On Wed, 11 May 2011, James Weinheimer wrote:
> On 05/11/2011 08:18 PM, john g marr wrote:
> <snip>
>>> ... we *must* take people #as they are# ... *None* of #us# can take
>>> the #time# to learn *everything* to make *deeply* #informed
>>> decisions#, there is simply [?] *too much* to #know# and it would be
>>> an *unending* task; as a result, we would #accomplish# *nothing* at
>>> all.
> This is an example of whenever one person says something in a forthright
> manner ... [or] makes a decision and takes a stand, they, by definition,
> can be accused of being biased.
One basic aspect of critical thinking is to depersonalize criticism, so
let's look at the statement in question, rather than the person making it,
the same as we would (or should) when evaluating political rhetoric.
The statement in question is an "assumption", not anything remotely near
absolute fact [that can be proved by relation to the lists of fallacies
and biases]. All Critical thinking does is let us learn that such
statements should either be "questioned" or ignored (as time allows?), but
not absolutely accepted.
The problem is actually that when (not "whenever") a statement is made in
an absolute (not necessarily "forthright") form the effect can be to
convey the impression of fact [absolute] rather than personal opinion.
There are psychological (neurophysiological, actually) reasons for that. A
disclaimer could be added to specify that the statement is entirely
personal opinion, but by the time the disclaimer is added, the effect is
to imply that the reader should take the statement as fact anyway, perhaps
in validation of the speaker's expected universal veracity.
> Of course they are [biased]. They have made a decision.
The whole idea of Critical Thinking is to explain what bias is and
encourage decision-making that is not biased. For example, one can
"decide" that the terms I put asterisks around are indemonstrable with
fact and possibly more intended to influence the reader to be biased than
to represent particularly in-depth bits of thorough research.
> The statement that "none of us can take the time to learn everything to make
> deeply informed decisions" is a statement of absolute, 100% fact.
Actually, that is a false statement in many ways. Perhaps closer to the
truth is the concept that: "Those of us who *chose* to take the time to
learn *enough* to make deeply informed decisions may be rewarded with more
success and a better reputation for veracity than those who do not."
Of course, there is no such thing as "absolute, 100% fact" anyway,
particularly when one sentence (the original statement as a "loaded
remark") contains 6 imperfectly definable concepts [#...#] interrelated
by 7 absolute generalizations [i.e. exaggerations] not even logically
subject to verification [*...*].
> There is no exaggeration ... unless you can demonstrate that [the
> original statement] is indeed false, but that will be very tough.
1st, a statement does not have be false to be an exaggeration.
Exaggeration can be read as emotionally manipulative rather than important
for its content (e.g, sometimes it can make people laugh and sometimes it
actually stops the brain from thinking, etc.).
2nd, Critical Thinking disposes of the myth that any absolute statement
(e.g. "There is no God" or "There is a God"] is even worth proving or
capable of being proved, as well as dispensing with the idea that, because
an absolute statement dependent upon faith rather than fact cannot be
proved to be false, it must be true.
All we have to do to discount the original statement is demonstrate that
there is even one exception to each word in asterisks and show that each
word in lb.-signs (#) has the potential for multiple definitions.
> To know all of this is beyond my strength
We are talking about how to think, not what to think about, and how, when
and why to question or doubt, not how to organize complete proof. For
example, scientific theories are considered "working hypotheses" intended
to stimulate investigation, not to be written in stone. Critical Thinking
simply asks, for example, that political rhetoric be taken as "working
hypotheses" rather than absolute fact.
> I rely on the knowledge and ethics of acknowledged experts,
> because I have no choice.
The choices you have are to not be absolutely certain and to assume that
the experts have not learned everything. Critical Thinking is intended to
clarify whether statements are credible, not absolutely correct (or
false), or manipulative, rather than hypothetical.
> Saying that each person needs to take responsibility for their own
> "selection" using "critical thinking" could be construed as a
> dereliction of our jobs.
Our job can be to facilitate the growth of competence of patrons in
understanding how to interpret and use information and data, but it
certainly should not be as "experts" who imply that the patron need only
ask (rather than learn), or to be mere sign-posts perpetuating the image
of the librarian as indifferent and aloof from the real world.
> When someone does a search ... and gets ... millions of results ... then
> doing critical thinking for each resource is impossible.
The person faced with the problem is better-off doing Critical Thinking
about as many of the resources as they can than letting some "expert" tell
them which resources are most relevant. For one thing, that "expert"
librarian or polemicist [etc.] has not looked at all the resources and
probably (or certainly could) have prejudices. For another, those
resources represent numerous facets of the subject, including *how and
why* it might be misrepresented, which might well be more important to
learn that the facts themselves.
> That is also not an exaggeration.
Of course it is-- no one is going to try to evaluate every resource,
particularly a librarian. Critical Thinking simply explains how to do
logical analysis to the extent that it can be done and one wishes to do
it.
> The person looking at this is deciding what to do. Should they look at
> the top 5 critically?
At least, probably.
> What will they be missing?
Always something. The point is to make that understood without making it
frustrating, by explaining how to structure "working hypotheses" to be
practical rather than absolute.
> The problem is not theirs--it is ours since we should somehow be helping
> them.
We *may* "help" them with *their* problem, but we *must* not give the
impression that we are going to delineate the problem for them.
> And not by preaching but by doing.
Teaching how to interpret information is far from preaching. The
"original statement" we evaluated was an excellent example of "preaching",
in form and potential effect.
> ... the Google-type algorithms are effectively doing the selection, and
> that is quite frightening for society as a whole.
I completely agree. One way to mitigate the problem might be to explain
to library patrons how the algorithms work and why they are there
(without, of course, preaching about the evils of corporate
self-interest). IF the algorithms ARE "frightening for society", then a
dose of Critical Thinking methodology (not any expression of ideology)
will eventually lead to their demise in a cognitively competent society.
> ... there is just too much to know and to work with. This situation
> can be managed only in a cooperative way and I think libraries could be an
> important part of an innovative solution that could help everyone.
Agreed. Let's consider all the ways we can be helpful in explaining
information and data, especially since we live in a society functioning
full-tilt on manipulation.
What we have to be most concerned about is avoiding Critical Thinking. If
you observe any of the following behaviors consider whether the society is
being taught that they are more desirable than Critical Thinking [probably
by those who can behave no other way):
Gaining satisfaction through self-promoting and/or destructive
behavior;
Not experiencing shame, guilt, remorse, or empathy;
Rationalizing deconstructive behavior, blaming someone else, or denying
it outright;
Tactlessness, insensitivity, and contemptuousness;
Superficial charm, a willingness to say anything to anyone without
concern for accuracy or truth;
A tendency for genuine emotion to be short-lived, glib and egocentric,
with an overall cold demeanor;
Impulsiveness and irresponsibility;
A markedly distorted sense of the potential consequences of actions,
not only for others, but also for themselves;
A focus on negativity, divisiveness, and authoritarianism rather than
constructiveness and collaborative problem-solving.
The principle purpose, for societies, of early (or even adult)
instruction in Critical Thinking is to help people recognize and avoid
being negatively affected by the behaviors above and to (*possibly*)
prevent those behaviors from being expressed by offering alternative
thought-patterns.
Cheers!
jgm
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
jmarr_at_unm.edu
jmarr_at_flash.net
**There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
the box."
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
Received on Wed May 11 2011 - 20:14:55 EDT