The problem with critical thinking
‘Question everything. Don’t assume anything about when it comes to what you’re told.’
It’s hard to disagree, isn’t it? So let’s put it into action and question what we’ve just been told. Should we question everything? If so, how? Because obviously this advice isn’t by itself any panacea for good critical thinking, since it was offered by Mark Sargent, one of America’s most prominent flat earthers.
Sargent and other conspiracy theorists talk a good talk when it comes to critical thinking. They don’t accept arguments from authority, rightly rejecting them as fallacious. They say they follow the evidence. Their literature is full of invitations to ‘look it up’ and ‘check the evidence for yourself’.
What’s worrying is not only that they end up believing a load of nonsense, despite supposedly following the rational freethinkers playbook. It’s that they genuinely are more engaged thinkers than the vast majority of people who simply accept what they have been taught.
I came across Sargent in the documentary film Behind the Curve. I was watching it because I’m very interested in the nature of rationality and when it breaks down. I also think that we too often dismiss people we disagree with as plain stupid when to really understand them, we have to try to see why what seems obviously wrong to us makes sense to them. As I wrote last two weeks ago, I always try to apply the principle of charity: the idea that we ought to consider the strongest possible versions of arguments we disagree with, not the weakest or the most obvious.
But Behind the Curve left me unusually disturbed. I think I’m usually quite good at seeing how a very wrong point of view could seem rational to a person who I disagree with. I was hoping to come across some difficult questions that someone like me who believes the earth is a globe would at least struggle to answer. There were none. The flat earthers were just reasoning so badly, it was embarrassing.
For instance, at one point Sargent looked across at Seattle from his home in Whidbey Island and declared that if the world were a globe, its curvature would mean Seattle would be below the horizon. You’d have thought someone who had thoroughly investigated the heliocentric hoax would have worked out that no one thinks the Earth’s surface is that curved.
We say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Could it be that a little thinking is even more dangerous? Invite people to think for themselves and unless they do it very well, they could end up believing more falsehoods than when they allowed others to do their thinking for them. What’s more, they would be even more convinced of them because these ideas would be theirs. They would own them and an idea that is ours is often more appealing than one that is true.
So what is the difference between a skilled critical thinker and an unskilled one? It’s not that the principles they use are different. It’s that they are understood more deeply and applied more carefully.
Take ‘question everything’. Done in the wrong spirit this becomes sceptical nihilism. Nothing is certain, no one entirely trustworthy. A lot of conspiracy theorists get too intoxicated with the world-shattering implications that something widely believed to be true can’t be proven. But if they were to question the alternative theories with the same rigour they would find them even more incredible. Their questioning goes wrong because far from applying to everything, it is too selective.
If this is right, there is nothing wrong with the tools of critical thinking: the problem is with the users. But what is that problem exactly? Are they stupid? Here the principle of charity kicks in again. Some may be, but not all are. Indeed, many are quite smart. That’s how they can create all these clever rationalisations for what seems clearly barmy to you and me.
Stupidity isn’t the problem. ‘It takes something more than intelligence to act intelligently,’ writes Fyodor Dostoyevsky in Crime and Punishment. That something more is something like integrity. In the book, Raskolnikov is talking about the writer of a letter in which he sees ‘a too hasty desire to slander me and to raise dissension between us.’ The writer is intelligent but his malicious motives get in the way and distort his thinking.
Conspiracy theorists are rarely malevolent in intent. They may have all the necessary critical thinking skills but they lack the key virtues of thinking. Bernard Williams thought the main two of these were sincerity and accuracy. We have to genuinely want to see things as they are and we have to demand accuracy in our facts and in our inferences. Vitally, we must not allow our desires and prejudices to get in the way.
It seems clear that most conspiracy theorists develop an emotional attachment to their theories that blinds them to their obvious flaws. They are often outsiders who feel rejected. Many find a sense of belonging in the community of fellow travellers that they had not found in their lives before. Among others whom society scorns, they feel at home. Their beliefs give them a sense of purpose, their marginality is elevated into specialness.
I’m reluctant to push this explanation too far because I’m wary of psychologising explanations. Who knows the deep emotional motivations and needs of others? But with the flat earthers, it’s the best explanation I’ve got.
Whether I’m right or wrong about this, I think the take-home message is sound. Critical thinking is harder than simply deciding to think for yourself, to question, to test the claims of others. And although intelligence is necessary it isn’t sufficient. You also need a good character, one that is prepared to be wrong, able to overcome the distortions born of desire, and driven by a sincere desire to understand. Good luck.
New at JulianBaggini.com
There’s a link to my article ‘The truths and myths about red meat’ at Food Matters Live. As usual, the upshot is: it’s more complicated than people make out.
The micophilosophy podcast is back after a six-year hiatus. It starts with a three-part mini series on why the debate over trans rights is such a fraught one, with guests Catarina Dutilh Novaes and Mary Leng. Episode one is on my website and in Apple podcasts. Supporters can also get an exclusive preview of the second and third parts along with a lot of other content in the support-exclusive area of my website. If you’re wondering why three cis people are talking about this you have no idea how difficult it is to get trans people to discuss the issues. I’d love to get two with different views together (and trans people do not all agree with the dominant trans right view).
My review of The Meat Paradox by Rob Percival should go up soon and I intend to add some bonus extra comments for supporters. There, I’ve said it, so I’ve got to do it now. Tied myself to the mast.
On my radar
I’ve started reading How to Be Perfect by Michael Schur, the creator of The Good Place, which I’ve never seen. It’s a light-hearted introduction to ethics and I suspect this is going to be moral philosophy’s most effective recruitment tool for some years.
I spend a portion of my time wearing the hat of Academic Director of the Royal Institute of Philosophy. Our 2021/2022 London Lecture Series restarts this Thursday with Owen Flanagan talking about ‘The Ethics of Anger and Shame and Lessons from Other Cultures’. I’ve seen a preview and it’s very thought-provoking. If you join us live you can ask a question and there’s a good chance it will be chosen. If not, check out other talks in the series to rewatch at your leisure.
The British Psychological Society’s Research Digest is in turns fascinating and frustrating. This story, headlined ‘To beat procrastination, avoid deadlines — unless they’re short’, shows why social psychology is so problematic. It describes one experiment that invited people to take an online survey with no deadline, a short deadline and a long deadline. Before you know what happened, isn’t it obvious that this tells us as good as nothing about what the right deadline strategy is for things we might actually care about? Too much psychology research claims a general lesson from highly specific, artificial experiments. It’s frustrating.
That’s it for this week. Thanks for your interest. Until next time, if nothing prevents…