CRITICAL THINKING Understanding The Principles And Processes Of Thinking Well Chapter 7 Thinking Critically About Illogical Thinking By Glenn Rogers, Ph.D. Copyright © 2013 Glenn Rogers

Thinking Critically About Illogical Thinking If critical thinking is logical thinking, then illogical thinking cannot be critical thinking. Illogical thinking takes many forms. In this chapter, I will highlight some of the more common forms of illogical thinking. Obviously, a good critical thinker will take note of them and work hard to eliminate them from her thought processes. She will also identify them when she encounters them in the thought patterns of others. Philosophical Skepticism In everyday life, a little bit of skepticism is a good thing. It is the opposite of naïveté and keeps us from being taken advantage of.

Thinking Critically About Illogical Thinking Philosophical Skepticism Philosophical skepticism is the idea that objective truth does not exist. Or, if it does, the human mind is not capable of grasping it, so for all practical purposes it does not exist. It is a silly idea that is easily demonstrated false. However, over the centuries, many otherwise capable people have embraced the idea that objective truth does not exist. Perhaps the first group of people to embrace philosophical skepticism were the Sophists of ancient Greece. One of the most famous Sophists, Protagoras, is credited for the saying, Of all things, man is the measure, suggesting that there is no absolute right or wrong, no objective truth, other than what humans consider right and wrong.

Thinking Critically About Illogical Thinking Philosophical Skepticism Since the 1970s, a form of philosophical skepticism has gained limited acceptance in some facets of postmodern philosophy. Many people born after the mid-1970s have been raised to believe and have bought into the idea that there is no objective truth, that everything is absolutely relative, or that in some areas (such as morality) there is no objective truth (no moral absolutes) and everything is relative. This, of course, is foolish and illogical. Mathematical truths are an example of objective truth. 2+2=4 is objectively true. It is not true if I want it to be, it is not true one time and not the next. In a base ten system, 2+2=4 all time, whether or not individuals recognize it as true. Gravity is another example. On platen earth, if you hold an object in your hand and then release it, it will fall. Every time. Gravity is an objective reality. Of course absolute truth exists.

Thinking Critically About Illogical Thinking Philosophical Skepticism It is illogical to claim that objective truth does not exist, because the claim that objective truth does not exist is an absolute claim. In claiming that objective truth does not exist, one is making a truth claim. She is claiming to know that which she cannot know if her claim is true. If there is not truth, then the truth that there is no truth cannot exist. Thus, her claim involves a logical contradiction and cannot, therefore, be true. One who denies the existence of objective truth cannot present a sound argument to that effect, because any argument to that effect will involve a logical contradiction. Of course objective truth exists. Good critical thinkers will steer clear of philosophical skepticism. Good critical thinkers will spend time and energy in the pursuit of truth.

Thinking Critically About Illogical Thinking Absolute Relativity In the previous section, I introduced Protagoras, an ancient Greek Sophist who embraced philosophical skepticism. He coined the phrase, Of all things, man is the measure, suggesting that the final authority of right and wrong, moral or immoral, good or bad, is humankind. For Protagoras and others who embrace absolute relativity, there is no rule or law above humanity. There are a few arguments in favor is absolute relativity. We will evaluate them. The argument from cultural diversity is that, because there is moral diversity (for example, in one place bribery is acceptable, in another place it is not), it is obvious that there is no single universal moral standard to which all people are accountable. The moral diversity that we see in the world requires that we see our own moral system as merely one system among many. Is this a sound argument?

Thinking Critically About Illogical Thinking Absolute Relativity Just because cultures do not observe the moral standards of a universal moral code does not mean that a universal moral code does not exist. For instance, people who practice infanticide may not consider infanticide to be murder and therefore immoral. They may consider the murder an adult to be immoral but not consider killing an infant to be murder and, therefore, immoral. Or it may be that they simply do not care that it is immoral. People often do that which is immoral, knowing full well that it is immoral, but not caring that it is. To argue that since not all cultures observe a universal moral code it is obvious that no universal moral code exists is like arguing that since people do not observe the speed limit it is obvious that there is no speed limit. The argument does not stand; it is not sound.

Thinking Critically About Illogical Thinking Absolute Relativity The second argument designed to support absolute cultural relativity is often referred to as the untenability of moral objectivism. The phrase moral objectivism refers to a moral code that is objective (and therefore universal) rather than one that is subjective (relative) and therefore not universal. This argument is really just an extension of the cultural diversity argument. Specifically, the argument is that the idea of a universal moral code is untenable—there simply can’t be a universal moral code. Why not? Because, the argument goes, cultural relativism exists. Since cultural relativism exists, there can’t be a universal moral code.

Thinking Critically About Illogical Thinking Absolute Relativity Also, the argument assumes that it has been demonstrated that a universal moral code does not and cannot exist because there is no God who could give one. No God, therefore no universal moral code. Stated succinctly, the two-part argument can be put like this: since God does not exist to give a universal moral code and since cultural diversity exists, moral relativity exists. Is this argument sound? First, while some believe that God does not exist it has not been demonstrated that God does not exist. In fact, there is only one positive argument against the existence of God, the problem of evil, and that argument is easily answered. Other arguments against the existence of God are merely assertions that there is no evidence that God exists. This assertion is incorrect. Many positive arguments can be made for the existence of God. Belief that God does not exist is an arbitrary assumption that is embraced in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

Thinking Critically About Illogical Thinking Absolute Relativity Second, even if there is no God it is not the case that there cannot, therefore, be a universal moral code. There could be a universal moral code based on the intrinsic value of humanness. Whether or not all cultures recognize all features of the moral code is irrelevant. The code can exist whether or not people are aware of or acknowledge its existence. The aspect of the argument that rests on the presence of cultural diversity has already been addressed. The argument, therefore, is not sound. It has not demonstrated that a universal moral code is untenable. The claim that a universal moral code is untenable is based on assumptions that have not been proven. Thus, the argument is not sound.

Thinking Critically About Illogical Thinking Absolute Relativity The third argument in favor of absolute moral relativism is that acknowledging that morality is relative promotes tolerance. This argument merely assumes that morality is relative and then says that it being relative is a good thing because it promotes tolerance. However, we have seen that the first two arguments are unsound. Neither proves the case for moral relativity. Therefore once cannot simply assume moral relativity and then say it is a good thing. There is no argument here. There is only assumption and assertion.

Thinking Critically About Illogical Thinking Absolute Relativity The assertion that moral relativity is good because it promotes tolerance—of moral systems other than our own—appears to be based on the assumption that all moral codes ought to be tolerated. Is that a good assumption? Certainly not. Why would a moral code that allows for infanticide, or genocide, or ethnocide, or rape, or torturing children, or Satee, or some other such atrocity be something that ought to be tolerated? Arguments in favor of absolute relativity are unsound. Good critical thinkers will be able to analyze the arguments and see that they fail. And because they do, embracing absolute relativity is logical.

Thinking Critically About Illogical Thinking Evasive Agnosticism To be agnostic about a given subject is to claim that there is insufficient evidence for one to have knowledge about a particular subject. Therefore, one must take an agnostic position. The ancient Greek word for knowledge is gnosis. The ancient Greek symbol a- signified without. Thus a-gnosis meant without knowledge. This came into English as agnostic. The word is normally used in the context of one who says there is insufficient evidence to know whether or not God exists. It can, however, be used in other contexts. Sometimes there really is insufficient evidence for one to know, to claim knowledge, of this or that thing.

Thinking Critically About Illogical Thinking Evasive Agnosticism However, occasionally one will encounter someone who will argue that sufficient evidence does not exists when it does. When this happens you are encountering evasive agnosticism. It is an attempt to avoid having to accept a fact by denying that sufficient information regarding that fact is available. It is an evasive tactic. Good critical thinkers will recognize it for what it is and identify it when it is encountered. Also, good critical thinkers will certainly not engaged in such evasive tactics.

Thinking Critically About Illogical Thinking Cynicism and Naïve Optimism A good critical thinker avoids extremes. Cynicism on the one hand and naïve optimism on the other are extremes that critical thinkers will avoid. Cynicism is “an attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others.” Many people are cynical, distrustful of others. Usually, people who are cynical have had some very painful experiences, having been disappointed by people they trusted, probably more than once. So they became cynical, not trusting anyone. They usually have a pretty negative attitude toward life in general.

Thinking Critically About Illogical Thinking Cynicism and Naïve Optimism The opposite extreme is naïve optimism. A naïve person is one who is innocent and inexperienced, one who lacks the ability to engage in critical analysis, one who views life from an overly optimistic perspective, expecting that things will always turn out well, and who always seems surprised when they do not. One who engages in naïve optimism is one who doesn’t see the potential for failure or danger, one who thinks that things will always turn out well. Neither extreme reflects the way life really is. Good critical thinkers will avoid both extremes.

Thinking Critically About Illogical Thinking Close-mindedness and Non-critical Broad-mindedness Some people are closed to just about everything and others are open to just about everything. These are two more extremes critical thinkers need to avoid. The close-minded person accepts only what she already believes to be true and refuses to consider other possibilities. Close-minded people are hard to be around. Close-mindedness is the enemy of intellectual enlightenment. The close-minded person operates is a self-limiting paradigm that blocks out new ideas and/or other perspectives. Close-mindedness and critical thinking are mutually exclusive. The close- minded person cannot engage in critical analysis.

Thinking Critically About Illogical Thinking Close-mindedness and Non-critical Broad-mindedness The opposite extreme, non-critical broad-mindedness, is an attitude that allows for the acceptance of just about anything. It is an anything goes attitude. Can anything and everything people come up with be acceptable? The atrocities committed throughout history would suggest that the answer is, no. To embrace any new idea or activity simply because it is something new that someone came up with is illogical. To close oneself off to new ideas (and often they are new only to the close-minded person) is also illogical. Both extremes, saying no to everything or saying yes to everything, are illogical. The critical thinker must avoid either of these extremes, analyzing each encounter (of an idea, a fact, or a behavior) on its own merit, independent of all others.

Thinking Critically About Illogical Thinking Summary The critical thinker will be careful to avoid forms of illogical thinking. Some of these include: Philosophical skepticism Absolute relativity Evasive agnosticism Cynicism and naïve optimism Close-mindedness and non-critical broad-mindedness Good critical thinkers will avoid these forms of illogical thinking and will expose them whenever they encounter them.