "however," "therefore," etc.
- A truly effective reasoning framework is a three-step process: 1. Major premise: If A, then B. 2. Minor premise: Now there is A. 3. Conclusion B. This is deductive reasoning. For example: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates will die. This kind of reasoning is rigorous, but its disadvantage is that it cannot produce truly new knowledge.
- Inductive reasoning is useful but not always correct. For example, seeing that all swans are white and then inferring that all swans are white. Later, black swans were discovered. The previously induced conclusion was incorrect. Most scientific research follows inductive reasoning, which can produce new knowledge.
- Actual oral or written reasoning statements often do not provide all the premises or assumptions, so it is necessary to find the often implicit assumptions. This step requires creative thinking.
- Consider all the main relevant facts, which requires a strong ability to identify important information and ignore details.
- Adhere to the inherent logical reasoning routines: For example, the logical syllogism (major premise, minor premise, conclusion).
- Identify and avoid common logical reasoning fallacies: There are over a hundred types of fallacies, and it is necessary to understand and distinguish the dozen or so common ones proficiently.
- A good thinking process does not have a preset stance and is neutral like a debate chair. The reasoning process should consider multiple different arguments, present balanced and comprehensive facts from a neutral standpoint, and then synthesize to reach a recommended current conclusion, while also leaving room for changing the conclusion if new evidence emerges. Avoid one-sided reasoning arguments. Do not blindly trust any authority. The author specifically names economists and the FDA. Economists often fail to truly explain complex economic phenomena and make incorrect predictions. The FDA, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, has also had many mishaps, approving drugs that later turned out to have serious side effects, or even treating diseases that later were found not to exist (such as ADHD in children).
- Triangulation: This is a metaphorical term, which actually means "comparing goods from three different angles." In multiple aspects, critically think from multiple (usually three or more) different perspectives.
- Data Collection Sources: Spend time collecting information about the problem from multiple sources.
- Data Collection Methods: The same data source often yields different information depending on the collection method. For example, face-to-face interviews or online surveys will often elicit different responses from the surveyed individuals.
- Investigators: Multiple different observers are needed, as different people interpret the same evidence differently.
- Environment: Many problems have different approaches in different environments, so it is necessary to consider the issue in various contexts.
- Theory: Even with the same data and environment, different theoretical frameworks will yield different conclusions. Economic schools of thought differ, for example, Marxists versus free marketers, Keynesians, and the Chicago School. They have different analyses and solutions to the same economic issues.
- In addition to scientifically rigorous facts and reasoning verification, also consider common sense, examine the credibility of the person proposing the viewpoint, etc.
- How well does this idea fit with common sense? Is this idea too crazy?
- Who proposed this idea, and does this person have an inherent bias towards its truth?
- Does the proponent use statistical data honestly? Do they support it by citing other work that supports their method?
- Does this idea explain too much—or too little—that is useful?
- Enjoy the process of finding new solutions to problems and avoid being influenced by the emotions of others.
Critical thinking is truly mentally taxing because it involves multiple steps and rules, requiring both the effort to collect and analyze data and the creativity to follow a process. My biggest takeaway is that formal critical thinking does not have a preset stance; it presents multiple viewpoints and arguments from the perspective of a debate judge, recommending a current conclusion rather than using an authoritative tone and cutting off the possibility of new conclusions based on future evidence. This aligns with the basic cultivation of a critical thinker: "Accept that everything you know may be wrong, and if necessary, start from scratch."
According to the critical thinking process mentioned above, the author criticizes the mainstream side in the "climate change" debate, arguing that they have changed the subject ("global warming" to the ambiguous "climate change") and that politicians use political pressure, in conjunction with the scientific community with economic interests, to suppress dissenting opinions with so-called consensus. I can't help but think of the debate over the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States; the author is likely also opposed to the idea that vaccines are safe, forcing vaccinations, and suppressing different opinions.
From the definition of critical thinking, it is clear that understanding common errors in reasoning and knowing the correct way of thinking are equally important. Most books on critical thinking list these fallacies. Wikipedia lists hundreds of reasoning fallacies. The book mentions some common ones, such as:
Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"): This refers to a conclusion that cannot be inferred from the established premises. It is a basic error of irrelevant premises and conclusion. An example is someone opposing wedding rings on the grounds that they must be bad because the origin of rings represents the historical fact of women's unequal submission to men. This argument is fallacious because whether or not people use wedding rings today has no connection—至少不是"逻辑上的"—with the goodness or badness of its origin.
Affirming the consequent: The premise is P implies Q, and now Q is present. The conclusion is that P is present. For example, if there is a fire, it is inferred that there will be thick smoke. Now there is thick smoke. Therefore, it is inferred that there is a fire. This reasoning is incorrect because there could be other causes for Q.
Straw man: Attacking an argument that the other party has not presented or distorting and exaggerating the other party's viewpoint. Making the argument seem absurd and easy to refute.
Correlation does not imply causation: Claiming that A and B occur together or that there is a positive correlation between A and B statistically, therefore A must be the cause of B. A classic example is the rooster crowing and the sun rising happening at the same time, inferring that the crowing caused the sun to rise. Most correlation studies in medical research are like this and cannot infer causal relationships.
Circular reasoning: The argument and conclusion rely on each other.
False dichotomy: The assumption of reasoning is that there are only two choices, ignoring that there are actually other choices or mixed compromise options. A common debate is whether to choose Chinese or American educational concepts. In fact, one can select the best parts of both, not just have to choose one.
Redefinition: This is also playing word games like Humpty Dumpty: Humpty insists "When I use a word... it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." The author also uses the global warming debate as an example: supporters of the view say that carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas. However, the author found that the scientific community unambiguously accepted that the main greenhouse gas is actually water vapor. Water vapor in the atmosphere accounts for about 80% of the greenhouse effect.) After the author pointed out this issue to a major media outlet: the media investigated and admitted that the author was right, but then replied that they would continue to say that carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas, using the word "main greenhouse gas" in a special way that everyone understands and is accustomed to.
Double standard: This is easy to understand, violating the rules oneself but requiring others to comply because one is special.
Ambiguity: This is playing word games, using polysemous words or similar-sounding vocabulary. Changing the topic of discussion, avoiding the issue. Politicians often use this tactic.
Wishful thinking: Advocating (or believing) that something is true because one hopes for it to happen; or advocating (or believing) that something is false because one does not want it to happen. In the end, "The absence of evidence is not evidence of presence or absence." A typical example: There is no evidence that God exists, so God does not exist. This argument is fallacious. This example also reflects that critical thinking is often used to comment on the rigor of an argument itself, rather than necessarily having to arrive at the final fact or opinion (whether God exists or not).
Appealing to ignorance: Claiming that because something has not been proven false, it is true; or claiming that because something has not been proven true, it is false. In the end, "There is no evidence is not evidence of existence or non-existence." A typical example: There is no evidence that God exists, so God does not exist. This argument is fallacious. This example also reflects that critical thinking is often used to comment on the rigor of an argument itself, rather than necessarily having to arrive at the final fact or opinion (whether God exists or not).
The main purpose of dialectical thinking is to analyze reasoning and draw conclusions. It is also often used in debates and persuading others. In real life, the success rate of using formal logic to persuade others is not high (rational persuasion often fails). One needs to consider people's emotions, interests, and use the weaknesses of human nature to achieve the goal.
For example, appealing to the other party's hopes, fears, and emotions. Using short slogans to call for action.
In the end, it is actually using the methods of advertisers, public relations departments, and even Hitler to persuade the other party. It seems that various communication and persuasion tools are neutral (like knives and guns), with no inherent right or wrong, but depend on who uses them and for what purpose.
The author also mentions some tricks that can turn the tables even if one is unreasonable:
- Taking ignorance as a virtue. The simple version is to admit that one does not know, appealing to the audience's sympathy. The complex version is to argue eloquently that no one knows about this matter, and that the entire scientific community cannot possibly know, to defend one's own ignorance.
- Using difficult-to-understand jargon. Making oneself appear professional while the actual argument is incomprehensible, confusing the issue.
- Rhetorical questions. When faced with a difficult question, instead of answering directly, pose a new question for the other party to answer. A classic example: one party asks, "Why did you do that?" The other party retorts: "Why can't I do that?"
- Personal attack: When one cannot argue logically, attack the other party's personality, credibility, interest connections, speculate on the other party's motives, and point out the other party's knowledge, experience, or physical defects. This tactic is despicable, but it is often seen and has reasonable applications.
The author lists some of the most influential arguments in history and judges them using critical thinking.
- Governing should be done by a small elite:
Plato's reasoning in "The Republic": Truly wise elites have altruistic and benevolent desires to serve others. Most people cannot recognize a good thing, even if it is placed right in front of their noses, and of course should not be allowed to have too much say in how complex things like society are run. Conclusion: Therefore, he should choose elites to govern the state. His prescription for the masses is a propaganda diet, giving them a false but satisfactory view of their lives.
Reasoning flaws:
- Although ruling elites may initially discover that the reward of helping others is the most satisfying thing, for some reason, they always succumb to greed and the gravitational pull of their own interests.
- History has shown that those in power can be just as corrupt and selfish as anyone else.
- The conclusion that lies should be used to keep the masses happy: History has shown that people can never be contentedly satisfied—they will never be satisfied and need conflict. Democracy is a way to provide the masses with a safe way to protest and struggle with each other.
- Plato's reasoning implies that only intelligent people can be altruistic, which is not the case.
- Plato says that most people cannot recognize a good thing and should not be allowed to have a say in how society is run. This idea is elitist and dismissive of the abilities and agency of most people.
- The concept that propaganda should be used to give people a false but satisfactory view of life is worrying because it implies that the ruling elite should manipulate and deceive the masses for their own interests, rather than empowering them to participate in the democratic process and make informed decisions. This is problematic because it undermines the principles of equality and self-determination.
- People have different life experiences and perspectives, which can lead to varying understandings of what is beneficial for society.
- Governing should be done by the masses, discarding the elite class:
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels proposed this argument in their political manifesto, "The Communist Manifesto," which appeared in the mid-19th century. At this time, there was a stark contrast between the small number of wealthy factory owners and noble landowners and the many extremely poor workers. Given their definition of the problem, their conclusion was straightforward: abolish class distinctions and make everyone equal.
Reasoning flaws:
- In practice, Marxism created an administrative elite to handle matters on behalf of the masses.
- Unfortunately, as many countries have found, even the so-called socialist elite have a habit of greed and exploitation of everyone else. So, the original division between the masses and the elite is back.
- Hitler's reasoning that pure German blood is superior:
This is an example I added myself, and the defects are generated by ChatGPT. The author did not directly refute it. Hitler used a crude and distorted version of Darwin's theory of evolution to explain the importance of his pure blood theory to the German public: "Any cross between two beings of not entirely identical levels will produce an offspring that stands between the levels of the two parents. This means: the offspring may stand higher than the parent of the lower race, but not as high as the higher parent. Therefore, it will later succumb in the struggle with the superior. Such mating goes against the will of nature, which aims to cultivate all life to a higher level. The premise is not about superiority or inferiority, but about the total victory of the former. The strong must dominate and must not be mixed with the weak, thus sacrificing their own greatness."
The ChatGPT-generated defects of this argument are:
- It presents a crude and distorted version of Darwin's theory of evolution. Darwin's theory of evolution is about natural selection and survival of the fittest for individuals, not about the superiority of one race over another.
- It promotes the idea of racial purity, which is a scientifically discredited concept. In reality, there is no "pure" race, and the concept of racial purity has been used throughout history to justify discrimination and persecution.
- It advocates for the domination and suppression of those considered weaker or lower, which is morally condemnable.
- It is based on the idea of "survival of the fittest," but the actual theory of natural selection does not make any moral or ethical judgments about who should survive. It only points out that certain traits are more likely to be passed on to the next generation.
The current AI has already been able to identify defects in arguments and generate answers that look pretty good.
- God exists:
Those who want to prove the existence of God attempt to demonstrate it by arranging miracles, such as gathering many people together and showing God healing the sick or lame on the spot.
Unfortunately, skeptics insist that every untried treatment must also be considered, so they still do not believe in the existence of God.
The medieval monk and logician Saint Anselm of Canterbury in England proposed one of the most influential "proofs of the existence of God" in his argument.
His reasoning process: first, he provided a strict definition of God, such as God being the greatest, most perfect, and most wonderful thing in the universe. Right? Not because religious people say he is, but by definition. Then Anselm asked, whether it is better to exist in reality or only in people's imagination. Or put another way, which is better - having a lovely house or having an imaginary lovely house? Obviously, reality is better than imagination, and this also applies to God. Conclusion: Because God is the greatest, he must exist.
Reasoning defects:
- This "proof" can be used to prove the existence of anything, as long as it is defined as the best example of its kind.
ChatGPT's analysis of this argument generated more defects:
- It relies on the assumption that the provided definition of God is correct and universally accepted, which is not the case. Different religious traditions have different concepts of God and his attributes.
- It equates the existence of God with the existence of physical objects like a house, which is not an appropriate analogy. The existence of God is not limited to the material realm and cannot be proven or refuted like material objects.
- It uses a false dilemma by suggesting that the only choices are that God exists or God only exists in people's imagination. It does not consider other possibilities, such as God not existing at all.
- The conclusion is logically invalid; it is a non sequitur, and it does not follow from the premises. Even if it is true that something is better, and more likely to exist, it does not follow that the greatest possible existence must exist.
- It starts with the definition of God and then assumes that God must exist because of that definition, but it does not provide any evidence to prove that the God discussed actually exists.
- God does not exist:
The famous "problem of evil" argument refutes the existence of God. This is a simple but persuasive argument.
Reasoning process: If an omnipotent, omniscient God exists, he would want the world to be the best place, filled with happy people and beautiful things. The fact is that the world is filled with various sufferings and injustices, so God does not exist.
The author's comments on the defects:
- I'm afraid this argument seems quite watertight.
I asked ChatGPT about the defects of the above argument, and it generated the following answers:
- First, it is based on the assumption that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and wants the world to be the best place. However, this is a matter of faith and cannot be proven or refuted.
- The argument is a logical fallacy known as the "problem of evil," which is a logical argument that attempts to refute the existence of God based on the existence of evil in the world. The argument does not consider the complexity of human experience and the concept of faith.
- The argument is based on the assumption that God's existence depends on the absence of evil and suffering, which is a problematic assumption because it implies that God's existence or non-existence can be proven by observable facts.
- This argument implies that if God exists, there would be no suffering or evil in the world, which is a flawed assumption. Different religious and belief systems have different explanations for the existence of suffering and evil in the world, such as the concept of free will or the idea that suffering can serve a greater purpose.
- This argument uses the lack of evidence as proof of non-existence. This is a logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance." It points out that if something cannot be proven to exist, it does not exist. In other words, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I feel that the AI's analysis has many bright spots, although there are repetitions or inconsistencies. It has exceeded the author's analysis (the author said there were no defects).
- Brain cell research:
This example is also added by myself. Let's see how critical thinking is specifically applied to new scientific discoveries.
The traditionally accepted "scientific fact": The human brain is composed of "100 billion neurons and ten times as many glial cells." This has been scientific common sense and academic consensus for 50 years.
New discovery: A scientist who didn't believe in this, Suzana Herculano-Houzel, was bothered by the lack of experimental basis for this view. After digging into the origins of this belief, she found that it had no experimental basis; in fact, no one had ever seriously counted the number of brain cells in a human brain! In 2005, she published a new method for counting brain cells, reaching the conclusion that "the human brain has an average of 86 billion neurons and an equal number of non-neuronal cells." Suddenly, humans had 14 billion fewer brain cells!
She also solved a long-standing academic puzzle: why some animals have brains much larger than the human brain, but are not as smart as humans? It turns out that the previous mainstream assumption that all brains have the same cell density was wrong; the cell density of brains of the same weight varies among different species, and humans (primates) have the highest neuronal density in the cerebral cortex, with the most neurons in the cerebral cortex.
The scientist's TED talk, "What Makes the Human Brain Unique?" is also very interesting and worth watching. She analyzes the energy (food) constraints on brain development from the perspective of using fire to cook, allowing the public to re-understand the key role of cooking with fire in human brain development.
https://www.npr.org/2015/02/20/384949670/what-makes-the-human-brain-unique
Therefore, the proficient application of critical thinking is the inevitable path to scientific discoveries and technological innovations. Many times, simply verifying data honestly can lead to significant discoveries. What is more challenging is to identify implicit assumptions and verify their truth.
Let me be more vigilant towards information labeled "authoritative release," "scientific consensus," and "scientific consensus." If there is a conflict of interest, I will be more likely to find the original data sources and sort out the reasoning process.
Interestingly, using ChatGPT to analyze classic reasoning arguments can already generate impressive and excellent critical thinking analysis results. But the actual application to new arguments (such as vaccine effectiveness, the origin of the COVID-19 virus, whether to wear masks, who is right and who is wrong in the Russia-Ukraine war) and larger-scale input problems remains to be seen.
Reading is truly beneficial. Although it was a struggle to get through this "For Dummies" book, it turned out to be quite rewarding. For instance, I learned that:
- Our instinctive natural thinking has many advantages and applicable scenarios, and it is not entirely useless.
- The self-cultivation of a critical thinker: Everything you know may be wrong, and if necessary, you should start from scratch to sort out the relevant arguments and reasoning. Therefore, one must be tolerant, improve analytical skills, maintain confidence and curiosity, and seek truth rather than protecting personal interests.
- The process of critical thinking is like comparing goods: From specific steps to overall arguments, gather information from multiple sources, sort out the arguments and reasoning from a neutral standpoint, like the chair of a debate, weigh them, and draw a temporary conclusion for the time being. Be prepared to revise the conclusion with the arrival of new information.
- The greatest weakness of human nature and the root of the greatest disasters: tribalism, racism, or narrow nationalism/ patriotism. People who adhere to these ideologies selectively mistreat large groups of people based on labels such as race. It turns out that by advocating for equality for all and opposing privileges based on skin color, I am also making a contribution.
- The flexible application of critical thinking is the inevitable path for technological innovation and scientific discoveries. Many times, honest verification of data can lead to significant findings. What is more challenging is to uncover hidden assumptions and verify their validity.
- It makes me more cautious about information labeled with "authoritative release," "scientific consensus," and "scientific conclusions." If there is a conflict of interest, I will be more likely to seek the original data sources and sort out the reasoning process.
Interestingly, using ChatGPT to analyze classic reasoning arguments can already generate impressive and excellent critical thinking analysis results. However, the actual application to new arguments (such as vaccine effectiveness, the origin of the COVID-19 virus, whether to wear masks, who is right and who is wrong in the Russia-Ukraine war) and larger-scale input problems remains to be seen.