Discussion3

asalama

Beyond_Feelings_A_Guide_to_Critical_Thin.pdf

Home >English homework help >Discussion3

Beyond Feelings A Guide to Critical Thinking

N I N T H E D I T I O N

Vincent Ryan Ruggiero Professor Emeritus of Humanities

State University of New York, Delhi

rug38189_FM_i-xii.qxd 1/3/11 4:32 PM Page i

BEYOND FEELINGS: A GUIDE TO CRITICAL THINKING, NINTH EDITION

Published by McGraw-Hill, a business unit of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.,

publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a

database or retrieval system, without the prior written consent of The McGraw-Hill Companies,

Inc., including, but not limited to, in any network or other electronic storage or transmission, or

broadcast for distance learning.

Some ancillaries, including electronic and print components, may not be available to customers

outside the United States.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 DOC/DOC 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ISBN: 978-0-07-803818-1

MHID: 0-07-803818-9

Vice President & Editor-in-Chief: Michael Ryan Vice President EDP/Central Publishing Services: Kimberly Meriwether David Editorial Director: Beth Mejia Senior Managing Editor: Meghan Campbell Executive Marketing Manager: Pamela S. Cooper Senior Project Manager: Joyce Watters Buyer: Nicole Baumgartner Design Coordinator: Margarite Reynolds Media Project Manager: Sridevi Palani Compositor: Glyph International Typeface: 10/13 Palatino Printer: R. R. Donnelley

All credits appearing on page or at the end of the book are considered to be an extension of the

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Ruggiero, Vincent Ryan.

Beyond feelings: a guide to critical thinking / Vincent Ryan

Ruggiero. —9th ed. p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-07-803818-1 (alk. paper)

1. Critical thinking. I. Title.

BF441.R85 2011

153.4’2—dc22

2010042000

www.mhhe.com

rug38189_FM_i-xii.qxd 1/3/11 4:32 PM Page ii

To the memory of Howard Trumble, whose quiet practice of the skills

detailed in this book was an inspiration to me, to his family, and to all who knew him.

rug38189_FM_i-xii.qxd 1/3/11 4:32 PM Page iii

rug38189_FM_i-xii.qxd 1/3/11 4:32 PM Page iv

Contents

Preface ix

Introduction 1

PA R T O N E The Context 3

Chapter 1 Who Are You? 4

The Influence of Time and Place 4

The Influence of Ideas 6

The Influence of Mass Culture 7

The “Science” of Manipulation 9

The Influence of Psychology 11

Becoming an Individual 13

Chapter 2 What Is Critical Thinking? 16

Mind, Brain, or Both? 17

Critical Thinking Defined 18

Characteristics of Critical Thinkers 20

The Role of Intuition 22

Basic Activities in Critical Thinking 24

Critical Thinking and Writing 24

Critical Thinking and Discussion 25

Avoiding Plagiarism 27

Chapter 3 What Is Truth? 32

Where Does It All Begin? 33

Imperfect Perception 34

rug38189_FM_i-xii.qxd 1/3/11 4:32 PM Page v

vi CONTENTS

Imperfect Memory 35

Deficient Information 35

Even the Wisest Can Err 36

Truth Is Discovered, Not Created 37

Understanding Cause and Effect 38

Chapter 4 What Does It Mean to Know? 47

Requirements of Knowing 47

Testing Your Own Knowledge 48

How We Come to Know 50

Why Knowing Is Difficult 51

A Cautionary Tale 53

Is Faith a Form of Knowledge? 54

Obstacles to Knowledge 55

Chapter 5 How Good Are Your Opinions? 59

Opinions Can Be Mistaken 61

Opinions on Moral Issues 61

Even Experts Can Be Wrong 63

Kinds of Errors 65

Informed Versus Uninformed Opinion 65

Forming Opinions Responsibly 67

Chapter 6 What Is Evidence? 72

Kinds of Evidence 73

Evaluating Evidence 79

What Constitutes Sufficient Evidence? 80

Chapter 7 What Is Argument? 83

The Parts of an Argument 84

Evaluating Arguments 85

More Difficult Arguments 87

PART TWO The Pitfalls 93

Chapter 8 The Basic Problem: “Mine Is Better” 94

Egocentric People 95

Ethnocentric People 96

Controlling “Mine-Is-Better” Thinking 97

Chapter 9 Errors of Perspective 102

Poverty of Aspect 102

rug38189_FM_i-xii.qxd 1/3/11 4:32 PM Page vi

viiCONTENTS

Unwarranted Assumptions 104

The Either/Or Outlook 106

Mindless Conformity 107

Absolutism 108

Relativism 108

Bias for or Against Change 109

Chapter 10 Errors of Procedure 115

Biased Consideration of Evidence 115

Double Standard 117

Hasty Conclusion 117

Overgeneralization and Stereotyping 118

Oversimplification 120

The Post Hoc Fallacy 121

Chapter 11 Errors of Expression 126

Contradiction 126

Arguing in a Circle 127

Meaningless Statement 128

Mistaken Authority 129

False Analogy 129

Irrational Appeal 130

Chapter 12 Errors of Reaction 135

Automatic Rejection 137

Changing the Subject 138

Shifting the Burden of Proof 139

Straw Man 139

Attacking the Critic 140

Chapter 13 The Errors in Combination 144

Errors of Perspective 144

Errors of Procedure 146

Errors of Expression 147

Errors of Reaction 149

Sample Combinations of Errors 150

A Sensible View of Terminology 152

PART THREE A Strategy 157

Chapter 14 Knowing Yourself 158

Critical Thinking Inventory 159

rug38189_FM_i-xii.qxd 1/3/11 4:32 PM Page vii

viii CONTENTS

Using Your Inventory 160

Challenge and Reward 161

Chapter 15 Being Observant 164

Observing People 164

Observation in Science and Medicine 165

The Range of Application 166

Becoming More Observant 168

Reflecting on Your Observations 168

Chapter 16 Selecting an Issue 171

The Basic Rule: Less Is More 171

How to Limit an Issue 172

Sample Issue: Pornography 172

Sample Issue: Boxing 174

Sample Issue: Juvenile Crime 174

Narrowing the Issue Further 176

Chapter 17 Conducting Inquiry 178

Working with Inconclusive Results 178

Where to Look for Information 179

Keeping Focused 187

How Much Inquiry Is Enough? 187

Managing Lengthy Material 190

Chapter 18 Forming a Judgment 192

Evaluating Evidence 193

Evaluating Your Sources’ Arguments 194

Making Important Distinctions 198

Expressing Judgments 199

Chapter 19 Persuading Others 206

Guidelines for Persuasion 206

An Unpersuasive Presentation 215

A Persuasive Presentation 217

Notes 224

Index 233

rug38189_FM_i-xii.qxd 1/3/11 4:32 PM Page viii

Preface

When the first edition of this book appeared in 1975, the dominant intel-

lectual focus was still subjectivity, feelings. That focus, the legacy of the 1960s, was originally a necessary reaction to the rationalism and behav-

iorism that preceded it. It declared, in effect: “People are not robots. They

are more than the sum total of their physiology. They have hopes,

dreams, emotions. No two humans are alike—each has a special perspec-

tive, a unique way of perceiving the world. And any view of humanity

that ignores this subjective side is a distortion.”

Yet, despite its value, the focus on feelings went too far. Like many

other movements, what began as a reaction against an extreme view

became an extreme view itself. The result of that extremism was the neg-

lect of thinking. This book was designed to answer that neglect. The

introduction to the first edition explained its rationale as follows:

The emphasis on subjectivity served to correct a dangerous oversimplifi-

cation. But it is the kind of reaction that cannot be sustained for long

without causing an even worse situation—the neglect of thinking. Worse

for two reasons. First, because we live in an age of manipulation. Armies

of hucksters and demagogues stand ready with the rich resources of psy-

chology to play upon our emotions and subconscious needs to persuade

us that superficial is profound, harmful is beneficial, evil is virtuous. And

feelings are especially vulnerable to such manipulation.

Secondly, because in virtually every important area of modern life—

law, medicine, government, education, science, business, and community

affairs—we are beset with serious problems and complex issues that

demand careful gathering and weighing of facts and informed opinions,

thoughtful consideration of various conclusions or actions, and judi-

cious selection of the best conclusion or most appropriate action. . . .

[Today’s college student] has been conditioned not to undervalue

subjectivity, but to overvalue it. And so he does not need to have his feel-

ings indulged. Rather, he needs to be taught how to sort out his feelings,

decide to what extent they have been shaped by external influences, and

rug38189_FM_i-xii.qxd 1/3/11 4:32 PM Page ix

x PRFACE

evaluate them carefully when they conflict among themselves or with

the feelings of others. In short, he needs to be taught to think critically.*

There is an unfortunate tendency among many to view feeling and

thought as mutually exclusive, to force a choice between them. If we

focus on one, then in their view we must reject the other. But this is mis-

taken. Feeling and thought are perfectly complementary. Feeling, being

more spontaneous, is an excellent beginning to the development of con-

clusions. And thought, being more deliberate, provides a way to identify

the best and most appropriate feeling. Both are natural.

Thinking, however, is less automatic than feeling. To do it well

demands a systematic approach and guided practice.

The general attitude toward thinking has changed considerably since

the mid-1970s. The view that critical thinking is an important skill to

which education should give prominence is no longer a minority view.

Hundreds of voices have joined the chorus calling for the addition of crit-

ical thinking objectives to existing courses and even the creation of spe-

cial courses in thinking. There is little disagreement that the challenges of

the new millennium demand minds that can move beyond feelings to

clear, impartial, critical problem solving and decision making.

Features of This Edition

This edition of Beyond Feelings retains the basic organization of previous editions. The first section explains the psychological, philosophical, and

social context in which critical thinking takes place and describes the

habits and attitudes that enhance such thinking. The second section helps

students recognize and overcome common errors in thinking. The third

section provides a step-by-step strategy for dealing with issues.

Within the overall design, however, I have made a number of

changes, most in response to the helpful suggestions of reviewers.

• In Chapter 1, a new section—“The Influence of Ideas”—has been added.

• In Chapter 3, a new section—“Understanding Cause and Effect”— has been added.

• In Chapter 15, new examples of the value of observation have been added.

• In Chapter 17, the subsection “Evaluate your information sources” has been expanded.

• A number of new “Difference of Opinion” exercises have been added.

*In 1975, “he” was still accepted as a reference to both sexes.

rug38189_FM_i-xii.qxd 1/3/11 4:32 PM Page x

xiPREFACE

As in the past, I have attempted to follow George Orwell’s sage

advice: “Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if

you can think of an everyday English equivalent.” This is not always

easy. When logicians are taught terms such as argumentum ad hominem, non sequitur, and “affirming the consequent,” they naturally want to use them. Arguments for doing so urge themselves upon us: for example,

“These are the most precise terms. Don’t join the ranks of the coddlers

and deprive students of them.” In weak moments I succumb to this

appeal. (Until the previous edition, for example, I included the term

enthymeme. Mea culpa . . . there I go again.) But is the precision of such terms the real reason for my wanting to use them? Is it not possible that

we professors enjoy parading our knowledge or that we are reluctant to

spare our students the struggle we were forced to undergo (“We suffered,

so they should too”)? It seems to me that modern culture already pro-

vides too many impediments to critical thinking for us to add more.

Is it possible to carry this plain language commitment too far? Yes,

and some will think I have done so in avoiding the term inferences and speaking instead of conclusions. But I respectfully disagree. Lexicog-

raphers point out that the distinction between these terms is extremely

subtle, so it seems more reasonable not to devote time to it. Also, I avoid

using the term values whenever possible for a somewhat different reason. The word value is so associated with relativism that its use in this context can undermine the crucial idea that arguments differ in quality. For many

students, the word value triggers the thought, “Everyone has a right to his or her values; mine are right for me, and though they may need ‘clarifi-

cation’ from time to time, they are never to be questioned.” This thought

impedes critical thinking.

Acknowledgments

I wish to express my appreciation to all those who contributed to the

preparation of this edition. Special thanks to those who reviewed the

manuscript:

Anna Villegas, San Joaquin Delta College; Aimee Bissonette, Inver Hills Community College; James Kruser, Alfred State College; Sue Crowson, Del Mar College; Erin Murphy, University of Kentucky; Adrian Patten, University of Cincinnati; Dedaimia Storrs Whitney, Franklin College; Lisa Weisman-Davlantes, California State–Fullerton; Geoffrey Phillip Bellah, Orange Coast College; Karen Hoffman, Hood College;

rug38189_FM_i-xii.qxd 1/3/11 4:32 PM Page xi

xii

Aimee Ross-Kilroy, Loyola Marymount University; Deanna Davis, College of the Canyons

I am also grateful to John Augustine, Delta College; Lori Ebert,

International Institute of the Americas; John Garcia, Cerro Coso

Community College; Michael Small, Shasta College; Joel Brouwer,

Montcalm Community College; Cynthia Gobatie, Riverside Community

College; Anne Benvennti, Cerro Coso College; Fred Heifner Jr., Cumberland

University; and Phyllis Toy, University of Southern Indiana.

PRFACE

rug38189_FM_i-xii.qxd 1/3/11 4:32 PM Page xii

Introduction

Beyond Feelings is designed to introduce you to the subject of critical thinking. The subject may be new to you because it has not been empha-

sized in most elementary and secondary schools. In fact, until fairly

recently, most colleges gave it little attention. For the past four decades,

the dominant emphasis has been on subjectivity rather than objectivity,

on feeling rather than on thought.

Over the past several decades, however, a number of studies of

America’s schools have criticized the neglect of critical thinking, and a

growing number of educators and leaders in business, industry, and the

professions have urged the development of new courses and teaching

materials to overcome that neglect.

It is no exaggeration to say that critical thinking is one of the most

important subjects you will study in college regardless of your academic

major. The quality of your schoolwork, your efforts in your career, your

contributions to community life, your conduct of personal affairs—all

will depend on your ability to solve problems and make decisions.

The book has three main sections. The first, “The Context,” will help

you understand such important concepts as individuality, critical thinking, truth, knowledge, opinion, evidence, and argument and overcome attitudes and ideas that obstruct critical thinking. The second section, “The

Pitfalls,” will teach you to recognize and avoid the most common errors

in thinking. The third section, “A Strategy,” will help you acquire the var-

ious skills used in addressing problems and issues. This section includes

tips on identifying and overcoming your personal intellectual weak-

nesses as well as techniques for becoming more observant, clarifying

issues, conducting inquiries, evaluating evidence, analyzing other peo-

ple’s views, and making sound judgments.

At the end of each chapter, you will find a number of applications to

challenge your critical thinking and help you exercise your skills. These

rug38189_Intro_001-002.qxd 1/3/11 4:31 PM Page 1

2 INTRODUCTION

applications cover problems and issues both timely and timeless. The

final application in each of the first thirteen chapters invites you to exam-

ine an especially important issue about which informed opinion is

divided.

Students sometimes get the idea that a textbook must be read page by

page and that reading ahead violates some unwritten rule. This notion is

mistaken. Students’ background knowledge varies widely; what one stu-

dent knows very well, another knows only vaguely and a third is totally

unfamiliar with. Any time you need or want to look ahead to an explana-

tion in a later chapter, by all means do so. Let’s say you make a statement

and a friend says, “That’s relativism, pure and simple.” If you aren’t sure

exactly what she means, go to the index, look up “relativism,” proceed to

the appropriate page, and find out.

Looking ahead is especially prudent in the case of concepts and pro-

cedures relevant to the end-of-chapter applications. One such concept is

plagiarism. If you are not completely clear on what constitutes plagia-

rism, why it is unacceptable, and how to avoid it, take a few minutes

right now to learn. Look for the section “Avoiding Plagiarism” toward

the end of the Chapter 2. Similarly, if you are not as skilled as you would

like to be doing library or Internet research, it would be a good idea to

read Chapter 17 now. Doing so could save you a great deal of time and

effort completing homework assignments.

rug38189_Intro_001-002.qxd 1/3/11 4:31 PM Page 2

P A R T O N E

The Context

Anyone who wishes to master an activity must first understand its

tools and rules. This is as true of critical thinking as it is of golf, carpen-

try, flying a plane, or brain surgery. In critical thinking, however, the

tools are not material objects but concepts, and the rules govern

mental rather than physical performance.

This first section explores seven important concepts—individuality,

critical thinking, truth, knowledge, opinion, evidence, and argument—

with a chapter devoted to each. Most of these concepts are so familiar

that you may be inclined to wonder whether there is any point to ex-

amining them. The answer is yes, for three reasons. First, much of what

is commonly believed about these concepts is mistaken. Second, who

ever examines them carefully is always rewarded with fresh insights.

Third, the more thorough your knowledge of these concepts, the more

proficient you will be in your thinking.

rug38189_ch01_003-015.qxd 1/3/11 4:33 PM Page 3

C H A P T E R 1

Who Are You?

Suppose someone asked, “Who are you?” It would be simple enough to

respond with your name. But if the person wanted to know the entire

story about who you are, the question would be more difficult to answer.

You’d obviously have to give the details of your height, age, and weight.

You’d also have to include all your sentiments and preferences, even the

secret ones you’ve never shared with anyone—your affection for your

loved ones; your desire to please the people you associate with; your

dislike of your older sister’s husband; your allegiance to your favorite

beverage, brand of clothing, and music.

Your attitudes couldn’t be overlooked either—your impatience when

an issue gets complex, your aversion to certain courses, your fear of high

places and dogs and speaking in public. The list would go on. To be com-

plete, it would have to include all your characteristics—not only the

physical but also the emotional and intellectual.

To provide all that information would be quite a chore. But suppose

the questioner was still curious and asked, “How did you get the way

you are?” If your patience were not yet exhausted, chances are you’d an-

swer something like this: “I’m this way because I choose to be, because

I’ve considered other sentiments and preferences and attitudes and have

made my selections. The ones I have chosen fit my style and personality

best.” That answer is natural enough, and in part it’s true. But in a larger

sense, it’s not true. The impact of the world on all of us is much greater

than most of us realize.

The Influence of Time and Place

Not only are you a member of a particular species, Homo sapiens, but you also exist at a particular time in the history of that species and in a

particular place on the planet. That time and place are defined by

rug38189_ch01_003-015.qxd 1/3/11 4:33 PM Page 4

5CHAPTER 1 Who Are You?

specific circumstances, understandings, beliefs, and customs, all of which

limit your experience and influence your thought patterns. If you had

lived in America in colonial times, you likely would have had no objec-

tion to the practice of barring women from serving on a jury, entering

into a legal contract, owning property, or voting. If you had lived in the

nineteenth century, you would have had no objection to young children

being denied an education and being hired out by their parents to work

sixteen hours a day, nor would you have given any thought to the spe-

cial needs of adolescence. (The concept of adolescence was not invented

until 1904.)1

If you had been raised in the Middle East, you would stand much

closer to people you converse with than you do in America. If you had

been raised in India, you might be perfectly comfortable having your par-

ents choose your spouse for you. If your native language were Spanish

and your knowledge of English modest, you probably would be confused

by some English colloquialisms. James Henslin offers two amusing exam-

ples of such confusion: Chevrolet Novas initially sold very poorly in

Mexico because no va in Spanish means “it doesn’t work”; and Perdue chickens were regarded with a certain suspicion (or worse) because the

company’s slogan—”It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken”—

became in Spanish “It takes an aroused man to make a chicken

affectionate.”2

People who grow up in Europe, Asia, or South America have very

different ideas of punctuality. As Daniel Goleman explains, “Five min-

utes is late but permissible for a business appointment in the U.S., but

thirty minutes is normal in Arab countries. In England five to fifteen

minutes is the ‘correct’ lateness for one invited to dinner; an Italian

might come two hours late, an Ethiopian still later, a Javanese not at all,

having accepted only to prevent his host’s losing face.”3 A different ethnic

origin would also mean different tastes in food. Instead of craving a

New York Strip steak and french fries, you might crave “raw monkey

brains” or “camel’s milk cheese patties cured in dry camel’s dung” and

washed down with “warm camel’s blood.”4 Sociologist Ian Robertson

summed up the range of global dietary differences succinctly:

“Americans eat oysters but not snails. The French eat snails but not lo-

custs. The Zulus eat locusts but not fish. The Jews eat fish but not pork.

The Hindus eat pork but not beef. The Russians eat beef but not snakes.

The Chinese eat snakes but not people. The Jalé of New Guinea find

people delicious.”5 [Note: The reference to Hindus is mistaken.]

To sum up, living in a different age or culture would make you a dif-

ferent person. Even if you rebelled against the values of your time and

place, they still would represent the context of your life—in other words,

they still would influence your responses.

rug38189_ch01_003-015.qxd 1/3/11 4:33 PM Page 5

6 PART ONE The Context

The Influence of Ideas6

When one idea is expressed, closely related ideas are simultaneously

conveyed, logically and inescapably.7 In logic, this kinship is expressed by the term sequitur, Latin for “it follows.” (The converse is non sequitur, “it does not follow.”)8

Consider, for example, the idea that many teachers and parents express

to young children as a way of encouraging them: “If you believe in your-

self, you can succeed at anything.” From this it follows that nothing else but belief—neither talent nor hard work—is necessary for success. The

reason the two ideas are equivalent is that their meanings are inseparably

linked.*

In addition to conveying ideas closely linked to it in meaning, an idea

can imply other ideas. For example, the idea that there is no real difference between virtue and vice implies that people should not feel bound by

common moral standards. Samuel Johnson had this implication in mind

when he said: “But if he does really think that there is no distinction

between virtue and vice, why, Sir, when he leaves our houses let us count

our spoons.”

If we were fully aware of the closely linked meanings and implica-

tions of the ideas we encounter, we could easily sort out the sound ones

from the unsound, the wise from the foolish, and the helpful from the

harmful. But we are seldom fully aware. In many cases, we take ideas at

face value and embrace them with little or no thought of their associ-

ated meanings and implications. In the course of time, our actions are

shaped by those meanings and implications, whether we are aware of

them or not.

To appreciate the influence of ideas in people’s lives, consider the se-

ries of events set in motion by an idea that was popular in psychology more

than a century ago and whose influence continues to this day—the idea

that “intelligence is genetically determined and cannot be increased.”

That idea led researchers to devise tests that measure intelligence. The most

famous (badly flawed) test determined that the average mental age of white

American adults was 13 and that, among immigrants, the average Russian’s

mental age was 11.34; the average Italian’s, 11.01; the average Pole’s, 10.74;

and the average mental age of “Negroes,” 10.41.

Educators read the text results and thought, “Attempts to raise students’ in-

telligence are pointless,” so they replaced academic curricula with voca-

tional curricula and embraced a methodology that taught students facts but

not the process of judgment.

*The statement “Belief in oneself is an important element in success” is very different be-

cause it specifies that belief is not the only element in success.

rug38189_ch01_003-015.qxd 1/3/11 4:33 PM Page 6

7CHAPTER 1 Who Are You?

Legislators read the test results and decided “We’ve got to do something to

keep intellectually inferior people from entering the country,” so they revised

immigration laws to discriminate against southern and central Europeans.

Eugenicists, who had long been concerned about the welfare of the human

species, saw the tests as a grave warning. They thought, “If intelligence cannot

be increased, we must find ways of encouraging reproduction among people

of higher intelligence and discouraging it among those of lower intelligence.”

The eugenicists’ concern inspired a variety of actions. Margaret Sanger’s

Planned Parenthood urged the lower classes to practice contraception.

Others succeeded in legalizing promoted forced sterilization, notably in

Virginia. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Virginia law with Justice

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declaring, “Three generations of imbeciles are

enough.”9 Over the next five decades 7,500 women, including “unwed

mothers, prostitutes, petty criminals and children with disciplinary prob-

lems” were sterilized.10 In addition, by 1950 over 150,000 supposedly “defec-

tive” children, many relatively normal, were held against their will in

institutions. They “endured isolation, overcrowding, forced labor, and phys-

ical abuse including lobotomy, electroshock, and surgical sterilization.”11

Meanwhile, business leaders read the test results and decided, “We need policies to ensure that workers leave their minds at the factory gate and perform their assigned tasks mindlessly.” So they enacted those policies. Decades later, when Edwards Deming proposed his “quality control” ideas for involving workers in decision

making, business leaders remembered those test results and ignored Deming’s

advice. (In contrast, the Japanese welcomed Deming’s ideas; as a result, several

of their industries surged ahead of their American competition.)

These are the most obvious effects of hereditarianism but they are

certainly not the only ones. Others include discrimination against racial

and ethnic minorities and the often-paternalistic policies of government

offered in response. (Some historians also link hereditarianism to the

genocide that occurred in Nazi Germany.)

The innumerable ideas you have encountered will affect your beliefs and

behavior in similar ways––sometimes slightly, at other times profoundly.

And this can happen even if you have not consciously embraced the ideas.

The Influence of Mass Culture

In centuries past, family and teachers were the dominant, and sometimes

the only, influence on children. Today, however, the influence exerted by

mass culture (the broadcast media, newspapers, magazines, Internet and

popular music) often is greater.

By age 18 the average teenager has spent 11,000 hours in the classroom

and 22,000 hours in front of the television set. He or she has had perhaps

13,000 school lessons yet has watched more than 750,000 commercials. By

age thirty-five the same person has had fewer than 20,000 school lessons

yet has watched approximately 45,000 hours of television and close to

2 million commercials.

rug38189_ch01_003-015.qxd 1/3/11 4:33 PM Page 7

8 PART ONE The Context

What effects does mass culture have on us? To answer, we need only

consider the formats and devices commonly used in the media. Modern

advertising typically bombards the public with slogans and testimonials

by celebrities. This approach is designed to appeal to emotions and create

artificial needs for products and services. As a result, many people de-

velop the habit of responding emotionally, impulsively, and gullibly to

such appeals. They also tend to acquire values very different from those

taught in the home and the school. Ads often portray play as more fulfill-

ing than work, self-gratification as more desirable than self-control, and

materialism as more meaningful than idealism.

Television programmers use frequent scene shifts and sensory

appeals such as car crashes, violence, and sexual encounters to keep au-

dience interest from diminishing. Then they add frequent commercial

interruptions. This author has analyzed the attention shifts that television

viewers are subjected to. In a dramatic program, for example, attention

shifts might include camera angle changes;* shifts in story line from one

set of characters (or subplot) to another, or from a present scene to a past

scene (flashback), or to fantasy; and shifts to “newsbreaks,” to commercial

breaks, from one commercial to another, and back to the program. Also in-

cluded might be shifts of attention that occur within commercials. I found

as many as 78 shifts per hour, excluding the shifts within commercials.

The number of shifts within commercials ranged from 6 to 54 and aver-

aged approximately 17 per fifteen-second commercial. The total number

of attention shifts came out to over 800 per hour, or over 14 per minute.†

This manipulation has prevented many people from developing a

mature attention span. They expect the classroom and the workplace to

provide the same constant excitement they get from television. That, of

course, is an impossible demand, and when it isn’t met they call their

teachers boring and their work unfulfilling. Because such people seldom

have the patience to read books that require them to think, many publish-

ers have replaced serious books with light fare written by celebrities.

Even when writers of serious books do manage to become published

authors, they are often directed to give short, dramatic answers during

promotional interviews, sometimes at the expense of accuracy. A man

who coaches writers for talk shows offered one client this advice: “If I ask

you whether the budget deficit is a good thing or a bad thing, you should

not say, ‘Well, it stimulates the economy but it passes on a burden.’ You

*This is typically accomplished by using two or more cameras and switching from one cam-

era to another. †There are about eleven minutes of commercials per hour, the exact time varying by net-

work and program. Thus, at a rate of 4 per minute, the total number of commercials per

hour is 44. This calculates, therefore, to 78 shifts outside commercials plus 748 shifts

(17 shifts per commercial � 44 commercials per hour) within commercials for a total of 826.

rug38189_ch01_003-015.qxd 1/3/11 4:33 PM Page 8

9CHAPTER 1 Who Are You?

have to say ‘It’s a great idea!’ or ‘It’s a terrible idea!’ It doesn’t matter

which.”12 (Translation: ”Don’t give a balanced answer. Give an oversim- plified one because it will get you noticed.”)

Print journalism is also in the grip of sensationalism. As a newspaper

editor observed, “Journalists keep trying to find people who are at 1 or at

9 on a scale of 1 to 10 rather than people at 3 to 7 [the more moderate po-

sitions] where most people actually are.”13 Another journalist claims,

“News is now becoming more opinion than verified fact. Journalists are

slipping into entertainment rather than telling us the verified facts we

need to know.”14

Today’s politicians often manipulate people more offensively than do

journalists. Instead of expressing their thoughts, some politicians find out

what people think and pretend to share their ideas. Many politicians hire

people to conduct polls and focus groups to learn what messages will

“sell.” They even go so far as to test the impact of certain words—that is

why we hear so much about “trust,” “family,” “character,” and “values”

these days. Political science professor Larry Sabato says that during the

Clinton impeachment trial, the president’s advisors used the term private lives over and over—James Carville used it six times in one four-minute speech—because they knew it could persuade people into believing the

president’s lying under oath was of no great consequence.15

The “Science” of Manipulation

Attempts to influence the thoughts and actions of others are no doubt as

old as time, but manipulation did not become a science until the early

twentieth century, when Ivan Pavlov, a Russian professor of psychology,

published his research on conditioned (learned) reflexes. Pavlov found

that by ringing a bell when he fed a dog, he could condition the dog to

drool at the sound of the bell even when no food was presented. An

American psychologist, John Watson, was impressed with Pavlov’s find-

ings and applied them to human behavior. In Watson’s most famous ex-

periment, he let a baby touch a laboratory rat. At first, the baby was

unafraid. But then Watson hit a hammer against metal whenever the

baby reached out to touch the rat, and the baby became frightened and

cried. In time, the baby cried not only at the sight of the rat but also at the

sight of anything furry, such as a stuffed animal.* Watson’s work earned

him the title “father of behaviorism.”

Less well known is Watson’s application of behaviorist principles to

advertising. He spent the latter part of his career working for advertising

agencies and soon recognized that the most effective appeal to consumers

*Modern ethical norms would not allow a child to be used in such an experiment.

rug38189_ch01_003-015.qxd 1/3/11 4:33 PM Page 9

10 PART ONE The Context

was not to the mind but to the emotions. He advised advertisers to “tell

[the consumer] something that will tie him up with fear, something that

will stir up a mild rage, that will call out an affectionate or love response,

or strike at a deep psychological or habit need.” His attitude toward the

consumer is perhaps best indicated by a statement he made in a presenta-

tion to department store executives: “The consumer is to the manufac-

turer, the department stores and the advertising agencies, what the green

frog is to the physiologist.”16

Watson introduced these strategies in the 1920s and 1930s, the age of

newspapers and radio. Since the advent of television, these advertising

strategies have grown more sophisticated and effective, so much so that

many individuals and groups with political and social agendas have

adopted them. The strategies work for a number of reasons, the chief one

being people’s conviction that they are impervious to manipulation. This

belief is mistaken, as many researchers have demonstrated. For example,

Solomon Asch showed that people’s reactions can be altered simply by

changing the order of words in a series. He asked study participants to

evaluate a person by a series of adjectives. When he put positive adjectives

first—”intelligent, industrious, impulsive, critical, stubborn, envious”—

the participants gave a positive evaluation. When he reversed the order,

with “envious” coming first and “intelligent” last, they gave a negative

evaluation.17

Similarly, research has shown that human memory can be manipu-

lated. The way a question is asked can change the details in a person’s

memory and even make a person remember something that never happened!18

Of course, advertisers and people with political or social agendas are

not content to stimulate emotions and/or plant ideas in our minds. They

also seek to reinforce those impressions by repeating them again and

again. The more people hear a slogan or talking point, the more familiar it

becomes. Before long, it becomes indistinguishable from ideas developed

through careful thought. Sadly, “the packaging is often done so effec-

tively that the viewer, listener, or reader does not make up his own mind

at all. Instead, he inserts a packaged opinion into his mind, somewhat

like inserting a DVD into a DVD player. He then pushes a button and

‘plays back’ the opinion whenever it seems appropriate to do so. He has

performed acceptably without having had to think.”19 Many of the beliefs

we hold dearest and defend most vigorously may have been planted in

our minds in just this way.

Many years ago, Harry A. Overstreet noted that “a climate of opin-

ion, like a physical climate, is so pervasive a thing that those who live

within it and know no other take it for granted.”20 The rise of mass cul-

ture and the sophisticated use of manipulation have made this insight

more relevant today than ever.

rug38189_ch01_003-015.qxd 1/3/11 4:33 PM Page 10

11CHAPTER 1 Who Are You?

The Influence of Psychology

The social and psychological theories of our time also have an impact on

our beliefs. Before the past few decades, people were urged to be self-

disciplined, self-critical, and self-effacing. They were urged to practice self-

denial, to aspire to self-knowledge, to behave in a manner that ensured

they maintained self-respect. Self-centeredness was considered a vice.

“Hard work,” they were told, “leads to achievement, and that in turn pro-

duces satisfaction and self-confidence.” By and large, our grandparents

internalized those teachings. When they honored them in their behavior,

they felt proud; when they dishonored them, they felt ashamed.

Today the theories have been changed—indeed, almost exactly

reversed. Self-esteem, which nineteenth-century satirist Ambrose Bierce

defined as “an erroneous appraisement,” is now considered an impera-

tive. Self-centeredness has been transformed from vice into virtue, and

people who devote their lives to helping others, people once considered

heroic and saintlike, are now said to be afflicted with “a disease to please.”

The formula for success and happiness begins with feeling good about

ourselves. Students who do poorly in school, workers who don’t measure

up to the challenges of their jobs, substance abusers, lawbreakers—all are

typically diagnosed as deficient in self-esteem.

In addition, just as our grandparents internalized the social and psy-

chological theories of their time, so most contemporary Americans have

internalized the message of self-esteem. We hear people speak of it over

coffee; we hear it endlessly invoked on talk shows. Challenges to its pre-

cepts are usually met with disapproval.

But isn’t the theory of self-esteem self-evident? No. A negative

perception of our abilities will, of course, handicap our performance.

Dr. Maxwell Maltz explains the amazing results one educator had in

improving the grades of schoolchildren by changing their self-images.

The educator had observed that when the children saw themselves as

stupid in a particular subject (or stupid in general), they unconsciously

acted to confirm their self-images. They believed they were stupid, so

they acted that way. Reasoning that it was their defeatist attitude rather

than any lack of ability that was undermining their efforts, the educator

set out to change their self-images. He found that when he accomplished

that, they no longer behaved stupidly! Maltz concludes from this and other examples that our experiences can work a kind of self-hypnotism on us,

suggesting a conclusion about ourselves and then urging us to make it

come true.21

Many proponents of self-esteem went far beyond Maltz’s demonstra-

tion that self-confidence is an important ingredient in success. They

claimed that there is no such thing as too much self-esteem. Research

rug38189_ch01_003-015.qxd 1/3/11 4:33 PM Page 11

12 PART ONE The Context

does not support that claim. For example, Martin Seligman, an eminent

research psychologist and founder of the movement known as positive

psychology, cites significant evidence that, rather than solving personal and social problems, including depression, the modern emphasis on self-

esteem causes them.22

Maltz’s research documents that lack of confidence impedes per-

formance, a valuable insight. But such research doesn’t explain why the

more global concept of self-esteem has become so dominant. The answer

to that question lies in the popularization of the work of humanistic psy-

chologists such as Abraham Maslow. Maslow described what he called

the hierarchy of human needs in the form of a pyramid, with physiologi-

cal needs (food and drink) at the foundation. Above them, in ascending

order, are safety needs, the need for belongingness and love, the need for

esteem and approval, and aesthetic and cognitive needs (knowledge,

understanding, etc.). At the pinnacle is the need for self-actualization, or

fulfillment of our potential. In Maslow’s view, the lower needs must be

fulfilled before the higher ones. It’s easy to see how the idea that self-

esteem must precede achievement was derived from Maslow’s theory.

Other theories might have been adopted, however. A notable one is

Austrian psychiatrist Viktor Frankl’s, which was advanced at roughly the

same time as Maslow’s and was based on both Frankl’s professional prac-

tice and his experiences in Hitler’s concentration camps. Frankl argues that

one human need is higher than self-actualization: self-transcendence, the need to rise above narrow absorption with self. According to Frankl, “the

primordial anthropological fact [is] that being human is being always di-

rected, and pointing to something or someone other than oneself: to a

meaning to fulfill or another human being to encounter, a cause to serve or

a person to love.” A person becomes fully human “by forgetting himself

and giving himself, overlooking himself and focusing outward.”

Making self-actualization (or happiness) the direct object of our pur-

suit, in Frankl’s view, is ultimately self-defeating; such fulfillment can

occur only as “the unintended effect of self-transcendence.”23 The proper

perspective on life, Frankl believes, is not what it can give to us, but what it expects from us; life is daily—even hourly—questioning us, challenging us to accept “the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems

and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for [each of us].”24

Finding meaning, according to Frankl’s theory, involves “perceiving

a possibility embedded in reality” and searching for challenging tasks

“whose completion might add meaning to [one’s] existence.” But such per-

ceiving and searching are frustrated by the focus on self: “As long as mod-

ern literature confines itself to, and contents itself with, self-expression—not

to say self-exhibition—it reflects its authors’ sense of futility and absurdity.

What is more important, it also creates absurdity. This is understandable in

rug38189_ch01_003-015.qxd 1/3/11 4:33 PM Page 12

13CHAPTER 1 Who Are You?

light of the fact that meaning must be discovered, it cannot be invented.

Sense cannot be created, but what may well be created is nonsense.”25

Whether we agree completely with Frankl, one thing is clear:

Contemporary American culture would be markedly different if the em-

phasis over the past several decades had been on Frankl’s theory rather

than on the theories of Maslow and the other humanistic psychologists.

All of us would have been affected—we can only imagine how

profoundly—in our attitudes, values, and beliefs.

Becoming an Individual

In light of what we have discussed, we should regard individuality not as

something we are born with but rather as something acquired—or, more

precisely, earned. Individuality begins in the realization that it is impossi- ble to escape being influenced by other people and by circumstance. The

essence of individuality is vigilance. The following guidelines will help

you achieve this:

1. Treat your first reaction to any person, issue, or situation as tentative. No matter how appealing it may be, refuse to embrace it until you have examined it.

2. Decide why you reacted as you did. Consider whether you borrowed the reaction from someone else—a parent or friend, perhaps, or a celebrity or fictional character on television. If possible, determine what specific experiences conditioned you to react this way.

3. Think of other possible reactions you might have had to the person, issue, or situation.

4. Ask yourself whether one of the other reactions is more appropriate than your first reaction. And when you answer, resist the influence of your conditioning.

To ensure that you will really be an individual and not merely claim

to be one, apply these guidelines throughout your work in this book, as

well as in your everyday life.

Applications

Note: One of the best ways to develop your thinking (and writing) skills is to record your observations, questions, and ideas in a journal and then, as time permits, to reflect on what you have recorded—considering the meaning and application of the observations, answering the questions, elaborating on the ideas (and, where appropriate, challenging them), and recording your insights. An inexpensive bound notebook or spiral notebook will serve the purpose. A good approach is to record your initial observations, questions, and ideas on the left side of the page, leaving the right side blank for your later analysis and commentary. The value of this reflective process is so great that you should consider keeping such a journal even if your instructor does not make it a formal part of the course.

rug38189_ch01_003-015.qxd 1/3/11 4:33 PM Page 13

14 PART ONE The Context

1. Do a brief study of attention shifts such as the one described in the

chapter. Record a half-hour show. Then play the show back twice, the first time

counting the number of shifts within the program, excluding commercials, and

the second time counting only those within commercials. Complete the neces-

sary arithmetic and be prepared to share your results in class.

2. Reflect on your findings in application 1. Write several paragraphs

discussing the implications of those findings for education, business, and

family life.

3. Many people cheerfully pay $6 or $7 a gallon for designer drinking water

but moan and groan when they have to pay $3 a gallon for gasoline. Does any-

thing you read in this chapter help you understand why this is so?

4. Imagine how different America might be if Frankl’s emphasis on self-

transcendence and personal responsibility, rather than Maslow’s emphasis on

self-actualization and popular culture’s emphasis on self-esteem, had been domi-

nant for the past fifty years. List as many ways as you can in which our society

might be different today and comment on whether each would be beneficial or

harmful. Be prepared to explain your views in class discussion.

5. Watch one of the music video channels—MTV, VH1, CMT, BET— for

at least an hour. Analyze how men and women are depicted in the videos. Note

significant details. For example, observe whether men are depicted in power

roles more than women and whether women are portrayed as objects of male

desire. Decide what attitudes and values are conveyed. (You might want to

record as you are watching so that you can review what you have seen, freeze

significant frames for closer analysis, and keep your observations for later refer-

ence or class viewing and discussion.)

6. Suppose you asked a friend, “How did you acquire your particular

identity—your sentiments and preferences and attitudes?” Then suppose the

friend responded, “I’m an individual. No one else influences me. I do my own

thing, and I select the sentiments and preferences and attitudes that suit me.”

How would you explain to your friend what you learned in this chapter?

7. Ask yourself the question, Who am I? Write down ten answers to this

question, each on a separate slip of paper. Use the first three paragraphs of this

chapter to help you frame your answers. Arrange the pieces of paper in order of

their importance to you. Then explain the arrangement—that is, which self-

descriptions are most important to you, and why?

8. Identify the various positive and negative influences that have shaped

you. Be sure to include the particular as well as the general and the subtle as well

as the obvious influences. Which of those influences have had the greatest effect

on you? Explain the effects as precisely as you can.

9. Note your immediate reaction to each of the following statements. Then

apply the four guidelines given in this chapter for achieving individuality.

a. Health care workers should be required to be tested for HIV/AIDS.

b. Beauty contests and talent competitions for children should be banned.

c. Extremist groups like the Ku Klux Klan should be allowed to hold rallies

on public property or be issued permits to hold parades on city streets.

d. Freshman composition should be a required course for all students.

e. High school and college athletes should be tested for anabolic steroid use.

f. Creationism should be taught in high school biology classes.

rug38189_ch01_003-015.qxd 1/3/11 4:33 PM Page 14

15CHAPTER 1 Who Are You?

g. Polygamy should be legalized.

h. The voting age should be lowered to sixteen.

i. The prison system should give greater emphasis to the punishment of in-

mates than to their rehabilitation.

j. Doctors and clinics should be required to notify parents of minors when

they prescribe birth control devices or facilitate abortions for the minors.

k. A man’s self-esteem is severely injured if his wife makes more money

than he makes.

l. Women like being dependent on men.

10. Group discussion exercise: Discuss several of the statements in application 9 with two or three of your classmates, applying the four guidelines presented in

this chapter for developing individuality. Be prepared to share your group’s

ideas with the class.

A Difference of Opinion

The following passage summarizes an important difference of opinion. After

reading the statement, use the library and/or the Internet and find what knowl-

edgeable people have said about the issue. Be sure to cover the entire range

of views. Then assess the strengths and weaknesses of each. If you conclude

that one view is entirely correct and the others are mistaken, explain how you

reached that conclusion. If, as is more likely, you find that one view is more insightful than the others but that they all make some valid points, construct

a view of your own that combines insights from all views and explain why that view is the most reasonable of all. Present your response in a composition or an

oral report, as your instructor specifies.

Should captured terrorists be tried in military or criminal courts? When the United States decided to use the military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,

to detain individuals captured on the battlefield in the Iraq war, many peo-

ple protested the decision. Some argued that captured individuals should be

considered criminals rather than prisoners of war and accorded the rights

guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to all people accused of crimes. Others

argued for classifying the individuals as prisoners of war and treating them

as specified in the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Supporters of the govern-

ment’s decision reject both arguments, contending that captured terrorists

are neither criminals nor soldiers but “unlawful combatants,” adding that

any other designation would impose burdens on the United States that

would make it difficult to fight terrorism and thereby threaten national

security.

Begin your analysis by conducting a Google search using the term “status cap-

tured terrorists.”

rug38189_ch01_003-015.qxd 1/3/11 4:33 PM Page 15

C H A P T E R 2

What Is Critical Thinking?

When Arthur was in the first grade, the teacher directed the class to

“think.” “Now, class,” she said, “I know this problem is a little harder

than the ones we’ve been doing, but I’m going to give you a few extra

minutes to think about it. Now start thinking.”

It was not the first time Arthur had heard the word used. He’d heard

it many times at home, but never quite this way. The teacher seemed to be

asking for some special activity, something he should know how to start

and stop—like his father’s car. “Vroom-m-m,” he muttered half aloud.

Because of his confusion, he was unaware he was making the noise.

“Arthur, please stop making noises and start thinking.”

Embarrassed and not knowing quite what to do, he looked down at his

desk. Then, out of the corner of his eye, he noticed that the little girl next to

him was staring at the ceiling. “Maybe that’s the way you start thinking,”

he guessed. He decided the others had probably learned how to do it last

year, that time he was home with the measles. So he stared at the ceiling.

As he progressed through grade school and high school, he heard

that same direction hundreds of times. “No, that’s not the answer, you’re

not thinking—now think!” And occasionally he would hear from particu- larly self-pitying teachers given to muttering to themselves aloud: “What

did I do to deserve this? Don’t they teach them anything in the grades

anymore? Don’t you people care about ideas? Think, dammit, THINK.”

So Arthur learned to feel somewhat guilty about the whole matter.

Obviously, this thinking was an important activity that he’d failed to

learn. Maybe he lacked the brain power. But he was resourceful enough.

He watched the other students and did what they did. Whenever a

teacher started in about thinking, he screwed up his face, furrowed his

brow, scratched his head, stroked his chin, stared off into space or up at

the ceiling, and repeated silently to himself, “Let’s see now, I’ve got to

think about that, think, think—I hope he doesn’t call on me—think.”

rug38189_ch02_016-031.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 16

17CHAPTER 2 What Is Critical Thinking?

Though Arthur didn’t know it, that’s just what the other students were

saying to themselves.

Your experience may have been similar to Arthur’s. In other words,

many people may have simply told you to think without ever explaining

what thinking is and what qualities a good thinker has that a poor thinker

lacks. If that is the case, you have a lot of company. Extensive, effective

training in thinking is the exception rather than the rule. This fact and its

unfortunate consequences are suggested by the following comments

from accomplished observers of the human condition:

The most interesting and astounding contradiction in life is to me the con-

stant insistence by nearly all people upon “logic,” “logical reasoning,”

“sound reasoning,” on the one hand, and on the other their inability to

display it, and their unwillingness to accept it when displayed by others.1

Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going

on believing as we already do.2

Clear thinking is a very rare thing, but even just plain thinking is almost

as rare. Most of us most of the time do not think at all. We believe and

we feel, but we do not think.3

Mental indolence is one of the commonest of human traits.4

What is this activity that everyone claims is important but few people

have mastered? Thinking is a general term used to cover numerous activ-

ities, from daydreaming to reflection and analysis. Here are just some of

the synonyms listed in Roget’s Thesaurus for think:

appreciate consult fancy reason

believe contemplate imagine reflect

cerebrate deliberate meditate ruminate

cogitate digest muse speculate

conceive discuss ponder suppose

consider dream realize weigh

All of those are just the names that thinking goes under. They really don’t explain it. The fact is, after thousands of years of humans’ experi-

encing thought and talking and writing about thinking, it remains in

many respects one of the great mysteries of our existence. Still, though

much is yet to be learned, a great deal is already known.

Mind, Brain, or Both?

Most modern researchers use the word mind synonymously with brain, as if the physical organ that resides in the human skull were solely responsi-

ble for thinking. This practice conveniently presupposes that a problem

rug38189_ch02_016-031.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 17

18 PART ONE The Context

that has challenged the greatest thinkers for millennia—the relationship

between mind and physical matter—was somehow solved when no one

was looking. The problem itself and the individuals who spent their lives

wrestling with it deserve better.

Neuroscience has provided a number of valuable insights into the

cognitive or thinking activities of the brain. It has documented that the

left hemisphere of the brain deals mainly with detailed language process-

ing and is associated with analysis and logical thinking, that the right

hemisphere deals mainly with sensory images and is associated with in-

tuition and creative thinking, and that the small bundle of nerves that lies

between the hemispheres—the corpus callosum—integrates the various

functions.

The research that produced these insights showed that the brain is

necessary for thought, but it has not shown that the brain is sufficient for thought. In fact, many philosophers claim it can never show that. They

argue that the mind and the brain are demonstrably different. Whereas

the brain is a physical entity composed of matter and therefore subject to decay, the mind is a metaphysical entity. Examine brain cells under the most powerful microscope and you will never see an idea or concept—

for example, beauty, government, equality, or love—because ideas and

concepts are not material entities and so have no physical dimension.

Where, then, do these nonmaterial things reside? In the nonmaterial

mind.5

The late American philosopher William Barrett observed that “his-

tory is, fundamentally, the adventure of human consciousness” and “the

fundamental history of humankind is the history of mind.” In his view,

“one of the supreme ironies of modern history” is the fact that science,

which owes its very existence to the human mind, has had the audacity to

deny the reality of the mind. As he put it, “the offspring denies the

parent.”6

The argument over whether the mind is a reality is not the only issue

about the mind that has been hotly debated over the centuries. One espe-

cially important issue is whether the mind is passive, a blank slate on which experience writes, as John Locke held, or active, a vehicle by which we take the initiative and exercise our free will, as G. W. Leibnitz argued.

This book is based on the latter view.

Critical Thinking Defined

Let’s begin by making the important distinction between thinking and

feeling. I feel and I think are sometimes used interchangeably, but that practice causes confusion. Feeling is a subjective response that reflects

emotion, sentiment, or desire; it generally occurs spontaneously rather

rug38189_ch02_016-031.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 18

19CHAPTER 2 What Is Critical Thinking?

than through a conscious mental act. We don’t have to employ our minds

to feel angry when we are insulted, afraid when we are threatened, or

compassionate when we see a picture of a starving child. The feelings

arise automatically.

Feeling is useful in directing our attention to matters we should think

about; it also can provide the enthusiasm and commitment necessary to

complete arduous mental tasks. However, feeling is never a good substi-

tute for thinking because it is notoriously unreliable. Some feelings are

beneficial, honorable, even noble; others are not, as everyday experience

demonstrates. We often feel like doing things that will harm us—for

example, smoking, sunbathing without sunscreen, telling off our profes-

sor or employer, or spending the rent money on lottery tickets.

Zinedine Zidane was one of the greatest soccer players of his genera-

tion, and many experts believed that in his final season (2006) he would

lead France to the pinnacle of soccer success—winning the coveted World

Cup. But then, toward the end of the championship game against Italy, he

viciously head-butted an Italian player in full view of hundreds of mil-

lions of people. The referee banished him from the field, France lost the

match, and a single surrender to feeling forever stained the brilliant career Zidane had dedicated his life to building.

In contrast to feeling, thinking is a conscious mental process per-

formed to solve a problem, make a decision, or gain understanding.*

Whereas feeling has no purpose beyond expressing itself, thinking aims

beyond itself to knowledge or action. This is not to say that thinking is

infallible; in fact, a good part of this book is devoted to exposing errors in

thinking and showing you how to avoid them. Yet for all its shortcom-

ings, thinking is the most reliable guide to action we humans possess. To

sum up the relationship between feeling and thinking, feelings need to be

tested before being trusted, and thinking is the most reasonable and reli-

able way to test them.

There are three broad categories of thinking: reflective, creative, and

critical. The focus of this book is on critical thinking. The essence of criti-

cal thinking is evaluation. Critical thinking, therefore, may be defined as the process by which we test claims and arguments and determine which

have merit and which do not. In other words, critical thinking is a search

for answers, a quest. Not surprisingly, one of the most important tech- niques used in critical thinking is asking probing questions. Where the un- critical accept their first thoughts and other people’s statements at face

value, critical thinkers challenge all ideas in this manner:

*Some informal definitions of thinking include daydreaming. It is excluded from this defini-

tion because daydreaming is a passive mental state over which we exercise little or no con-

trol. It is therefore of little use in evaluating ideas.

rug38189_ch02_016-031.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 19

20 PART ONE The Context

Critical thinking also employs questions to analyze issues. Consider,

for example, the subject of values. When it is being discussed, some peo-

ple say, “Our country has lost its traditional values” and “There would be

less crime, especially violent crime, if parents and teachers emphasized

moral values.” Critical thinking would prompt us to ask,

1. What is the relationship between values and beliefs? Between values and convictions?

2. Are all values valuable? 3. How aware is the average person of his or her values? Is it possible

that many people deceive themselves about their real values?

4. Where do one’s values originate? Within the individual or outside? In thought or in feeling?

5. Does education change a person’s values? If so, is this change always for the better?

6. Should parents and teachers attempt to shape children’s values?

Characteristics of Critical Thinkers

A number of misconceptions exist about critical thinking. One is that

being able to support beliefs with reasons makes one a critical thinker.

Virtually everyone has reasons, however weak they may be. The test of

critical thinking is whether the reasons are good and sufficient.

Another misconception is that critical thinkers never imitate others in

thought or action. If that were the case, then every eccentric would be a

critical thinker. Critical thinking means making sound decisions, regard-

less of how common or uncommon those decisions are.

Thought

Professor Vile cheated me in my composition grade. He weighted some themes more heavily than others.

Before women entered the work force, there were fewer divorces. That shows that a woman’s place is in the home.

A college education isn’t worth what you pay for it. Some people never reach a salary level appreciably higher than the level they would have reached without the degree.

Question

Did he grade everyone on the same standard? Were the dif- ferent weightings justified?

How do you know that this factor, and not some other one(s), is responsible for the increase in divorces?

Is money the only measure of the worth of an education? What about increased under- standing of self and life and increased ability to cope with challenges?

rug38189_ch02_016-031.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 20

21CHAPTER 2 What Is Critical Thinking?

It is also a misconception that critical thinking is synonymous with

having a lot of right answers in one’s head. There’s nothing wrong with

having right answers, of course. But critical thinking involves the process

of finding answers when they are not so readily available.

And yet another misconception is that critical thinking cannot be

learned, that one either has it or does not. On the contrary, critical think-

ing is a matter of habit. The most careless, sloppy thinker can become a

critical thinker by developing the characteristics of a critical thinker. This

is not to say that all people have equal thinking potential but rather that

everyone can achieve dramatic improvement.

We have already noted one characteristic of critical thinkers—skill in

asking appropriate questions. Another is control of one’s mental activi-

ties. John Dewey once observed that more of our time than most of us

care to admit is spent “trifling with mental pictures, random recollec-

tions, pleasant but unfounded hopes, flitting, half-developed impres-

sions.”7 Good thinkers are no exception. However, they have learned

better than poor thinkers how to stop that casual, semiconscious drift of

images when they wish and how to fix their minds on one specific matter,

examine it carefully, and form a judgment about it. They have learned, in

other words, how to take charge of their thoughts, to use their minds ac-

tively as well as passively.

Here are some additional characteristics of critical thinkers, as con-

trasted with those of uncritical thinkers:

Critical Thinkers . . .

Are honest with themselves, acknowledging what they don’t know, recognizing their limitations, and being watch- ful of their own errors.

Regard problems and contro- versial issues as exciting challenges.

Strive for understanding, keep curiosity alive, remain patient with complexity, and are ready to invest time to overcome confusion.

Base judgments on evidence rather than personal preferences, deferring judgment whenever evidence is insufficient. They revise judgments when new evidence reveals error.

Uncritical Thinkers . . .

Pretend they know more than they do, ignore their limitations, and assume their views are error-free.

Regard problems and contro- versial issues as nuisances or threats to their ego.

Are impatient with complexity and thus would rather remain confused than make the effort to understand.

Base judgments on first impres- sions and gut reactions. They are unconcerned about the amount or quality of evidence and cling to their views steadfastly.

rug38189_ch02_016-031.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 21

22 PART ONE The Context

As the desirable qualities suggest, critical thinking depends on men-

tal discipline. Effective thinkers exert control over their mental life, direct

their thoughts rather than being directed by them, and withhold their

endorsement of any idea—even their own—until they have tested and

confirmed it. John Dewey equated this mental discipline with freedom.

That is, he argued that people who do not have it are not free persons but

slaves to whim or circumstance:

If a man’s actions are not guided by thoughtful conclusions, then they

are guided by inconsiderate impulse, unbalanced appetite, caprice, or

the circumstances of the moment. To cultivate unhindered, unreflective

external activity is to foster enslavement, for it leaves the person at the

mercy of appetite, sense, and circumstance.8

The Role of Intuition

Intuition is commonly defined as immediate perception or compre-

hension of something—that is, sensing or understanding something

without the use of reasoning. Some everyday experiences seem to sup- port this definition. You may have met a stranger and instantly “known”

that you would be partners for life. When a car salesman told you

that the price he was quoting you was his final, rock-bottom price,

your intuition may have told you he was lying. On the first day of a

particular course, you may have had a strong sense that you would not

do well in it.

Some important discoveries seem to have occurred instantaneously.

For example, the German chemist Kekule found the solution to a difficult

chemical problem intuitively. He was very tired when he slipped into a

Are interested in other people’s ideas and so are willing to read and listen atten- tively, even when they tend to disagree with the other person.

Recognize that extreme views (whether conservative or liberal) are seldom correct, so they avoid them, practice fairmindedness, and seek a balanced view.

Practice restraint, controlling their feelings rather than being controlled by them, and think- ing before acting.

Are preoccupied with them- selves and their own opinions and so are unwilling to pay attention to others’ views. At the first sign of disagreement, they tend to think, “How can I refute this?”

Ignore the need for balance and give preference to views that support their established views.

Tend to follow their feelings and act impulsively.

rug38189_ch02_016-031.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 22

23CHAPTER 2 What Is Critical Thinking?

daydream. The image of a snake swallowing its tail came to him—and

that provided the clue to the structure of the benzene molecule, which is

a ring, rather than a chain, of atoms.9 The German writer Goethe had

been experiencing great difficulty organizing a large mass of material

for one of his works when he learned of the tragic suicide of a close

friend. At that very instant, the plan for organizing his material occurred

to him in detail.10 The English writer Samuel Taylor Coleridge (you

may have read his Rime of the Ancient Mariner in high school) awoke from a dream with 200–300 lines of a new and complex poem clearly

in mind.

Such examples seem to suggest that intuition is very different from

reasoning and is not influenced by it. But before accepting that conclu-

sion, consider these facts:

Breakthrough ideas favor trained, active minds. It is unusual for someone totally untrained in a subject to make a significant new dis- covery about it. Thus, if Kekule had been a plumber, Goethe a book- keeper, and Coleridge a hairdresser, they would almost certainly not have received the intuitions for which they are famous.

Some intuitions eventually prove to be mistaken. That attractive stranger may turn out to be not your lifelong partner but a person for whom you develop a strong dislike. The car salesman’s final price may have proved to be exactly that. And instead of doing poorly in that course, you may have done well.

It is difficult to make an overall assessment of the quality of our intu- itions because we tend to forget the ones that prove mistaken in much the same way a gambler forgets his losses.

These facts have led some scholars to conclude that intuition is sim-

ply a consequence of thinking. They would say that something about the

stranger appealed to you, something the salesman said or did suggested

insincerity, something about the professor frightened you. In each case,

they would explain, you made a quick decision—so quick, in fact, that

you were unaware that you’d been thinking. In the case of the break-

through ideas, the scholars would say that when people become en-

grossed in problems or issues, their unconscious minds often continue

working on them long after they have turned their attention elsewhere.

Thus, when an insight seems to come “out of nowhere,” it is actually a

delayed result of thinking.

Which view of intuitions is the correct one? Are intuitions different

from and independent of thinking or not? Perhaps, for now, the most pru-

dent answer is that sometimes they are independent and sometimes they

are not; we can’t be sure when they are, and therefore it is imprudent to

rely on them.

rug38189_ch02_016-031.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 23

24 PART ONE The Context

Basic Activities in Critical Thinking

The basic activities in critical thinking are investigation, interpretation,

and judgment, in that order. The following chart summarizes each activ-

ity in relation to the other two.

Activity

Investigation

Interpretation

Judgment

Definition

Finding evidence—that is, data that will answer key questions about the issue

Deciding what the evidence means

Reaching a conclusion about the issue

Requirements

The evidence must be both relevant and suf- ficient.

The interpretation must be more reason- able than competing interpretations.

The conclusion must meet the test of logic.

As we noted previously, irresponsible thinkers first choose their con-

clusions and then seek out evidence to justify their choices. They fail to

realize that the only conclusion worth drawing is one based on a thor-

ough understanding of the problem or issue and its possible solutions or

resolutions. Is it acceptable to speculate, guess, and form hunches and hy-

potheses? Absolutely. Such activities provide a helpful starting point for

the thinking process. (Besides, we couldn’t avoid doing so even if we

tried.) The crucial thing is not to let hunches and hypotheses manipulate

our thinking and dictate our conclusion in advance.

Critical Thinking and Writing

Writing may be used for either of two broad purposes: to discover ideas

or to communicate them. Most of the writing you have done in school is

undoubtedly the latter kind. But the former can be very helpful, not only

in sorting out ideas you’ve already produced, but also in stimulating the

flow of new ideas. For some reason, the very act of writing down one idea

seems to generate additional ideas.

Whenever you write to discover ideas, focus on the issue you are ex-

amining and record all your thoughts, questions, and assertions. Don’t

worry about organization or correctness. If ideas come slowly, be patient.

If they come suddenly, in a rush, don’t try to slow down the process and

develop any one of them; simply jot them all down. (There will be time for

elaboration and correction later.) Direct your mind’s effort, but be sensitive

to ideas on the fringe of consciousness. Often they, too, will prove valuable.

If you have done your discovery writing well and have thought

critically about the ideas you have produced, the task of writing to

rug38189_ch02_016-031.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 24

25CHAPTER 2 What Is Critical Thinking?

communicate will be easier and more enjoyable. You will have many

more ideas—carefully evaluated ones—to develop and organize.

Critical Thinking and Discussion11

At its best, discussion deepens understanding and promotes problem

solving and decision making. At its worst, it frays nerves, creates animosity,

and leaves important issues unresolved. Unfortunately, the most promi-

nent models for discussion in contemporary culture—radio and TV

talk shows—often produce the latter effects.

Many hosts demand that their guests answer complex questions with

simple “yes” or “no” answers. If the guests respond that way, they are at-

tacked for oversimplifying. If, instead, they try to offer a balanced answer,

the host shouts, “You’re not answering the question,” and proceeds to an-

swer it himself. Guests who agree with the host are treated warmly; others

are dismissed as ignorant or dishonest. Often as not, when two guests are

debating, each takes a turn interrupting while the other shouts, “Let

me finish.” Neither shows any desire to learn from the other. Typically, as

the show draws to a close, the host thanks the participants for a “vigorous

debate” and promises the audience more of the same next time.

Here are some simple guidelines for ensuring that the discussions

you engage in—in the classroom, on the job, or at home—are more civil,

meaningful, and productive than what you see on TV. By following these

guidelines, you will set a good example for the people around you.

Whenever possible, prepare in advance. Not every discussion can be prepared for in advance, but many can. An agenda is usually circu-

lated several days before a business or committee meeting. In college

courses, the assignment schedule provides a reliable indication of what

will be discussed in class on a given day. Use this information to prepare:

Begin by reflecting on what you already know about the topic. Then decide

how you can expand your knowledge and devote some time to doing so.

(Fifteen or twenty minutes of focused searching in the library or on the

Internet can produce a significant amount of information on almost any

subject.) Try to anticipate the different points of view that might be

expressed in the discussion and consider the relative merits of each. Keep

your conclusions tentative at this point, so that you will be open to the

facts and interpretations others will present.

Set reasonable expectations. Have you ever left a discussion disap- pointed that others hadn’t abandoned their views and embraced yours?

Have you ever felt offended when someone disagreed with you or asked

you what evidence you had to support your opinion? If the answer to either

question is yes, you probably expect too much of others. People seldom change

their minds easily or quickly, particularly in the case of long-held convictions.

rug38189_ch02_016-031.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 25

26 PART ONE The Context

And when they encounter ideas that differ from their own, they naturally

want to know what evidence supports those ideas. Expect to have your

ideas questioned, and be cheerful and gracious in responding.

Leave egotism and personal agendas at the door. To be productive, discussion requires an atmosphere of mutual respect and civility. Egotism

produces disrespectful attitudes toward others—notably, “I’m more

important than other people,” “My ideas are better than anyone else’s,” and

“Rules don’t apply to me.” Personal agendas, such as dislike for another

participant or excessive zeal for a point of view, can lead to personal

attacks and unwillingness to listen to others’ views.

Contribute but don’t dominate. If you are the kind of person who loves to talk and has a lot to say, you probably contribute more to discus-

sions than other participants. On the other hand, if you are more re-

served, you may seldom say anything. There is nothing wrong with

being either kind of person. However, discussions tend to be most pro-

ductive when everyone contributes ideas. For this to happen, loquacious

people need to exercise a little restraint, and more reserved people need

to accept responsibility for sharing their thoughts.

Avoid distracting speech mannerisms. Such mannerisms include starting one sentence and then abruptly switching to another; mumbling or

slurring your words; and punctuating every phrase or clause with audible

pauses (“um,” “ah,”) or meaningless expressions (“like,” “you know,”

“man”). These annoying mannerisms distract people from your message.

To overcome them, listen to yourself when you speak. Even better, tape

your conversations with friends and family (with their permission), then

play the tape back and listen to yourself. Whenever you are engaged in a

discussion, aim for clarity, directness, and economy of expression.

Listen actively. When the participants don’t listen to one another, discussion becomes little more than serial monologue—each person tak-

ing a turn at speaking while the rest ignore what is being said. This can

happen quite unintentionally because the mind can process ideas faster

than the fastest speaker can deliver them. Your mind may get tired of

waiting and wander about aimlessly like a dog off its leash. In such cases,

instead of listening to the speaker’s words, you may think about her

clothing or hairstyle or look outside the window and observe what is

happening there. Even when you make a serious effort to listen, it is easy

to lose focus. If the speaker’s words trigger an unrelated memory, you

may slip away to that earlier time and place. If the speaker says some-

thing you disagree with, you may begin framing a reply. The best way to

maintain your attention is to be alert for such distractions and to resist

them. Strive to enter the speaker’s frame of mind, understand what is

said, and connect it with what was said previously. Whenever you realize

your mind is wandering, drag it back to the task.

rug38189_ch02_016-031.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 26

27CHAPTER 2 What Is Critical Thinking?

Judge ideas responsibly. Ideas range in quality from profound to ridiculous, helpful to harmful, ennobling to degrading. It is therefore ap-

propriate to pass judgment on them. However, fairness demands that

you base your judgment on thoughtful consideration of the overall

strengths and weaknesses of the ideas, not on initial impressions or feel-

ings. Be especially careful with ideas that are unfamiliar or different from

your own because those are the ones you will be most inclined to deny a

fair hearing.

Resist the urge to shout or interrupt. No doubt you understand that shouting and interrupting are rude and disrespectful behaviors, but do

you realize that in many cases they are also a sign of intellectual insecu-

rity? It’s true. If you really believe your ideas are sound, you will have no

need to raise your voice or to silence the other person. Even if the other

person resorts to such behavior, the best way to demonstrate confidence

and character is by refusing to reciprocate. Make it your rule to disagree

without being disagreeable.

Avoiding Plagiarism12

Once ideas are put into words and published, they become intellectual property, and the author has the same rights over them as he or she has over a material possession such as a house or a car. The only real differ-

ence is that intellectual property is purchased with mental effort rather

than money. Anyone who has ever wracked his or her brain trying to

solve a problem or trying to put an idea into clear and meaningful words

can appreciate how difficult mental effort can be.

Plagiarism is passing off other people’s ideas or words as one’s own.

It is doubly offensive in that it both steals and deceives. In the academic

world, plagiarism is considered an ethical violation and is punished by a

failing grade for a paper or a course or even by dismissal from the institu-

tion. Outside the academy, it is a crime that can be prosecuted if the per-

son to whom the ideas and words belong wishes to bring charges. Either

way, the offender suffers dishonor and disgrace, as the following exam-

ples illustrate:

• When a university in South Africa learned that professor Marks Chabel had plagiarized most of his doctoral dissertation from Kimberly Lanegran of the University of Florida, the university fired Chabel. Moreover, the university that had awarded him his Ph.D. revoked it.

• When U.S. Senator Joseph Biden was seeking the 1988 Democratic pres- idential nomination, it was revealed that he had plagiarized passages from speeches by British politician Neil Kinnock and by Robert Kennedy. It was also learned that, while in law school, he had plagiarized a

rug38189_ch02_016-031.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 27

28 PART ONE The Context

number of pages from a legal article. The ensuing scandal led Biden to withdraw his candidacy and has continued to stain his reputation.

• The reputation of historian Stephen Ambrose was tarnished by alle- gations that over the years he plagiarized the work of several authors. Doris Kearns Goodwin, historian and advisor to President Lyndon Johnson, suffered a similar embarrassment when she was discovered to have plagiarized from more than one source in one of her books.

• When James A. Mackay, a Scottish historian, published a biography of Alexander Graham Bell in 1998, Robert Bruce presented evidence that the book was largely plagiarized from his 1973 biography, which had won a Pulitzer Prize. Mackay was forced to withdraw his book from the market. (Incredibly, he did not learn from the experi- ence because he then published a biography of John Paul Jones, which was plagiarized from a 1942 book by Samuel Eliot Morison.)

• When New York Times reporter Jason Blair was discovered to have plagiarized stories from other reporters and fabricated quotations and details in his stories, he resigned his position in disgrace. Soon afterward, the two senior editors who had been his closest mentors also resigned, reportedly because of their irresponsible handling of Blair’s reportage and the subsequent scandal.

Some cases of plagiarism are attributable to intentional dishonesty,

others to carelessness. But many, perhaps most, are due to misunder-

standing. The instructions “Base your paper on research rather than on

your own unfounded opinions” and “Don’t present other people’s ideas

as your own” seem contradictory and may confuse students, especially if

no clarification is offered. Fortunately, there is a way to honor both in-

structions and, in the process, to avoid plagiarism.

Step 1: When you are researching a topic, keep your sources’ ideas separate from your own. Begin by keeping a record of each source of

information you consult. For an Internet source, record the Web site

address, the author and title of the item, and the date you visited the site.

For a book, record the author, title, place of publication, publisher, and

date of publication. For a magazine or journal article, record the author,

title, the name of the publication, and its date of issue. For a TV or radio

broadcast, record the program title, station, and date of transmission.

Step 2: As you read each source, note the ideas you want to refer to in your writing. If the author’s words are unusually clear and concise, copy

them exactly and put quotation marks around them. Otherwise, paraphrase— that is, restate the author’s ideas in your own words. Write down the num-

ber(s) of the page(s) on which the author’s passage appears.

If the author’s idea triggers a response in your mind—such as a ques-

tion, a connection between this idea and something else you’ve read, or

an experience of your own that supports or challenges what the author

says—write it down and put brackets (not parentheses) around it so that

rug38189_ch02_016-031.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 28

29CHAPTER 2 What Is Critical Thinking?

you will be able to identify it as your own when you review your notes.

Here is a sample research record illustrating these two steps:

Adler, Mortimer J. The Great Ideas: A Lexicon of Western Thought (New York: Macmillan, 1992) Says that throughout the ages, from ancient Greece,

philosophers have argued about whether various ideas are true. Says it’s

remarkable that most renowned thinkers have agreed about what truth

is—”a correspondence between thought and reality.” 867 Also says that

Freud saw this as the scientific view of truth. Quotes Freud: “This corre- spondence with the real external world we call truth. It is the aim of scien-

tific work, even when the practical value of that work does not interest

us.” 869 [I say true statements fit the facts; false statements do not.]

Whenever you look back on this record, even a year from now, you

will be able to tell at a glance which ideas and words are the author’s and

which are yours. The first three sentences are, with the exception of the

directly quoted part, paraphrases of the author’s ideas. Next is a direct

quotation. The final sentence, in brackets, is your own idea.

Step 3: When you compose your paper, work borrowed ideas and words into your own writing by judicious use of quoting and paraphras-

ing. In addition, give credit to the various authors. Your goal here is to

eliminate all doubt about which ideas and words belong to whom. In for-

mal presentations, this crediting is done in footnotes; in informal ones, it

is done simply by mentioning the author’s name.

Here is an example of how the material from Mortimer Adler might be

worked into a composition. (Note the form that is used for the footnote.)

The second paragraph illustrates how your own idea might be expanded:

Mortimer J. Adler explains that throughout the ages, from the time of

the ancient Greeks, philosophers have argued about whether various

ideas are true. But to Adler the remarkable thing is that, even as they

argued, most renowned thinkers have agreed about what truth is. They

saw it as “a correspondence between thought and reality.” Adler points

out that Sigmund Freud believed this was also the scientific view of

truth. He quotes Freud as follows: “This correspondence with the real

external world we call truth. It is the aim of scientific work, even when

the practical value of that work does not interest us.”*

This correspondence view of truth is consistent with the commonsense

rule that a statement is true if it fits the facts and false if it does not. For

example, the statement “The twin towers of New York’s World Trade

Center were destroyed on September 11, 2002,” is false because they were

destroyed the previous year. I may sincerely believe that it is true, but

my believing in no way affects the truth of the matter. In much the same

way, if an innocent man is convicted of a crime, neither the court’s deci-

sion nor the world’s acceptance of it will make him any less innocent. We

may be free to think what we wish, but our thinking can’t alter reality.

*Mortimer J. Adler, The Great Ideas: A Lexicon of Western Thought (New York: Macmillan, 1992), pp. 867, 869.

rug38189_ch02_016-031.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 29

30 PART ONE The Context

Applications

1. Think back on your previous schooling. How closely has your experience

matched Arthur’s? Explain.

2. Reflect on your powers of concentration. Do you find it difficult to pon-

der important matters? Are you able to prevent the casual, semiconscious drift of

images from interrupting your thoughts? Do you have less control in some situa-

tions than in others? Explain.

3. Rate yourself on each of the eight characteristics of good critical thinkers

that are listed on pp. 24–26. Which are you strongest in? Which weakest? If your

behavior varies from situation to situation, try to determine what kinds of issues

or circumstances bring out your best and worst mental qualities.

4. Consider how you approach problems and issues. Is there any pattern to

the way you think about a problem or an issue? Does an image come to mind

first? Or perhaps a word? What comes next? And what after that? If you can’t

answer these questions completely, do this exercise: Flip half a dozen pages ahead

in this book, pick a sentence at random, read it, and note how your mind deals

with it. (Such thinking about your thinking may be a little awkward at first. If it

is, try the exercise two or three times.)

5. Read each of the following statements carefully. Then decide what ques-

tion(s), if any, a good critical thinker would find it appropriate to ask.

a. Television news sensationalizes its treatment of war because it gives us

pictures only of injury, death, and destruction.

b. My parents were too strict—they wouldn’t let me date until I was sixteen.

c. It’s clear to me that Ralph doesn’t care for me—he never speaks when we

pass in the hall.

d. From a commercial for a news network: “The news is changing every

minute of the day, so you constantly need updating to keep you informed.”

e. The statement of an Alabama public elementary school teacher who had

students recite the Lord’s Prayer and say grace before meals: “I feel part

of my job as a teacher is to instill values children need to have a good

life.”

A Difference of Opinion

The following passage summarizes an important difference of opinion. After

reading the statement, use the library and/or the Internet and find what knowl-

edgeable people have said about the issue. Be sure to cover the entire range

of views. Then assess the strengths and weaknesses of each. If you conclude

that one view is entirely correct and the others are mistaken, explain how you

reached that conclusion. If, as is more likely, you find that one view is more insightful than the others but that they all make some valid points, construct

a view of your own that combines the insights from all views and explain why that view is the most reasonable of all. Present your response in a composition or

an oral report, as your instructor specifies.

What response should the United States make to the problem of illegal immigration? As violence on the southern U.S. border increases and illegal entry continues, many Americans are becoming impatient with the federal

rug38189_ch02_016-031.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 30

31CHAPTER 2 What Is Critical Thinking?

government’s failure to solve the border problem. The state of Arizona has

already taken action to apprehend illegals but has been criticized for inter-

fering in matters under federal jurisdiction. Is Arizona’s approach the most

reasonable one? If not, what approach would be?

Begin your analysis by conducting a Google search using the terms “Arizona

illegal immigrants” and “border security issues.”

rug38189_ch02_016-031.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 31

C H A P T E R 3

What Is Truth?

For hundreds of years, philosophers battled over whether “truth” exists. The

argument usually concerned Truth with a capital T, a kind of complete record of whatever was, is, or will be, error-proof, beyond doubt and dis-

pute, a final test of the rightness or wrongness of people’s ideas and theories.

Those who accepted the existence of this Truth believed it was a

spiritual reality, not a physical one. That is, it was not a celestial ledger or

file drawer—yet it was beyond time and space. It was considered an

understanding among the gods, or an idea in the mind of God, or simply

the sum total of Reality. Could humans ever come to know Truth? Some

said, no, never. Others said, yes but only in the afterlife. Still others said

that the wisest and best of humans could catch glimpses of it and that the

rest of humanity could learn about it through these special ones.

Those who rejected this notion of an awesome, all-embracing Truth

argued that it was an empty notion. How could all reality be summed up

that way? More important, what possible evidence could be offered in

support of its existence? Many who reasoned this way dismissed the idea

of Truth as wishful thinking, a kind of philosophical security blanket. A

few went further and denied even the existence of truths (no capital).

Our age has inherited the whole argument. The focus, however, has

changed. It seldom concerns Truth anymore. Even if Truth does exist, it’s

of little help to us in our world and our lives because it is beyond human

understanding. Even many people of strong and rather conservative

religious views no longer consider the question of Truth important to the

understanding or practice of their faith.

Still, the question of truth, or even truths, remains, and the position

we take toward this question does have an important bearing on how we

conduct our thinking and acting. Unfortunately, there is a good deal of

murkiness and confusion about the concept. The rest of this chapter will

attempt to shed light on it.

rug38189_ch03_032-046.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 32

33CHAPTER 3 What Is Truth?

It’s fashionable today to believe that truth is relative and subjective.

“Everyone creates his or her own truth,” the saying goes, “and what is

true for you may not be true for me.” The meaning of this statement goes

far beyond “It’s a free country and I can believe what I want.” The claim

means that whatever a person thinks is true because he or she thinks it is. Not surprisingly, to challenge another person’s view on an issue is considered

bad form. “That’s my truth you’re talking about, Buster. Show a little

respect.”

The implications of this notion are quite staggering, yet for some

reason few people acknowledge them, and fewer still are interested in

testing their reasonableness. One implication is that everyone is right and

no one is wrong. In fact, no one can be wrong. (What an argument this would make against objective tests—true/false, multiple choice, and so

on: “My answers can’t be wrong, professor. They’re my truth!”) Another

is that everyone’s perception and memory work flawlessly, with never a

blunder, glitch, or gaffe. And another is that no one adopts other people’s

“truths.” The idea of creating truth rules out borrowing—if truth is in-

tensely personal, each person’s truth must be unique. Let’s examine all

these ideas more closely.

Where Does It All Begin?

The idea of creating our own truth without outside influence or assis-

tance may sound reasonable if we focus only on our adulthood. The

moment we consider our childhood, however, the idea becomes suspect,

because in childhood we were all dependent in every sense: physically,

emotionally, and intellectually. What we knew and believed about every-

thing was what others told us. We asked questions—”Why, Mommy?”

“Why, Daddy?” Our parents answered them. We accepted those answers

and made them the foundation of our belief system, no matter how elab-

orate it would become in adulthood.

Relativists could, of course, claim that we leave all those early influ-

ences behind when we reach adulthood, but that denies the most funda-

mental principles of psychology. Here is how one writer explained the

continuing influence of childhood experience:

We are told about the world before we see it. We imagine most things

before we experience them. And those preconceptions, unless education

has made us acutely aware, govern deeply the whole process of perception.

They mark out certain objects as familiar or strange, emphasizing the

difference, so that the slightly familiar is seen as very familiar, and the

somewhat strange as sharply alien. They are aroused by small signs,

which may vary from a true index to a vague analogy. Aroused, they

flood fresh vision with older images, and project into the world what

has been resurrected in memory.1

rug38189_ch03_032-046.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 33

34 PART ONE The Context

You have heard the old saying seeing is believing. The reverse— believing is seeing—is equally correct. To a greater or lesser extent, what we regard as our unique perspective bears the imprint of other people’s

ideas and beliefs.

Imperfect Perception

Is perception flawless? Hardly. For one thing, it is influenced by our

desires, interests, and expectations: “From the outset perception is selective

and tends to simplify the world around us. Memory continues and hastens

the process.”2 For another, even within its limited focus, perception is often

flawed. A college student who is positive that the textbook contains a

certain statement answers an exam question with perfect confidence. Yet

when the student gets the corrected test back and finds the question

marked wrong, then hurriedly flips open the book and examines the

passage again, he or she may find it says something else entirely.

Moviegoers in the 1930s and 1940s were thrilled as Tarzan uttered

his famous yell and swung through the treetops to catch the villain. Tell

them that Tarzan never made that yell and they’ll say, “False, we heard it

with our own ears.” And yet it’s not false. According to one of the men

who first played the role of Tarzan, Buster Crabbe, that yell was

dubbed into the films in the studio. It was a blend of three voices—a

soprano’s, a baritone’s, and a hog caller’s.

At least a dozen times every weekend from September to January, the

imperfection of human observation is underlined by that marvel of tech-

nology, the instant replay. Is there a football fan anywhere who doesn’t

occasionally scream, “Bad call!” only to be proved wrong a moment

later? We can be sure enough to bet a week’s wages that the pass re-

ceiver ’s feet came down inbounds or that the running back’s knee hit the

ground before the ball came loose. And then the replay shows us how er-

roneous our initial perception was.

The vagaries of perception have long been noted by those who deal

with human testimony—notably, trial lawyers, police officers, and psy-

chologists. It is well established that a number of factors can make us see

and hear inaccurately. Darkness, cloudy conditions, or distance from

what we are witnessing may obscure our vision. We may be distracted at a

crucial moment. If we are tired or in the grip of powerful emotions such as

fear or anger, our normal perceptiveness may be significantly diminished.

Also, perception may be intermingled with interpretation—the expectation

that an event will unfold in a certain way may color our perception of the

way the event actually unfolds. Loyalty and affection toward the people or

things involved may distort our vision as well. If someone we dislike

speaks in a loud voice and is animated, we may regard that person as

rug38189_ch03_032-046.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 34

35CHAPTER 3 What Is Truth?

showing off to get attention. But if a friend behaves in the same way, we

may regard him or her as vivacious and extroverted.

Imperfect Memory

Even when our perception is initially flawless, our memory often distorts

the data. We forget details, and when later attempting to recall what hap-

pened we resort to imagination to fill in the blanks. Though we may at

first be aware that such a process of reconstruction is occurring, this

awareness soon fades, and we come to believe we are remembering the

original perception. As psychologist William James explained,

The most frequent source of false memory is the accounts we give to others

of our experiences. Such acts we almost always make more simple and more

interesting than the truth. We quote what we should have said or done

rather than what we really said or did; and in the first telling we may be

fully aware of the distinction, but [before] long the fiction expels the reality

from memory and [replaces it]. We think of what we wish had happened,

of possible [interpretations] of acts, and soon we are unable to distinguish

between things that actually happened and our own thoughts about what

might have occurred. Our wishes, hopes, and sometimes fears are the con-

trolling factor.3

As if this weren’t enough, memory is vulnerable to contamination

from outside the mind. Memory expert Elizabeth Loftus showed children

a one-minute film and then asked, “Did you see a bear?” or “Did you see

a boat?” They remembered seeing them, even though no bears or boats

were in the film. She also showed adults a film of an auto accident and

then asked them about it. By using the word “smash” instead of “hit,” she

was able to change the viewers’ estimate of the cars’ speed and to create a

memory of broken glass where there was none. In another experiment,

Loftus asked the parents of college students to describe some events from

their sons’ and daughters’ childhoods. Then she talked with each student

about those events but added a fake event or two. With only slight coaxing,

the students “remembered” the fake events, were able to elaborate on the

details, and in some cases refused to believe they were fake even when

Loftus explained what she had done.4

Deficient Information

The quality of a belief depends to a considerable extent on the quality of

the information that backs it up. Because it’s a big world and reality has

many faces, it’s easy for us to be misinformed. How many drivers take

the wrong turn because of faulty directions? How many people get on the

wrong bus or train? How many car owners put too much or too little air

rug38189_ch03_032-046.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 35

36 PART ONE The Context

in their tires on the advice of some service station attendant? And, if mis-

information is common enough in such relatively simple matters, how

much more common is it in complex matters like law and medicine and

government and religion?

It’s possible, of course, to devote a lifetime of study to a particular

field. But not even those who make that kind of commitment can know

everything about their subject. Things keep happening too fast. They

occur whether we’re watching or not. There’s no way to turn them off

when we take a coffee break or go to the bathroom. The college student who

hasn’t been home in three months may be able to picture the neighbor’s

elm tree vividly, yet it may have been cut down two months ago. The

soldier may have total recall of his hometown—every sight and sound

and smell—and return home to find half of Main Street sacrificed to

urban renewal, the old high school hangout closed, and a new car in his

best friend’s driveway.

Even the Wisest Can Err

So far, we’ve established that people can be mistaken in what they per-

ceive and remember and that the information they receive can be faulty

or incomplete. But these matters concern individuals. What of group judgment—the carefully analyzed observations of the best thinkers, the

wisest men and women of the time? Is that record better? Happily, it is.

But it, too, leaves a lot to be desired.

All too often, what is taken as truth one day by the most respected minds is proved erroneous the next. You undoubtedly know of some examples. In the early seventeenth century, when Galileo suggested that the sun is the

center of our solar system, he was charged with heresy, imprisoned, and

pressured to renounce his error. The “truth” of that time, accepted by

every scientist worthy of the name, was that the earth was the center of

the solar system.

Here are some other examples you may not have heard about in which

the “truth” turned out not to be true:

• For a long time surgeons used talc on the rubber gloves they wore while performing surgery. Then they discovered it could be poison- ous. So they switched to starch, only to find that it, too, could have a toxic effect on surgical patients.5

• Film authorities were certain they were familiar with all the films the late Charlie Chaplin ever made. Then, in 1982, a previously unknown film was discovered in a British screen archive vault.6

• For hundreds of years historians believed that although the people of Pompeii had been trapped by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in A.D. 79, the people of neighboring Herculaneum had escaped. Then

rug38189_ch03_032-046.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 36

37CHAPTER 3 What Is Truth?

the discovery of eighty bodies (and the hint of hundreds more) under the volcanic ash revealed that many from Herculaneum had also been trapped.7

• Your grandparents probably learned that there are eight planets in our solar system. Since Pluto was discovered in 1930, your parents and you learned there are nine. Then Joseph L. Brady of the University of California suggested there might be ten.8 But more recently Pluto was removed from the list.

• After morphine was used by doctors for some years as a painkiller, it was found to be addictive. The search began for a nonaddictive substitute. What was found to take its place? Heroin!9

Truth Is Discovered, Not Created

Let’s review what our evaluation has revealed. First, our ideas and beliefs

are unavoidably influenced by other people’s, particularly in childhood.

Second, perception and memory are imperfect. Third, our information

can be inaccurate or incomplete. Add to this the fact, noted in Chapter 2,

that some people’s thinking skills are woefully meager and/or ineffec-

tively used, and the idea that “everyone creates his or her own truth”

becomes laughable. We do create something, all right, but it is not truth. It

is beliefs, ideas that we accept as true but that could easily be false. What, then, is the most reasonable view of truth? The truth about

something is what is so about it—the facts in their exact arrangement and proportions. Our beliefs and assertions are true when they correspond to

that reality and false when they do not.

Did time run out before the basketball player got the shot off? How

does gravity work? Who stole your hubcaps? Are there time/space limits

to the universe? Who started the argument between you and your neigh-

bor last weekend? Have you been working up to your potential in this

course? To look for the truth in such matters is to look for the answer that

fits the facts, the correct answer. Truth is apprehended by discovery, a process that favors the curious

and the diligent. Truth does not depend on our acknowledgment of it,

nor is it in any way altered by our ignorance or transformed by our wish-

ful thinking. King Tut’s tomb did not spring into existence when archae-

ologists dug it up; it was there waiting to be discovered. Art forgeries are

not genuine when people are fooled and then fake when the deception

is revealed. Cigarette smoking is not rendered harmless to our health

because we would prefer it to be so.

Much of the confusion about truth arises from complex situations in

which the truth is difficult to ascertain or express. Consider a question like

Are there really UFOs that are piloted by extraterrestrial beings? Although

the question is often hotly debated and people make assertions that purport

rug38189_ch03_032-046.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 37

38 PART ONE The Context

to express the truth, there is not yet sufficient evidence to say we know the

truth about UFOs. However, that doesn’t mean there is no truth about them

or that people who affirm their existence and people who deny it are

equally correct. It means that whatever the truth is, we do not yet possess it.

Similar difficulty arises from many psychological and philosophical

questions—for example: Why are some people heterosexual and others

homosexual? Is the cause of criminality genetic or environmental or a

combination of the two? Are humans inherently violent? Is there an after-

life? What constitutes success? The answers to these questions, and to

many of the issues you will encounter in the applications in this book,

will often be incomplete or tentative. Yet that fact should not shake your

conviction that there are truths to be discovered.

When planes crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center

and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, killing several thousand people,

the event was officially classified as a terrorist attack. But before long, a

very different theory was advanced—that individuals in the highest levels

of the U.S. government had planned and executed the crashes to provide

an excuse for attacking Iraq. This conspiracy theory gained a number of

well-known supporters, including movie and television stars and at least

one member of Congress, and was disseminated around the world. In

France, for example, a book supporting the theory became a best-seller.

The issue became the subject of international debate—in some quarters,

people are still divided in their views. But to my knowledge, not a single

individual, in this country or abroad, took the position that both views are correct—that is, that each side is entitled to its own truth. If anyone had, he

or she would have been attacked by both camps for talking nonsense and

trivializing an important issue. When it comes to significant events like

9/11, people want to know the truth, what really happened. Having the right frame of mind can make your pursuit of the truth less

burdensome and give it the sense of adventure that the great thinkers in

history experienced. A good way to begin is to keep the following thought

in mind: “I know I have limitations and can easily be mistaken. And surely

I’ll never find all the answers I’d like to. But I can observe a little more

accurately, weigh things a little more thoroughly, and make up my mind a

little more carefully. If I do so, I’ll be a little closer to the truth.”

That’s far different from saying, “Everyone makes his or her own truth”

or “It all depends on how you look at it.” And it is much more reasonable.

Understanding Cause and Effect10

Some of the most difficult challenges in discovering truth occur in

determining cause-and-effect relationships. Unfortunately, mistakes

are common in such matters. One mistake is to see cause-and-effect

rug38189_ch03_032-046.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 38

39CHAPTER 3 What Is Truth?

relationships where there are none. Another is to see only the simple

and obvious cause-and-effect relationships and miss the complex or

subtle ones. A third is to believe that causation is relevant only to mate-

rial forces and is unrelated to human affairs. To avoid such confusion,

four facts must be understood:

1. One event can precede another without causing it. Some people believe that when one event precedes another, it must be the cause of the

other. Most superstition is rooted in this notion. For example, breaking a

mirror, crossing paths with a black cat, or walking under a ladder is be-

lieved to cause misfortune. You don’t have to be superstitious to make

this mistake. You may believe that your professor gave an unannounced

quiz today because students were inattentive the day before yesterday,

whereas he may have planned it at the beginning of the semester. Or you

may believe the stock market fell because a new president took office,

when other factors might have prompted the decline.

The problem with believing that preceding events necessarily cause

subsequent events is that such thinking overlooks the possibility of coinci- dence. This possibility is the basis of the principle that “correlation does not prove causation.” In order to establish a cause-and-effect relationship,

it is necessary to rule out coincidence, or at least to make a persuasive

case against it.

2. Not all causation involves force or necessity. The term causation is commonly associated with a physical action affecting a material reality,

such as, a lightning bolt striking a house and the house catching fire and

burning. Or a flowerpot being accidentally dropped out a window and

then falling to the ground and breaking. Or a car speeding, failing to ne-

gotiate a curve, careening off the highway, and crashing into a tree. In

such cases a scientific principle or law applies (combustion, gravity, iner-

tia), and the effect is inevitable or at least highly predictable.

That type of causation is valid, but it would be a mistake to think of it

as the only type. Causation also occurs in the nonmaterial realities we call human affairs—more specifically, in the processes of emotion and

thought. That type of causation has little, if anything, to do with scientific

principles or laws, is almost never inevitable, and is often difficult to pre-

dict. If we are to avoid oversimplification, we need to define causation in

a way that covers both the scientific realm and the realm of human af-

fairs. Here is a footnote for this: As its first definition of cause, the Oxford English Dictionary gives “that which produces an effect; that which gives rise to any action, phenomenon, or condition.” The distinction between

“produces” and “gives rise to” is what we are referring to here. We will

therefore define causation as the phenomenon of one thing influencing the occurrence of another. The influence may be major or minor, direct or indi- rect, proximate or remote in time or space. It may also be irresistible, as in

rug38189_ch03_032-046.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 39

40 PART ONE The Context

the examples of combustion, gravity, and inertia mentioned previously;

or resistible, as in following parental teaching or the example of one’s

peers. In the latter case, and in other matters involving ideas, the influ-

ence (cause) does not force the effect to occur but instead invites, encour- ages, or inspires it. Consider these examples:

The idea that intelligence is genetically determined led early twentieth-

century educators to conclude that thinking cannot be taught, and thus to

emphasize rote learning and expand vocational curriculums.

The idea that people are naturally good, and therefore not personally

responsible for their bad deeds, has shifted blame to parents, teachers, and

society, and caused judges to treat criminals more leniently.

The idea that one race or ethnic group is superior to another has led to mili-

tary campaigns against neighboring countries, discriminatory laws, slavery,

and genocide.

The idea that “no one over thirty can be trusted,” which was popular in the

United States during the 1960s and 1970s, led many young people to scorn

both the advice of their parents and teachers and the accumulated wisdom

of the past.

The idea that feelings are a reliable guide to behavior has led many people to

set aside restraint and follow their impulses. This change has arguably led to

an increase in incivility, road rage, and spouse abuse, among other social

problems.

The idea that self-esteem is prerequisite to success changed the traditional

idea of self-improvement, inspired hundreds of books focused on self-

acceptance, and led educators to more indulgent views of homework, grad-

ing, and discipline.

In each of these examples, one idea influenced the occurrence of an action

or belief and, in that sense, caused it. Columnist George Will no doubt had this view of causation in mind when he encountered the claim that “no

one has ever dropped dead from viewing ‘Natural Born Killers,’ or listen-

ing to gangster rap records.” Will responded, “No one ever dropped dead

reading ‘Der Sturmer,’ the Nazi anti-Semitic newspaper, but the culture it

served caused six million Jews to drop dead.”11

3. There is a wild card in human affairs—free will. So far we have noted that causation occurs through force or necessity in material events,

but through influence in nonmaterial events—that is, in human affairs. Also, that in human affairs, effects are to some extent predictable but

much less so than in material events. Now we need to consider why they

are less predictable. The answer is because people possess free will—that is, the capacity to respond in ways that oppose even the strongest influ-

ences. Free will is itself a causative factor, and one that can trump all oth-

ers. This explains why some people who grow up in the worst of

circumstances—for example, in dysfunctional, abusive families or in

rug38189_ch03_032-046.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 40

41CHAPTER 3 What Is Truth?

crime-ridden neighborhoods in which the main sources of income are

drug dealing and prostitution—resist all the negative influences and be-

come decent, hardworking, and law-abiding. (It can also explain why

some people who are more fortunate economically and socially fall short

of those ideals.)

It has been rightly said that people can seldom choose the circum-

stances life places them in, but they can always choose their responses to

those circumstances because they possess free will. In any investigation

of causes and effects in human affairs, the factor of free will must be con-

sidered. However, possessing free will is no guarantee that we will apply it. In fact, one factor makes such application difficult. That factor is habit.

Habit inclines smokers to continue smoking, liars to continue lying,

selfish people to go on being selfish, and countless people to unthink-

ingly embrace the latest fashion. When leading designers say “hemlines

should be raised,” hordes of women comply. When oversized beltless

denim jeans are in vogue, hordes of young men waddle down the street,

the tops of their pants at the middle of their hips and the crotches of their

pants touching their knees. When iconic athletes shave their heads,

legions of fans shave theirs. Resisting the force of habit is always possible

but never easy.

The most difficult habits to break are those that accrue incrementally

over time. Consider the acceptance of increasing violence and sex on TV

and in films. In the 1950s, not much violence and sex were shown on-

screen, and what was shown was tame. Then viewers were given glimpses

of blood and gore and brief peeks at naked flesh. Year by year, the number

of such scenes increased and the camera drew in a little closer and lingered

a little longer over them. Over time, one thematic taboo after another was

broken. Eventually violence and sexuality were joined, and themes of rape,

child molestation, and even cannibalism were introduced. More recently,

the industry crafted a new vehicle for assaulting the senses—the forensics

program, which depicts rape-murders as they happen, then presents every

gory detail of the autopsies in extreme close-up, accompanied by frequent,

graphic flashbacks to refresh in viewers’ minds the shocking details of the

crimes.

At first the violent and sexual content provoked protests. In time, how-

ever, as sensational images became familiar, people formed the habit of ac-

cepting them, and the protests diminished. (In time the habit grew so

strong that anyone who objected to graphic sex and violence was consid-

ered odd.) What happened in this case was not that people lost their free-

dom or ability to protest, but instead that habit took away their inclination to protest.

4. Causation is often complex. When a small pebble is dropped into a serene pool of water, it causes ripples in every direction, and those

rug38189_ch03_032-046.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 41

42 PART ONE The Context

ripples can affect even distant waters. NASA researchers have found a

similar process at work in the atmosphere: tiny particles in the air called

aerosols can have a rippling effect on the climate thousands of miles

away from their source region.

Effects in human affairs can also be complex. In an effort to cut costs,

the owner of a chemical plant may dispose of chemicals in a nearby

stream that flows into a river. This action may result in effects he did not

intend, including the pollution of the river, the killing of fish, and even

the contracting of cancer by people living far from his plant. Those effects

will be no less real because he did not intend them.

A woman in the early stages of influenza, unaware that she is ill, may

sneeze while on a crowded airplane and infect dozens of her fellow pas-

sengers. As a result, they may lose time at work; some may have to be

hospitalized; those with compromised immune systems could conceiv-

ably die. Given her lack of knowledge of her condition, no reasonable

person would consider her culpable (morally responsible) for the effects

of her sneeze, but there would still be no doubt that she caused them.

A car is driving on the interstate at night. In rapid succession, a deer

jumps out and, the driver slams on his brakes but still hits and kills the

deer, the car traveling closely behind slams into his car, and five other

cars do likewise, each crashing into the car in front. As a result of this

chain reaction, the drivers and passengers suffer a variety of injuries—

minor in the case of those wearing seat belts, major in others. The task of

identifying the causative factors requires careful attention to the details.

The initial cause was the deer’s crossing the road at an unfortunate time,

but that is not the only cause. The first driver caused the deer’s demise.

Each of the other drivers caused the damage to the front end of his or her

car and back end of the car in front.* And the passengers who did not fas-

ten their seat belts caused their injuries to be more severe than those of

other drivers and passengers.

These examples contain a valuable lesson about the need for care in

investigating causes and effects. But this lesson will be even clearer if we

examine a case in the way investigation usually proceeds—backward in time from the latest effect to the earliest causative factor; that is, to the

“root” cause.

For example, it has been clear for some time that the number of peo-

ple of Middle Eastern origin living in Europe has increased so dramati-

cally that before long, according to some observers, Europe might well be

called “Eurabia.” What caused this change? Analysts found that for decades European companies, with their governments’ blessing, have

*At first consideration, it might seem that the front driver in each case caused the accident

behind him/her. However, the law holds each driver responsible for maintaining sufficient

distance to stop and avoid a crash.

rug38189_ch03_032-046.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 42

43CHAPTER 3 What Is Truth?

been inviting foreigners to work in their countries, and these workers

brought their families, formed their own enclaves, built their own

mosques and churches, and “planted” their own ethnic cultures. The next

question is what caused the governments to approve this influx of work- ers? The answer is that the native population of European countries had

declined to a point near or below “replacement level” and there were too

few native-born workers to fill the available jobs and thus fund older peo-

ple’s pensions and health care services.

What caused the population decline? The availability of effective birth control techniques in the 1960s and 1970s and the choice of more and more

families to employ those techniques. What caused so many families to limit the number of their children? One factor was the century-long population

movement from rural areas to cities, where children are an economic burden

rather than an asset. Others were the growing emphasis on self-fulfillment

and the corresponding tendency to regard child rearing as self-stifling.

As even this brief analysis of causes and effects suggests, facile re-

sponses to complex issues—in this case, “Middle Easterners are trying to

take over Europe” or “The Crusades are here again, in reverse”—are not

only unhelpful but unfair. The following cautions will help you avoid

oversimplification in your analyses:

Remember that events seldom, if ever, “just happen.” They occur as the re- sult of specific influences, and these influences may be major or minor, direct

or indirect, proximate or remote in time or space; also irresistible (forced or

necessary) or resistible (invited, encouraged, or inspired).

Remember that free will is a powerful causative factor in human affairs, and it is often intertwined with other causes. In the case of the changes in European

society, the movement of people from farm to city and the use of birth control

were individual choices, but the greater availability of jobs in the cities (an eco-

nomic reality) and birth control technology (a scientific development) were not.

Be aware that in a chain of events, an effect often becomes a cause. For exam- ple, the decline in population in Europe caused the importation of foreign

workers, which in turn caused a change in the ratio of native-born to foreign cit-

izens, which may in time alter the continent’s dominant values and attitudes.

Be aware that, in dealing with human affairs, outcomes can be unpredictable. Therefore, in determining causes, you may have to settle for probability rather

than certainty (as you would in matters that lend themselves to scientific meas-

urement). In other words, you might conclude that something is more likely than not or, when the probability is very high, substantially more likely to be the cause. Either of these conclusions has significantly more force than mere possibility,

but it falls short of certainty. The difference is roughly analogous to the differ-

ence in legal standards of judgment: in civil cases, the standard is “a preponder-

ance of the evidence” or “clear and convincing evidence,” whereas in criminal

cases it is the more demanding standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In searching for truth, when you encounter possible cause-and-effect

relationships, keep these cautions in mind.

rug38189_ch03_032-046.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 43

44 PART ONE The Context

Applications

1. Think of a recent situation in which someone referred inappropriately to

“my truth.” Write two or three paragraphs, in your own words, explaining to

that person what you learned in this chapter.

2. A central question in sociology is How does society evolve? Three well-

known individuals gave very different answers. Auguste Comte (1798–1857)

suggested that it involved three stages: religious, metaphysical, and scientific.

Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) claimed that it followed Darwinian “natural selec-

tion,” in which only the fittest survive. Karl Marx (1818–1883) argued that it

occurred through class conflict as a result of economic exploitation. Would belief

in relativism—the idea that everyone creates his or her own truth—increase or

decrease someone’s motivation to analyze these three viewpoints and pursue the

question of society’s evolution? Explain your response.

3. Read each of the following passages, decide how reasonable it is, and

explain your thinking.

a. People who believe that “everyone creates his or her own truth” should

never argue with anyone about anything. If they do, they are being

inconsistent.

b. Motivation to do anything depends on the belief that it has not yet been

done. Everyone who loses something precious, say a diamond ring, will

search diligently and even desperately until it is found. But only a fool

would continue searching for it after it was found. It is no different with other kinds of searches, such as the search for truth. Once we think we

have it, we stop looking.

4. For years grade school students faced this question on their science tests:

“True or False—The famous rings of the planet Saturn are composed of solid

material.” If the students marked “true,” they lost credit, because the “truth”

was that Saturn’s rings were composed of gas or dust. Then, in 1973, radar

probes revealed that all those wrong answers had been right. Saturn’s rings are,

in fact, composed of solid matter.12 This confusing case seems to suggest that the truth changed. Did it really? Explain.

5. The scene is a campus security office, where two students are being ques-

tioned. A few minutes earlier, they were engaged in a fistfight in the cafeteria. The

campus police ask them again and again how the fight started. The stories con-

flict. Because each student seems genuinely convinced that the other one was the

aggressor and there were no witnesses, the campus police have no hope of discov-

ering the truth. But is there a truth to discover? Or are there two truths, one for

each student’s story? What light does the chapter shed on these questions?

6. A strange phenomenon that affects a tiny number of the world’s

inhabitants has interested psychologists for some time. It occurs during what

Norwegians call the “murky time,” the two months each year during which areas

above the Arctic Circle experience almost unrelieved darkness. The effects on peo-

ple have been discovered to be unfortunate, even dangerous. At worst, people ex-

perience severe tenseness, restlessness, fear, a preoccupation with thoughts of

death and even suicide. At best, they experience an inability to concentrate, fa-

tigue, a lack of enthusiasm for anything, suspicion, and jealousy. Part of the cause

is seen as lack of sleep. Accustomed to day and night, people become confused by

constant darkness.13 This phenomenon poses an interesting test of truth. Would it

rug38189_ch03_032-046.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 44

45CHAPTER 3 What Is Truth?

be proper to say the phenomenon was true before it was recognized and acknowl-

edged by psychologists? Or did it become true only when they became aware of

it? And what of your relationship to the phenomenon? Before you became aware

of it for the first time, whether reading it here or elsewhere, it was not “true to

you.” But did that make it any less true? Explain in light of this chapter.

7. Evaluate the following dialogues in light of what you learned in this

chapter. If you lack sufficient knowledge to judge the issue, do some research.

a. Martha: I don’t care what the courts say about abortion—I’m convinced it’s murder because the fetus is a human being.

Marian: If you want to believe that, fine. Just don’t impose your beliefs on others and prevent them from exercising their rights.

Martha: You don’t seem to understand. It’s not just a fetus in my uterus that’s human but the fetus in the uterus of every pregnant woman.

Marian: Nonsense. You have no right to classify what exists in someone else’s uterus. That’s her business. You should mind your own business.

b. Barbi: Television shows about suicide should not be aired. Ken: Why? Barbi: Because they cause people to commit suicide. Ken: That’s ridiculous. How can a drama or documentary that shows the tragedy of suicide cause people to commit suicide?

Barbi: I don’t know how it happens. Maybe some people have thoughts of suicide already and the show reinforces them. Or maybe they focus on

the act of suicide and lose sight of the tragedy. All I know is that attempted

suicides increase after the airing of such shows.

c. Mabel: I notice that when you get a newspaper you immediately turn to the astrology column. Do you really believe that nonsense?

Alphonse: It’s not nonsense. The planets exercise a powerful influence on our lives; their positions in the heavens at the time of our birth can shape

our destiny.

Mabel: I can’t believe I’m hearing such slop from a science major. Alphonse: What you fail to understand is that astrology is science, one of the most ancient sciences at that.

d. Jake: What did you think of the chapter “What Is Truth?” Rocky: It’s stupid. Jake: What do you mean? Rocky: It contradicts Chapter 1. Jake: I didn’t get that impression. Where’s the contradiction? Rocky: In Chapter 1 the author says that we should strive to be individuals and think for ourselves. Now he says that his idea about truth is OK and

ours isn’t and that we should follow his. That’s a contradiction.

8. Group discussion exercise: How many times have you been certain some- thing was true, only to find out later that it was not? Discuss those experiences

with two or three classmates. Be prepared to share the most dramatic and inter-

esting experiences with the rest of the class.

A Difference of Opinion

The following passage summarizes an important difference of opinion. After

reading the statement, use the library and/or the Internet and find what

knowledgeable people have said about the issue. Be sure to cover the entire

rug38189_ch03_032-046.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 45

46 PART ONE The Context

range of views. Then assess the strengths and weaknesses of each. If you con-

clude that one view is entirely correct and the others are mistaken, explain how

you reached that conclusion. If, as is more likely, you find that one view is more insightful than the others but that they all make some valid points, con-

struct a view of your own that combines the insights from all views and explain why that view is the most reasonable of all. Present your response in a composi-

tion or an oral report, as your instructor specifies.

Who is responsible for the fiscal crisis of 2008? This issue continues to be central to overcoming the consequences of the crisis and to ensuring that it

does not recur. Commentators are divided on the cause. Some claim it is was

the policies of George W. Bush’s administration; others, the policies of the

Clinton administration; others, the greed of Wall Street executives. Many

point, instead, to congressional pressure on banks, during the 1990s, to give

loans to people who could not afford to repay them. Still others say the crisis

originated during the Carter administration, specifically in the Community

Reinvestment Act of 1977.

Begin your analysis by conducting a Google search using the terms “Community

Reinvestment Act,” “causes financial crisis,” and “subprime mortgage crisis.”

rug38189_ch03_032-046.qxd 1/3/11 4:34 PM Page 46

C H A P T E R 4

What Does It Mean to Know?

Sally looks up from her composition and asks her roommates, “How do

you spell embarrass?” Nancy says, “I’m not sure. I think it has a double r and a double s. Oh,

I really don’t know.”

Marie smiles her smug smile. “I guess spelling isn’t your cup of tea,

Nancy. The correct spelling is e-m-b-a-r-a-s-s. Only one r.” By this time Sally has already opened her dictionary. “Might as well

check to be sure,” she says. “Let’s see, embargo, embark . . . here it is, embarrass. Double r and double s. You were right, Nancy.”

Let’s consider what happened more closely. Marie knew the answer, but she was wrong. Nancy didn’t know, but she was right. Confusing. What kind of thing can this knowing be? When you’re doing it, you’re not doing it. And when you aren’t, you are.

Fortunately, it only appears to be that way. The confusion arises

because the feelings that accompany knowing can be present when we

don’t know. Marie had those feelings. She no longer wondered or experi-

enced any confusion; she was sure of the answer. Yet she was mistaken.

Requirements of Knowing

Nancy was in a better position than Marie because she answered cor-

rectly. Yet she didn’t know, for knowing involves more than having the

right answer. It also involves the realization that you have it. The issue, of course, may not always be as simple as the spelling of a

word. It may require understanding numerous details or complex principles

or steps in a process. (It may also involve a skill—knowing how to do some- thing. But that is a slightly different use of the word than concerns us here.)

Knowing usually implies something else, too—the ability to express

what is known and how we came to know it. This, however, is not always so.

rug38189_ch04_047-058.qxd 1/3/11 4:35 PM Page 47

48 PART ONE The Context

We may not be able to express our knowledge in words. The best we may

be able to say is “I just know, that’s all” or “I know because I know.” Yet

these replies are feeble and hardly satisfy those who wish to verify our

knowledge or acquire it.

Testing Your Own Knowledge

Following are some items of “common knowledge.” Determine how

many you already know, and then decide, if possible, how you came to

know each. Complete this informal inventory before continuing with the

chapter.

1. Women are nurturing but men are not.

2. African Americans had little or no part in settling the American West.

3. Expressing anger has the effect of reducing it and making us feel better.

4. The Puritans were “prim, proper, and prudish prigs.”

5. Before Columbus arrived in the New World, Native Americans lived in peace with one another and in respectful harmony with the environment.

6. Alfred Kinsey’s research on human sexuality is scrupulously schol- arly and objective.

7. Employers import unskilled labor from other countries to save money.

8. The practice of slavery originated in colonial America.

It would be surprising if you did not think you knew most of these

items. After all, many writers have written about them, and they are

widely accepted as conventional wisdom. But let’s look a little more

closely at each of them.

1. Barbara Risman became curious about this idea and decided to study it further. Her findings challenged the conventional wisdom. Apparently, men who are responsible for caring for children or elderly parents display the same nurturing traits usually associated with women. She concluded that these traits are as dependent on one’s role in life as on one’s sex.1

2. The facts contradict what is known. For example, 25 percent of the cowboys in Texas cattle drives were African American, as were 60 percent of original settlers of Los Angeles.2 The reason these facts are not more widely known is probably because of scholarly omission of information about African Americans from the history books.

3. Conventional wisdom again is wrong. After reviewing the evidence about anger, Carol Tavris concludes, “The psychological rationales for ventilating anger do not stand up under experimental scrutiny. The weight of the evidence indicates precisely the opposite: expressing anger makes you angrier, solidifies an angry attitude, and establishes

rug38189_ch04_047-058.qxd 1/3/11 4:35 PM Page 48

49CHAPTER 4 What Does It Mean to Know?

a hostile habit. If you keep quiet about momentary irritations and distract yourself with pleasant activity until your fury simmers down, chances are you will feel better, and feel better faster, than if you let yourself go in a shouting match.”3

4. Although the Puritans did hold that sex is rightly reserved for mar- riage, they did not hesitate to talk openly about the subject and were not prudish within marriage. The problem seems to be that people confuse the Puritans with the Victorians.4

5. This is pure myth. Few tribes were completely peaceful, and many not only were warlike but slaughtered women and children and tor- tured their captives. Some tribes also offered human sacrifices, mur- dered the elderly, and practiced cannibalism. As to their alleged harmonious respect for nature, many tribes deforested the land and wantonly killed whole herds of animals.5

6. Alfred Kinsey’s work on human sexuality has been regarded as objective, scholarly, and definitive for more than half a century. In fact, it has become a foundation of psychotherapy, education, and even religion. Amazingly, in all that time no one read it critically until Judith A. Reisman and Edward W. Eichel did so. They docu- ment that Kinsey approached his work with a firm bias that signifi- cantly influenced his conclusions. He sought to establish that exclusive heterosexuality is abnormal and results merely from con- ditioning and inhibition; that sex between a man and a woman is no more natural than sex between two men, two women, a man and a child, or a man and an animal; and that bisexuality should be consid- ered the norm for human sexuality. When Abraham Maslow demon- strated to Kinsey that his approach was unscientific, Kinsey simply ignored him. Kinsey went on to assert that incest can be satisfying and enriching and that children are upset by adult sexual advances solely because of the prudishness of parents and legal authorities. The authors also allege that in his research Kinsey employed a group of nine sex offenders to manually and orally stimulate to orgasm several hundred infants and children.6

7. The fact is that in many cases imported labor costs more money than domestic labor when the cost of transporting the workers is included in the calculation. For example, Indian workers were chosen over local Africans to build a railroad in East Africa. Similarly, Chinese workers were chosen over colonial Malayans. In both cases, the total cost of using imported workers was greater, but the cost per unit of work was lower because the imported workers produced more. In these and many other cases, the principal reason for choosing foreign over do- mestic labor is that the foreign workers are “more diligent, reliable, skilled, or careful.”7

8. This notion is also mistaken. Slavery is thousands of years old, pre- dating Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity. It was practiced by the Venetians, Greeks, Jews, Chinese, Indians, and Egyptians, among others. Native American tribes enslaved one another long before the

rug38189_ch04_047-058.qxd 1/3/11 4:35 PM Page 49

50 PART ONE The Context

time of Columbus. The distinction enjoyed by the Americas is not having introduced slavery, but having abolished it. Slavery was abolished in the Western Hemisphere many decades before it was in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.8

The more of the eight items you “knew,” and the surer you were of your

“knowledge,” the more troubling you are likely to find these facts. You may,

in fact, be thinking, “Wait a minute, there must be some mistake. Who are

these people Ruggiero is quoting? Are they genuine scholars? I’m skeptical

of the whole lot of them.” This reaction is understandable, because familiar-

ity with a false statement can make it seem true. Yet it is a reaction critical

thinkers keep on a short leash. The ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus’s

warning is relevant: “Get rid of self-conceit. For it is impossible for anyone

to begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows.”

Are you still troubled by our debunking of the conventional wisdom?

Then consider that, for centuries, conventional wisdom also held that

heavier objects fall more rapidly than lighter ones and that the heart and

not the brain is the seat of consciousness.9 It also rejected the idea that ma-

chines could ever fly, enable people to communicate with one another

across town, or create pictures of the interior of the human body. That

such “wisdom” is really shortsightedness is plain to us only because

some individuals were willing to ask, Is it possible that what I and other

people think we know isn’t really so? This little question is one of the

most useful tools in critical thinking.

How We Come to Know

We can achieve knowledge either actively or passively. We achieve it

actively by direct experience, by testing and proving an idea (as in a scien-

tific experiment), or by reasoning. When we do it by reasoning, we

analyze a problem, consider all the facts and possible interpretations, and

draw the logical conclusion.

We achieve knowledge passively by being told something by some-

one else. Most of the learning that takes place in the classroom and the

kind that happens when we watch TV news reports or read newspapers

or magazines is passive. Conditioned as we are to passive learning, it’s

not surprising that we depend on it in our everyday communication with

friends and co-workers.

Unfortunately, passive learning has a serious defect. It makes us tend

to accept uncritically what we are told even when what we are told is lit-

tle more than hearsay and rumor.

Did you ever play the game Rumor (or Telephone)? It begins when

one person writes down a message but doesn’t show it to anyone. Then

the person whispers it, word for word, to another person. That person, in

rug38189_ch04_047-058.qxd 1/3/11 4:35 PM Page 50

51CHAPTER 4 What Does It Mean to Know?

turn, whispers it to still another, and so on, through all the people playing

the game. The last person writes down the message word for word as he

or she hears it. Then the two written statements are compared. Typically,

the original message has changed, often dramatically, in passing from

person to person.

That’s what happens in daily life. No two words have precisely the

same shades of meaning. Therefore, the simple fact that people repeat a

story in their own words rather than in exact quotation changes the story.

Then, too, most people listen imperfectly. And many enjoy adding their own

creative touch to a story, trying to improve on it by stamping it with their

own personal style. This tendency may be conscious or unconscious. Yet

the effect is the same in either case—those who hear it think they know.

This process is not limited to everyday exchanges among people. It is

also found among scholars and authors: “A statement of opinion by one

writer may be re-stated as a fact by another, who may in turn be quoted as

an authority by yet another; and this process may continue indefinitely,

unless it occurs to someone to question the facts on which the original

writer based his opinion or to challenge the interpretation he placed upon

those facts.”10

Why Knowing Is Difficult

One reason why knowing is difficult is that some long unanswered ques-

tions continue to resist solution, questions like What causes cancer?

What approach to education is best for children? and How can we pre-

vent crime without compromising individual rights?

Another reason is that everyday situations arise for which there are

no precedents. When the brain procedure known as frontal lobotomy was

developed to calm raging violence in people, it raised the question of the

morality of a cure that robbed the patient of human sensibilities. When

the heart transplant and the artificial heart became realities, the issue of

which patients should be given priority was created, as well as the question

of how donors were to be obtained. When smoking was definitely deter-

mined to be a causative factor in numerous fatal diseases, we were forced

to examine the wisdom of allowing cigarette commercials to mislead TV

viewers and entice them into harming themselves. More recently, when

smoking was shown to harm the nonsmoker as well as the smoker, a debate

arose concerning the rights of smokers and nonsmokers in public places.

Still another reason why knowing is difficult is that, as one genera-

tion succeeds another, knowledge is often forgotten or unwisely rejected.

For example, the ancient Greeks knew that whales have lungs instead

of gills and therefore are mammals. Later, however, the Romans regarded

whales as fish, a false notion that persisted in Western minds until the

rug38189_ch04_047-058.qxd 1/3/11 4:35 PM Page 51

52 PART ONE The Context

seventeenth century. In that century one man suggested that whales are

really mammals, another later established it as fact, and the West redis-

covered an item of knowledge.11

In our time the ideas of “sin” and “guilt” have come to be regarded as

useless and even harmful holdovers from Victorian times. The “new

morality” urged people to put aside such old-fashioned notions as obsta-

cles to happiness and fulfillment. Then Karl Menninger, one of America’s

leading psychiatrists, wrote a book called Whatever Became of Sin? in which he argues that the notions of “sin” and “guilt” are good and necessary

in civilized society.12 He says, in other words, that our age rejected those

concepts too quickly and quite unwisely.

Knowledge is often thought of as dead matter stored on dusty

shelves in dull libraries. Unfortunately, the hushed atmosphere of a library

can suggest a funeral chapel or a cemetery. But the appearance is deceiving.

The ideas on those shelves are very much alive—and often fighting furi-

ously with one another. Consider the following cases.

The idea that Columbus was the first person from Europe, Africa, or

Asia to land on the shores of North or South America hangs on tena-

ciously. The opposing idea challenges this again and again. (The evidence

against the Columbus theory continues to mount: the discovery of ancient

Japanese pottery in Ecuador, traces of visits by seafarers from Sidon in

541 B.C. as well as by the Greeks and Hebrews in A.D. 200 and by the

Vikings in A.D. 874.13 The most recent evidence suggests that the Chinese

may have discovered America by 2500 B.C.)14

The idea that a history of slavery and deprivation has caused African

Americans to have less self-esteem than whites was well established.

Then it was challenged by two University of Connecticut sociologists,

Jerold Heiss and Susan Owens. Their studies indicate that the self-esteem

of middle-class African Americans is almost identical to that of middle-

class whites and that the self-esteem of lower-class African Americans is

higher than that of lower-class whites.15

The notion that when the youngest child leaves home, middle-aged

parents, especially mothers, become deeply depressed and feel that life

is over for them has many believers. Yet at least one study attacks that

notion. It shows that many, perhaps most, parents are not depressed at

all; rather, they look forward to a simpler, less demanding, life.16

Similarly, until recently, most scientists accepted that senility is a

result of the physical deterioration of the brain and is both progressive

and irreversible. Then experimenters in an Alabama veterans’ hospital

found that in many cases the symptoms of senility—confusion, disorien-

tation, and withdrawal from reality—can be halted and even reversed by

“a simple program of keeping the aged constantly in touch with the sur-

rounding environment.”17

rug38189_ch04_047-058.qxd 1/3/11 4:35 PM Page 52

53CHAPTER 4 What Does It Mean to Know?

Books and articles referring to athletes’ “second wind” abound. Yet

Nyles Humphrey and Robert Ruhling of the University of Utah have pre-

sented evidence that there really is no second wind and that the sensation

experienced by many athletes is merely psychological.18

A Cautionary Tale

Even authorities who have the most sophisticated measurement tools at

their disposal fail to achieve certainty. Consider, for example, the chal-

lenge to anthropologists posed by the Tasaday tribe. When discovered on

the Philippine island of Mindanao in the late 1960s, the Tasaday were

living a Stone Age existence—inhabiting caves in the deep jungle, ignorant

of agriculture, subsisting by hunting and gathering. Manuel Elizaldo,

an associate of then dictator Ferdinand Marcos, quickly became their

protector, mentor, and go-between with a fascinated world. A number of

anthropologists and other experts visited the tribe and studied their artifacts,

language, and social structure. Except for a few skeptics, most scholars

judged them to be authentic Stone Age people. Prestigious publications

like National Geographic wrote about the Tasaday and marveled at the fact that they were such an innocent, gentle people with no words in their

language for “weapon,” “war,” or “hostility.”

In 1986, after the Marcos regime collapsed, a Swiss journalist visited

the Tasaday and found them living in houses. They reportedly admitted

to him that their story was an elaborate hoax perpetrated by Elizaldo.

He supposedly told them when to go to the caves and put on the Stone

Age act for visiting journalists and scholars. Elizaldo has denied the

charge and has had the continuing support of many scientists. Douglas

Yen, an ethnobiologist and early Tasaday researcher, originally sought to

link the group to neighboring farming tribes, but he now believes the

Stone Age circumstances were genuine. (He cites a case in which little

children were shown cultivated rice and displayed amazement.) Carol

Molony, a linguist and another early Tasaday scholar, is also a believer.

She argues that the tribe, children as well as adults, would have to have

been superb actors to eliminate all agricultural metaphors from their

speech. A local priest and former skeptic, Fr. Sean McDonagh, also believes

the Tasaday to be authentic and says neighboring tribes do too.

One continuing element of dispute concerns the authenticity of Tasaday

tools. Zeus Salazar, a Philippine anthropologist, maintains that the loose

straps attaching stones to handles suggest a poor attempt to fake Stone

Age methods. Yet archaeologist Ian Glover says such looseness has been

noted in authentic Stone Age implements. The Tasaday’s own statements

have not simplified the puzzle. They told NBC and Philippine television

rug38189_ch04_047-058.qxd 1/3/11 4:35 PM Page 53

54 PART ONE The Context

that their original story was true and then told ABC and British television

that it was false.

How likely is it that any outside observer knows the real story about the Tasaday, in all its complexity? Not very. That is why, in this and simi-

larly difficult cases, responsible people do not claim to know what hap-

pened. Instead, they speak of what it is most plausible to believe happened, in light of the evidence. That is how anthropologist Thomas

Headland, who exhaustively researched the Tasaday case, speaks of it.

He suggests that there was probably no hoax but that there were gross

exaggerations and false media reports, as well as some self-fulfilling

expectations by anthropologists. It is likely, he believes, that the Tasaday

were once members of the neighboring farming tribes who fled several

hundred years ago (perhaps to avoid slave traders) and who hid in the

forest for so many generations that they not only regressed to a Stone Age

culture but lost all memory of their more advanced state.19

Is Faith a Form of Knowledge?

Some readers, particularly religious conservatives, may wonder whether

what has been said thus far about knowledge represents a denunciation of

faith. Their concern is understandable, given the number of intellectuals in

this and previous centuries who have dismissed religion as mere supersti-

tion. But no such denunciation is intended here. The relationship between

knowledge and religious faith is both complex and subtle. The term religious faith by definition suggests belief in something that cannot be proved. This is not to say that what is believed is not true, but only that its truth cannot be demonstrated conclusively. Jews (and many others) believe that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, Muslims believe that Muhammad is Allah’s

prophet, and Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Science is

simply not applicable to these beliefs. Philosophy can offer complementary

arguments for or against them but cannot prove or disprove them.

Mortimer Adler, a distinguished philosopher, offers a very useful

insight into the nature of faith:

What is usually called a “leap of faith” is needed to carry anyone across

the chasm [between philosophy and religion]. But the leap of faith is

usually misunderstood as being a progress from having insufficient rea-

sons for affirming God’s existence to a state of greater certitude in that

affirmation. That is not the case. The leap of faith consists in going from

the conclusion of a merely philosophical theology to a religious belief in

a God that has revealed himself as a loving, just and merciful Creator of

the cosmos, a God to be loved, worshiped and prayed to.20

A related concern of religious conservatives may be whether they are

compromising their faith by embracing the philosophical position expressed

rug38189_ch04_047-058.qxd 1/3/11 4:35 PM Page 54

55CHAPTER 4 What Does It Mean to Know?

in this chapter. Each of us must, of course, answer this question for himself

or herself. Before deciding, however, we would do well to consider the

argument advanced by Mark Noll, a leading evangelical scholar. In

spurning philosophical investigation, he says, evangelicals not only have

removed themselves from the discussion of issues vital to all people but

also have lost touch with “the habits of mind that for nearly two centuries

defined the evangelical experience in America.” In his view, that has

proved to be a tragic mistake.21

Obstacles to Knowledge

Before we discuss how knowledge is best sought, let’s consider two

habits that impede knowledge: assuming and guessing. Assuming is taking something for granted—that is, arbitrarily accepting as true something

that has not been proved or that may reasonably be disputed. Because

assuming is generally an unconscious activity, we are often unaware of

our assumptions and their influence on us.* The main negative effect of

unrecognized assumptions is that they stifle the curiosity that leads to

knowledge.

Many people, for example, never speculate about the daily life of fish.

They may occasionally stop at the pet store in the mall and stare at the

tank of tropical fish. But they may never display curiosity about the social

roles and relationships of fish communities because they assume fish

have no such roles or relationships. Yet the fact is, in the words of under-

water sociologist C. Lavett Smith, “There are fish equivalents of barbers,

policemen, and farmers. Some are always on the move and others are

sedentary. Some work at night and some by day.”22

Guessing is offering a judgment on a hunch or taking a chance on an answer without any confidence that it is correct. It’s a common, everyday

activity. For students who don’t study for exams, it’s a last-ditch survival

technique. For an example of guessing, though, let’s take a more pleasant

subject—drinking beer. Some time ago a professor of behavioral science

at a California college conducted a beer taste test among his students. The

issue was whether they could really tell a good beer from a bad one or

their favorite from others. Many students likely would guess they could,

and a number of participants in the test actually guessed they could tell.

However, the test showed that when the samples were not labeled, not

one student could identify a single brand.23

Because assuming stifles curiosity and guessing denies the impor-

tance of evidence, neither is likely to lead to knowledge. The most reliable

*It is, of course, possible to raise assumptions to the conscious level and express them. Most

scientific references to assumptions are made in this context.

rug38189_ch04_047-058.qxd 1/3/11 4:35 PM Page 55

56 PART ONE The Context

approach is to be cautious in asserting that you know something. Be con-

servative in your level of assertion—whenever you are less than certain,

speak about possibilities and probabilities. Say, “I think” or “It seems to

me” rather than “I know.” Most important, be honest with yourself and

others about your ignorance. To admit you don’t know something shows

good sense, restraint, and intellectual honesty. These are not weaknesses

but strengths. The admission of ignorance is the essential first step toward

knowledge.

Does this mean you should be wishy-washy and hedge everything

you say with maybes and perhapses? Does it mean that to be a critical

thinker you must forsake convictions? The answer to both questions is an

emphatic no! It means only that you should value firm, bold statements so much that you reserve them for occasions when the evidence permits.

Similarly, you should value convictions so highly that you embrace them

only when you have sufficient knowledge to do so and that you modify

them whenever intellectual honesty requires.

Applications

1. Consider this statement by Greek philosopher Epictetus: “Appearances

to the mind are of four kinds. Things are either what they appear to be; or they

neither are nor appear to be; or they are and do not appear to be; or they are

not and yet appear to be. Rightly to aim in all these cases is the wise man’s

task.” Does this reinforce or challenge what you learned in this chapter?

Explain.

2. Read the following comment by Bernard Goldberg, a journalist and

author of Bias: “Here’s one of those dirty little secrets journalists are never sup- posed to reveal to the regular folks out there in the audience: a reporter can find

an expert to say anything the reporter wants—anything! Just keep on calling until one of the experts says what you need him to say and tell him you’ll be right

down with a camera crew to interview him. If you find an expert who says, ‘You

know, I think that flat tax just might work and here’s why . . .’ you thank him,

hang up, and find another expert. It’s how journalists sneak their own personal

views into stories in the guise of objective news reporting.”24 What implications

does this statement have for the subject of this chapter? Explain your answer.

3. In each of the following cases, someone believes he or she knows some-

thing. In light of what you learned in this chapter, discuss whether the person

really does.

a. Ted reads in the morning newspaper that a close friend of his has been

arrested and charged with burglarizing a number of stores. Ted is shocked.

“It’s impossible. The police have made a mistake,” he tells his mother.

“Bob and I have been as close as brothers. I just know he’s not guilty.”

b. Ralph: Here, Harry, try my antiperspirant. It really stops wetness. Harry: No, thanks. I’m suspicious of antiperspirants. It seems to me that anything designed to block a normal body function may do a lot of harm.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it caused cancer.

rug38189_ch04_047-058.qxd 1/3/11 4:35 PM Page 56

57CHAPTER 4 What Does It Mean to Know?

Ralph: Don’t be foolish. I know it doesn’t cause cancer. Products like these are carefully tested before they’re allowed to be sold. If it caused cancer, it

would be banned.

c. Jane: I just read there’s some evidence that aspirin can prevent heart attacks.

Jenny: That’s a lot of nonsense. I know it can’t. My uncle took lots of aspirin and he died of a heart attack last year.

4. “Man Is Released in Wrong Rape Charges,” “Traditional Idea Debunked,”

“Ex-Aide Admits Lying About Lawmakers”—daily newspapers contain numer-

ous stories like these, stories showing how what was “known” a week, a month,

or years ago has been found to be false. Find at least three examples of such

stories in current or recent newspapers.

5. “It ain’t what a man doesn’t know that makes him a fool, but what he

does know that ain’t so,” wrote Josh Billings, a nineteenth-century American

humorist. Recall as many occasions as you can in which your own experience

confirmed his observation.

6. A court case pitting the U.S. government against the American Indian

Movement was conducted quietly in South Dakota in late 1982. The government

sought to end the Native American group’s twenty-month occupation of public

land in the Black Hills National Forest. The group claimed that the area was

a holy land to them—their birthplace, the graveyard of their ancestors, and the

center of their universe—and therefore should be turned into a permanent,

religion-based Native American community. The government maintained that

the group had no legal claim to the land. What factors do you think should be

considered in a case like this, and what solution would best serve the interests of

justice? In answering, be sure to distinguish carefully between what you know

and what you assume, guess, or speculate. After answering these questions,

check out the most up-to-date version of the story on the Internet. Use the search

term “American Indian Movement Black Hills National Forest.”

7. In recent years there has been much discussion of the insanity plea as a

legal defense. Many believe it should be abolished, but many others regard it as

an essential part of any reasonable criminal justice system. What is your posi-

tion? In answering, be sure to distinguish carefully between what you know and

what you assume or guess. If your knowledge is very limited, you might want to

do some research.

8. Group discussion exercise: Decide if you know whether each of the follow- ing statements is accurate. Discuss your decisions with two or three classmates.

Be sure to distinguish knowing from guessing or assuming.

a. Most criminals come from lower economic backgrounds.

b. African Americans are victims of crimes more often than are whites.

c. The U.S. Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to own a handgun.

d. Violence in the media is responsible for real-life violence.

A Difference of Opinion

The following passage summarizes an important difference of opinion. After

reading the statement, use the library and/or the Internet and find what knowl-

edgeable people have said about the issue. Be sure to cover the entire range of

views. Then assess the strengths and weaknesses of each. If you conclude that

rug38189_ch04_047-058.qxd 1/3/11 4:35 PM Page 57

58 PART ONE The Context

one view is entirely correct and the others are mistaken, explain how you

reached that conclusion. If, as is more likely, you find that one view is more insightful than the others but that they all make some valid points, construct

a view of your own that combines the insights from all views and explain why that view is the most reasonable of all. Present your response in a composition or

an oral report, as your instructor specifies.

Is the threat of global warming real or imaginary? As recently as the 1970s, many scientists were warning of the dangers, not of global warming, but of

global cooling. Nevertheless, the most widely publicized alarms today con-

cern global warming. For example, Bob Corell, Senior Fellow of the

American Meteorological Society, notes that the earth’s glaciers are receding

at an alarming rate and that the ice field surrounding the North Pole has al-

ready shrunk dramatically. In all, approximately 105 million acres of ice

have melted in the past fifteen years alone. The cause of this change, he be-

lieves, is the carbon dioxide created by human activity, notably through the

burning of fossil fuels. The result, he predicts, will be a rise in sea level of 3

feet over the next 100 years and the inundation of low-lying coastal areas in

every country on earth.25

But not all scientists agree. For example, Richard Lindzen, Professor of

Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), main-

tains that claims of global warming are “junk science” that is being hyped

by people with a “vested interest in alarm.” Lindzen argues that even when

the data published by such people are accurate, they do not support the con-

clusions drawn and the dire predictions made. Moreover, he claims that

experts who dare to challenge the official view of global warming are being

intimidated into silence, notably by threats that their research funding will

be cut off and their publications suppressed. In support of this claim, he cites

his own experience and that of scientists in several other countries.26

(Compounding the difficulty of this issue is the fact that in 2009 it was

learned that some prominent scientists, in email exchanges, seemed to be

condoning the manipulation of research data to support the global warming

thesis.)

Begin your analysis by conducting a Google search using the term “controversy

global warming.”

rug38189_ch04_047-058.qxd 1/3/11 4:35 PM Page 58

C H A P T E R 5

How Good Are Your Opinions?

To me truth is precious. . . . I should rather be right and stand alone than

to run with the multitude and be wrong. . . . The holding of the views

herein set forth has already won for me the scorn and contempt and

ridicule of some of my fellow men. I am looked upon as being odd,

strange, peculiar. . . . But truth is truth and though all the world reject

it and turn against me, I will cling to truth still.1

Stirring words, those. You can envision their author bravely facing legions

of reactionaries intent on imposing their narrow dogmas on him. In the

background you can almost hear a chorus singing “Stout-Hearted Men.”

Stand tall, brave hero. Never give in!

But wait a minute. Just who is the author? And what exactly is the

opinion he is valiantly defending? His name is Charles Silvester de Fort.

The quotation is from a booklet he wrote in 1931. And the opinion is—are

you ready for this?—that the earth is flat. People have always taken their opinions seriously, but today many

people embrace their opinions with extraordinary passion. “I have a

right to my opinion” and “Everyone’s entitled to his or her opinion” are

common expressions. Question another person’s opinion and you’re

likely to hear, “Well, that’s my OPINION.” The unspoken message is “Case

closed.”

Is that a reasonable view? Is it inappropriate to challenge the opinions

of others? The answer depends on the kind of issue involved. If it is a matter of taste, then the standard is the undemanding one of personal preference. If Agnes finds Reginald handsome and Sally disagrees, there’s really no basis

for a meaningful dispute. Ditto if Ralph drools over an orange Camaro

with brass wire hubcaps and purple upholstery and Carla is repulsed by

it. Some people put catsup on hot dogs, while others prefer mustard or rel-

ish, and perhaps at this very moment someone, somewhere, is slathering a

rug38189_ch05_059-071.qxd 1/3/11 4:36 PM Page 59

60 PART ONE The Context

hot dog with mayonnaise or blueberries or pureed brussels sprouts. So

what? Vive la différence! However, consider this very different use of the term opinion: A news-

paper reports that the Supreme Court has delivered its opinion in a contro-

versial case. Obviously, the justices did not state their personal preferences,

their mere likes and dislikes. They stated their considered judgment, painstakingly arrived at after thorough inquiry and deliberation.

In the context of critical thinking, the term opinion refers to expres- sions of judgment rather than to expressions of taste.* In some cases,

unfortunately, it is not clear whether someone is expressing taste or judg

ment. A friend might say to you, as you leave a movie theater, “That was

a wonderful film,” which could mean “I liked it” or “It meets a very high

standard of cinematography.” If she is merely saying she liked it, and you

didn’t, the disagreement would be over personal taste, which is pointless

to debate. However, if she is making an aesthetic judgment, you could

reasonably challenge her, citing specific film standards the movie failed

to meet.

Is everyone entitled to his or her opinion? In a free country this is not

only permitted but guaranteed. In Great Britain, for example, there is still

a Flat Earth Society. As the name implies, the members of this organization

believe that the earth is not spherical but flat. In this country, too, each of

us is free to take as bizarre a position as we please about any matter we

choose. When the telephone operator announces, “That’ll be ninety-five cents

for the first three minutes,” you may respond, “No, it won’t—it’ll be

twenty-eight cents.” When the service station attendant notifies you,

“Your oil is down a quart,” you may reply, “Wrong—it’s up three.”

Being free to hold an opinion and express it does not, of course, guar-

antee favorable consequences. The operator may hang up on you, and the

service station attendant may respond unpleasantly.

Acting on our opinions carries even less assurance. Consider the case of the California couple who took their eleven-year-old diabetic son to a

faith healer. Secure in their opinion that the man had cured the boy, they

threw away his insulin. Three days later, the boy died. The parents

remained unshaken in their belief, expressing the opinion that God would

raise the boy from the dead. The police arrested them, charging them

with manslaughter.2 The law in such matters is both clear and reasonable:

We are free to act on our opinions only as long as, in doing so, we do not

harm others.

*Judgment and taste may, of course, be present in the mind without being expressed. And

though we can evaluate our own judgments whether they are expressed or not, we can eval-

uate other people’s judgments only when they are expressed. Hence, our definition specifies

expressed judgments.

rug38189_ch05_059-071.qxd 1/3/11 4:36 PM Page 60

61CHAPTER 5 How Good Are Your Opinions?

Opinions Can Be Mistaken

We might be tempted to conclude that if we are free to have an opinion, it

must be correct. That, however, is not the case. Free societies are based on

the wise observation that people have an inalienable right to think their

own thoughts and make their own choices. But this fact in no way sug-

gests that the thoughts they think and the choices they make will be rea-

sonable. It is a fundamental principle of critical thinking that ideas are

seldom of equal quality. Solutions to problems vary from the practical to

the impractical, beliefs from the well founded to the ill founded, argu-

ments from the logical to the illogical, and opinions from the informed to

the uninformed. Critical thinking serves to separate the more worthy

from the less worthy and, ultimately, to identify the best.

Evidence that opinions can be mistaken is all around us. The weekend

drinker often has the opinion that, as long as he doesn’t drink during the

week, he is not an alcoholic. The person who continues driving her gas

guzzler with the needle on Empty may have the opinion that the problem

being signaled can wait for another fifty miles. The student who quits

school at age sixteen may have the opinion that an early entry into the job

market ultimately improves job security. Yet, however deeply and sin-

cerely such opinions are held, they are most likely wrong.

Research shows that people can be mistaken even when they are

making a special effort to judge objectively. Sometimes their errors are

caused by considerations so subtle that they are unaware of them. For

example, before Taster’s Choice coffee was introduced, it was tested and

sampled with three different labels—brown, yellow, and red. People who

sampled the brown-labeled coffee reported that it was too strong and kept

them awake at night. Those who sampled the yellow-labeled coffee found

it weak and watery. Those who sampled the red-labeled coffee judged it to

be just the right strength and delicious. All this even though the coffee in

each jar was exactly the same. The people had been subconsciously influenced by the color of the label.3

Opinions on Moral Issues

The notion that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion is especially

strong in the area of morality. Questions of right and wrong are presumed

to be completely subjective and personal. According to this notion, if you

believe a particular behavior is immoral and I believe it is moral, even

noble, we are both right. Your view is “right for you” and mine is “right

for me.”

This popular perspective may seem eminently sensible and broad-

minded, but it is utterly shallow. Almost every day, situations arise that

rug38189_ch05_059-071.qxd 1/3/11 4:36 PM Page 61

62 PART ONE The Context

require reasonable people to violate it. Have you ever heard anyone claim

that burglary, spousal abuse, or rape is morally acceptable for those who

believe it is? When someone is convicted of child molesting, do citizens

parade in front of the courthouse with banners proclaiming “Pedophilia

may be wrong for us, but it was right for him”? If your instructor discov-

ers you cheating on an examination, will she accept your explanation that

you believe the end justifies the means? If a Breathalyzer test reveals that

your classmate was driving with a blood alcohol level higher than his

grade point average, will the police officer commend him for living by his

moral conviction?

Virtually every professional organization and every corporation has

a code of ethics that specifies the behaviors that are required or forbidden.

Every country has a body of laws with prescribed penalties for violators.

There are even international laws that govern affairs among countries. All

these codes and legal systems don’t appear out of thin air. They are the

products of moral judgment, the same mental activity individuals use in

deciding everyday issues of right and wrong. And they are subject to the

same limitations and imperfections. Opinions about moral issues, like

other opinions, may be correct or incorrect.

Are there criteria we can use to increase the chance that our moral

judgments will be correct? Definitely. The most important criteria are

obligations, ideals, and consequences.*

• Obligations: Obligations are restrictions on behavior, demands that we do or avoid doing something. The most obvious kinds of obliga- tions are formal agreements such as contracts. Others include profes- sional and business obligations, and obligations of friendship and citizenship. When two or more obligations conflict, the most impor- tant one should take precedence.

• Ideals: In the general sense, ideals are notions of excellence, goals that bring greater harmony within ourselves and with others. In ethics they are also specific concepts that help us maintain respect for per- sons. Some noteworthy examples of ideals are honesty, integrity, justice, and fairness. When two or more ideals conflict in a given situation, the most important one should be given precedence.

• Consequences: Consequences are the beneficial and/or harmful results of an action that affect both the person performing that action and other people. Any examination of consequences should consider the various kinds: personal and societal; physical and emotional; immediate and eventual; intended and unintended; obvious and subtle; and possible, probable, and certain. Actions that achieve ben- eficial consequences should be preferred over those that do harm.

*Space limitations do not permit more than a brief explanation of moral judgment. For a

fuller discussion, see the companion book by the same author, Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008).

rug38189_ch05_059-071.qxd 1/3/11 4:36 PM Page 62

63CHAPTER 5 How Good Are Your Opinions?

Whenever the consequences are mixed (some beneficial, others harmful), the preferred action is the one that achieves the greater good or the lesser evil.

Even Experts Can Be Wrong

History records numerous occasions when the expert opinion has been

the wrong opinion. In ancient times the standard medical opinion was that

headaches were caused by demons inside the skull. The accepted treat-

ment ranged from opening the skull and releasing the demons to giving

medicines derived from cow’s brain and goat dung. (Some Native

American tribes preferred beaver testicles.)4

When the idea of inoculating people against diseases such as small-

pox first arrived in the colonies in the early 1700s, most authorities

regarded it as nonsense. Among them were Benjamin Franklin and a

number of the men who later founded Harvard Medical School. Against

the authorities stood a relatively unknown man who didn’t even have a

medical degree, Zabdiel Boylston. Whose opinion was proved right? Not

the experts’ but Zabdiel Boylston’s.5

In 1890 a Nobel Prize–winning bacteriologist, Dr. Robert Koch,

reported that he had found a substance that would cure tuberculosis.

When it was injected into patients, though, it was found to cause further

illness and even death.

In 1904 psychologist G. Stanley Hall expressed his professional

opinion that when women engage in strenuous mental activity, particu-

larly with men, they experience a loss of mammary function and interest

in motherhood, as well as decreased fertility. If they subsequently

have children, the children will tend to be sickly.6 Today this idea is

laughable.

Between 1919 and 1922 the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York

City bought seventeen gold vessels that experts determined were authen-

tic treasures from a 3,500-year-old Egyptian tomb. In 1982 the vessels

were discovered to be twentieth-century fakes.7

In 1928 a drug called thorotrast was developed and used to outline

certain organs of the body so that clearer X-rays could be taken. Nineteen

years later, doctors learned that even small doses of the drug caused cancer.

In 1959 a sedative called thalidomide was placed on the market.

Many physicians prescribed it for pregnant women. Then, when a large

number of babies were born deformed, medical authorities realized that

thalidomide was to blame.

In 1973, using refined radar mapping techniques, scientists decided

that their earlier claims about the surface of Venus were wrong. It was not

smooth, as they had thought, but pockmarked with craters.8

rug38189_ch05_059-071.qxd 1/3/11 4:36 PM Page 63

64 PART ONE The Context

In the 1980s and 1990s one of the hottest topics in the publishing and

seminar industries was co-dependency. Anyone related to an alcoholic or

drug addict was considered to be a contributor to the problem, chiefly by

unconsciously encouraging the person’s habit or enabling the person to in-

dulge it. Soon the idea of co-dependency became the diagnosis of choice for

any situation characterized by out-of-control behavior. Co-dependents

were urged to buy books, attend seminars, and join their troubled family

member in counseling. Then one curious researcher, Edith Gomberg,

examined the scientific research base on which the movement was founded.

She found . . . zip, nada, nothing. In her words, “There are no surveys, no clin-

ical research, no evaluations; only descriptive, impressionistic statements.”9

For most of the twentieth century, the universally accepted scientific

opinion was that stomach ulcers are caused by excess stomach acid gener-

ated by stress. Then Barry Marshall demonstrated that ulcers are caused

by bacteria and can be cured with antibiotics.

Remember the brontosaurus with his head stretching to the treetops

in Jurassic Park? That scene reflected the traditional scientific opinion that the big dinosaurs dined on leaves thirty or more feet off the ground. In

1999, however, Michael Parrish, a northern Illinois researcher, experi-

mented with a computer model of the neck bones of large dinosaurs and

discovered that they could never have lifted their heads above the level of

their bodies. If they had, their neck vertebrae would have collapsed. They

couldn’t have stood on their hind legs, either, because the demands on

their blood pressure would have been excessive.10

For years physicians told us that fiber lowers cholesterol and protects

against colon cancer. Eventually, medical research established that it

doesn’t lower cholesterol. Then researchers demonstrated that it doesn’t

protect against colon cancer.11

To this day, many experts are convinced that the cause of crime is a bad

social environment and that the solution is to pour millions of dollars into

poor neighborhoods for a variety of social programs. Other experts are

equally convinced that the cause of crime is an emotional disorder that can

be cured only by psychological counseling. But a leading researcher, Stanton

Samenow, disputes both views. Samenow argues that “bad neighborhoods,

inadequate parents, television, schools, drugs, or unemployment” are not

the cause of crime—criminals themselves are. They break the law not

because conditions force them to but because they choose to, and they

choose to because they consider themselves special and therefore above the

law. In Samenow’s view, the key to criminals’ rehabilitation is for them to

accept responsibility for their behavior.12 Is Samenow correct? Time will tell.

It is impossible to know what expert opinions of our time will be

overturned by researchers in the future. But we can be sure that some will

be. And they may well be views that today seem unassailable.

rug38189_ch05_059-071.qxd 1/3/11 4:36 PM Page 64

65CHAPTER 5 How Good Are Your Opinions?

Kinds of Errors

Opinion can be corrupted by any one of four broad kinds of errors.* These

classifications, with examples added for clarification, are the following:

1. Errors or tendencies to error common among all people by virtue of their being human (for example, the tendency to perceive selectively or rush to judgment or oversimplify complex realities)

2. Errors or tendencies to error associated with one’s individual habits of mind or personal attitudes, beliefs, or theories (for example, the habit of thinking the worst of members of a race or religion against which one harbors prejudice)

3. Errors that come from human communication and the limitations of language (for example, the practice of expressing a thought or feel- ing inadequately and leading others to form a mistaken impression)

4. Errors in the general fashion of an age (for example, the tendency in our grandparents’ day to accept authority unquestioningly or the tendency in ours to recognize no authority but oneself )

Some people, of course, are more prone to errors than others. English

philosopher John Locke observed that these people fall into three groups:

Those who seldom reason at all, but think and act as those around them

do—parents, neighbors, the clergy, or anyone else they admire and

respect. Such people want to avoid the difficulty that accompanies

thinking for themselves.

Those who are determined to let passion rather than reason govern

their lives. Those people are influenced only by reasoning that supports

their prejudices.

Those who sincerely follow reason, but lack sound, overall good

sense, and so do not look at all sides of an issue. They tend to talk with

one type of person, read one type of book, and so are exposed to only

one viewpoint.13

To Locke’s list we should add one more type: those who never bother

to reexamine an opinion once it has been formed. These people are often the

most error prone of all, for they forfeit all opportunity to correct mistaken

opinions when new evidence arises.

Informed Versus Uninformed Opinion

If experts can, like the rest of us, be wrong, why are their opinions more

highly valued than those of nonexperts? In light of the examples we have con-

sidered, we might conclude that it is a waste of time to consult the experts.

Let’s look at some situations and see if this conclusion is reasonable.

*The classifications noted here are adaptations of Francis Bacon’s well-known “Idols,”

Novum Organum, Book I (1620).

rug38189_ch05_059-071.qxd 1/3/11 4:36 PM Page 65

66 PART ONE The Context

What are the effects of hashish on those who smoke it? We could ask

the opinion of a smoker or take a poll of a large number of smokers. But it

would be more prudent to obtain the opinion of one or more trained

observers, research scientists who have conducted studies of the effects of

hashish smoking. (At least one such group, a team of army doctors, has

found that heavy use of hashish leads to severe lung damage. Also, if the

smoker is predisposed to schizophrenia, hashish can cause long-lasting

episodes of that disorder.14)

A giant quasar is positioned on what may be the edge of our universe,

10 billion light-years away from us.15 (To calculate the distance in miles,

just multiply the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second, by the number

of seconds in a day, 86,400; next multiply that answer by the number of

days in a year, 365; finally, multiply that answer by 10,000,000,000.) The

pinpoint of light viewed by astronomers has been streaking through space

for all those years and has just reached us. The quasar may very well

have ceased to exist millions and millions of years ago. Did it? It may take

millions and millions of years before we can know. If we wanted to find

out more about this quasar or about quasars in general, we could stop

someone on a street corner and ask about it, and that person would be free

to offer an opinion. But it would be more sensible to ask an astronomer.

Can whales communicate with one another? If so, how far can they

transmit messages? Would our auto mechanic have an opinion on this

matter? Perhaps. And so might our grocer, dentist, and banker. But no

matter how intelligent these people are, chances are their opinions about

whales are not very well informed. The people whose opinions would be

valuable would be those who have done some research with whales.

(They would tell us that the humpback whales can make a variety of

sounds. In addition to clicking noises, they make creaking and banging

and squeaking noises. They’ve been found to make these sounds for as

long as several minutes at a time, at an intensity of 100 to 110 decibels,

and audible for a distance of 25,000 miles.16)

Similar examples could be cited from every field of knowledge—from

antique collecting to ethics, from art to criminology. All would support the

same view: that by examining the opinions of informed people before mak-

ing up our minds, we broaden our perspective, see details we might not see

by ourselves, consider facts we would otherwise be unaware of, and lessen

our chances of error. (It is foolish to look for guarantees of correctness— there are none.) No one can know everything about everything; there is

simply not enough time to learn. Consulting those who have given their

special attention to the field of knowledge in question is therefore a mark

not of dependence or irresponsibility but of efficiency and good sense.

To be considered informed, an opinion must be based on something

more substantial than its familiarity to us or the length of time we have

rug38189_ch05_059-071.qxd 1/3/11 4:36 PM Page 66

67CHAPTER 5 How Good Are Your Opinions?

held it or our presumed right to think whatever we wish. It must be based

on careful consideration of the evidence. And when we express an opinion

in formal speaking or writing, we should support it adequately. Authors

Ray Marshall and Marc Tucker, for example, assert that the reason teaching

in the United States has not been a highly respected profession is that

most schoolteachers traditionally have been women. To support this

contention, they trace the relevant historical development, citing admin-

istrative directives and statements of philosophy, presenting hiring

patterns (from 59 percent women in 1870 to 86 percent in 1920), detailing

significant shifts in curricula, contrasting male and female salary statistics,

and demonstrating the relative powerlessness of women to negotiate

professional-level salaries and working conditions.17

As this example illustrates, in most responsible expressions of opinion,

the statement of opinion takes up only a sentence or two, while the sup-

porting details fill paragraphs, pages, and even entire chapters. Keep this

in mind when writing your analytic papers.

Forming Opinions Responsibly

One of the things that makes human beings vastly more complex and in-

teresting than cows or trees is their ability to form opinions. Forming

opinions is natural. Even if we wanted to stop doing so, we couldn’t. Nor

should we want to. This ability has two sides, however. It can either lift us

to wisdom or mire us in shallowness or even absurdity. Here are some

tips that can help you improve the quality of your opinions:

1. Understand how opinions are formed. Like every other human being, you are constantly perceiving—that is, receiving data through your senses. Also like everyone else, you have a natural drive to discover meaning in your perceptions. That drive can be enhanced or sup- pressed, but it can never be entirely lost. In practical terms, this means that you cannot help producing opinions about what you see and hear whether or not you take control of the process. When you are not in control, your mental system operates in the uncritical default mode. Here is how that uncritical mode compares with the conscious and more conscientious critical thinking mode:

Uncritical Default Mode

Perceive

Let an opinion “come to mind”

Focus on information that supports the opinion

Embrace the opinion

Critical Thinking Mode

Perceive

Investigate the issue

Consider alternative opinions

Decide which opinion is most reasonable

rug38189_ch05_059-071.qxd 1/3/11 4:36 PM Page 67

68 PART ONE The Context

2. Resist the temptation to treat your opinions as facts. This temptation can be powerful. Once you’ve formed an opinion, it is natural to bond with it, much as a parent bonds with a baby. The more you call your opinion to mind and express it to others, the stronger the bond becomes. To question its legitimacy soon becomes unthinkable. Nevertheless, you can be sure that some of your opinions have been uncritically formed and therefore need to be challenged. The prob- lem is that you can’t be sure which ones those are. The prudent approach is to question any opinion, even a cherished one, the moment evidence arises that suggests it is based on habit, impulse, whim, personal preference, or the influence of fashionable ideas rather than reality.

3. Monitor your thoughts to prevent the uncritical default mode from taking charge. Whenever you begin forming impressions of a person, place, or situation, follow the advice of the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus: “Be not swept off your feet by the vividness of the impres- sion, but say, ‘Impression, wait for me a little. Let me see what you are and what you represent. Let me try [test] you.’ ” This approach will prevent your impressions from hardening into opinions before you determine their reasonableness.

By following these three steps, you will gain control of your opinions,

and that is a considerable advantage over having them control you.

Applications

1. Imagine that you are the senior librarian for your college. A faculty

member sends you the following list of recommended magazines, with a brief

description of each quoted from a standard guide, Magazines for Libraries, by Bill Katz and Linda Sternberg Katz.18

The Nation. “This is the foremost liberal/left-wing journal, and the standard by which all other liberal publications should be judged . . .

unabashedly partisan.”

Human Events. “The editor makes no claims about impartiality. . . . The editorial tone is decidedly conservative, particularly when discussing

Congress.”

Free Inquiry: A Secular Humanist Magazine. “The articles in this journal strongly reflect the position of CODESH [the Council for Democratic and

Secular Humanism] and tend to be more anti–organized religion than

positively secular humanist.”

Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia. “Paidika is a journal intended for aca- demics studying human sexuality as well as for pedophiles and pederasts

discovering a history and an identity.”

Explain which magazines you would subscribe to for the library, which

you would not, and which you would need more information about before you

decided. If you would need more information, explain what it would be and

how you would obtain it. (Note: Your library may have a copy of Magazines for Libraries.)

rug38189_ch05_059-071.qxd 1/3/11 4:36 PM Page 68

69CHAPTER 5 How Good Are Your Opinions?

2. Which of the following individuals is likely to be most successful at

persuading the public to buy a certain brand of running shoes? Explain your

reasoning.

a. An experienced trainer

b. An Olympic running champion

c. A podiatrist

d. A physician in general practice

e. The surgeon general of the United States

3. Of the individuals listed in application 2, who is likely to be the most

knowledgeable source of information on running shoes?

4. What factors might compromise the endorsements of the various peo-

ple listed in application 2? Which individual’s endorsement would you be most

likely to trust? Explain.

5. When this author uses the word opinion, his major emphasis is on which of the following? Explain your reasoning.

a. A statement of preference

b. A considered judgment

c. A view or belief casually arrived at

d. A bigoted position

e. An unsupportable position

f. All of the above

g. None of the above

6. Which of the following would this author be likely to rate as most impor-

tant in forming a reliable opinion? Explain your reasoning.

a. Seek reasons to support your opinions.

b. Distinguish between input from experts and input from others.

c. Reject others’ opinions.

d. Subject opinions to ongoing reexamination based on new evidence.

7. A high school junior invited his thirty-five-year-old neighbor, the mother

of four children, to his prom. The woman was married, and her husband ap-

proved of the date. However, the school board ruled that the boy would be de-

nied admission to the dance if he took her.19 What is your opinion of the board’s

decision?

8. Read the following dialogue carefully. Then decide whether anything

said violates the ideas in the chapter. Identify any erroneous notions, and explain

in your own words how they are in error.

Fred: There was this discussion in class today that really bugged me. Art: Yeah? What was it about? Fred: Teenage sex. The question was whether having sex whenever we please with whomever we please is harmful to teenagers. Some people

said yes. Others said it depends on the circumstances.

Art: What did you say? Fred: I said it doesn’t do any harm to anybody, that parents use that story to scare us. Then the teacher asked me what evidence I had to back up

my idea.

Art: What did you tell him? Fred: I said I didn’t need any evidence because it’s my opinion. Sex is a personal matter, I said, and I’ve got a right to think anything I want about

it. My opinions are as good as anybody else’s.

rug38189_ch05_059-071.qxd 1/3/11 4:36 PM Page 69

70 PART ONE The Context

9. Think of an instance in which you or someone you know formed an opinion

that later proved incorrect. State the opinion and explain in what way it was incorrect.

10. Each of the following questions reflects a controversial issue—that is, an

issue that tends to excite strong disagreement among people. State and support

your opinion about each issue, applying what you learned in this chapter.

a. In divorce cases, what guidelines should the courts use in deciding which

parent gets custody of the children?

b. Until what age should children be spanked (if indeed they should be

spanked at all)?

c. Should the minimum drinking age be sixteen in all states?

d. In what situation, if any, should the United States make the first strike

with nuclear weapons?

e. Do evil spirits exist? If so, can they influence people’s actions?

f. Does the end ever justify the means?

g. Does attending class regularly increase one’s chances for academic success?

h. Were teachers more respected fifty years ago than they are today?

i. Does binge drinking on weekends constitute alcoholism?

j. Is antisocial behavior increasing, or are the media just doing a better job

of reporting it?

11. Read the following dialogue carefully. Then determine which opinion on

the issue is more reasonable. Be sure to base your decision on evidence rather than

mere preference.

Background note: A Rochester, New York, lawyer issued a court challenge to the prac- tice of charging women half price for drinks during “ladies’ nights” at bars. He argued that the practice is a form of sex discrimination against men.20

Henrietta: That lawyer must be making a joke against feminism. He can’t be serious.

Burt: Why not? It’s clearly a case of discrimination. Henrietta: Look, we both know why ladies’ nights are scheduled in bars: as a gimmick to attract customers. The women flock to the bars to get

cheap drinks, and the men flock there because the women are there. It’s

no different from other gimmicks, such as mud-wrestling contests and

“two for the price of one” cocktail hours.

Burt: Sorry. It’s very different from two-for-one cocktail hours, where a per- son of either sex can buy a cocktail at the same price. Ladies’ nights set a dou-

ble standard based on sex and that’s sex discrimination, pure and simple.

Henrietta: So now you’re a great foe of discrimination. How come you’re not complaining that men haven’t got an equal opportunity to participate

half naked in mud-wrestling contests? And why aren’t you protesting the

fact that women are paid less for doing the same jobs men do? You’re

a phony, Burt, and you make me sick.

Burt: Name-calling is not a sign of a strong intellect. And why you should get so emotional over some lawyer’s protest, I can’t imagine. I guess it

goes to show that women are more emotional than men.

A Difference of Opinion

The following passage summarizes an important difference of opinion. After

reading the statement, use the library and/or the Internet and find what knowl-

edgeable people have said about the issue. Be sure to cover the entire range of

rug38189_ch05_059-071.qxd 1/3/11 4:36 PM Page 70

71CHAPTER 5 How Good Are Your Opinions?

views. Then assess the strengths and weaknesses of each. If you conclude

that one view is entirely correct and the others are mistaken, explain how you

reached that conclusion. If, as is more likely, you find that one view is more insightful than the others but that they all make some valid points, construct a

view of your own that combines the insights from all views and explain why that view is the most reasonable of all. Present your response in a composition or an

oral report, as your instructor specifies.

Has government in the United States grown too big for the good of its citizens? Many people argue that it has. Their most publicized concerns are the government’s involvement in the “bailouts” of financial institutions, the

virtual takeover of General Motors, and the enactment of health care legisla-

tion. They also point to federal, state, and city income taxes; gasoline and

cigarette taxes; and an increasing number of regulations—for example, on

the salt and fat content of foods, smoking, and seat belts. Those who dis-

agree that government is too big point to its contributions to protecting the

environment, maintaining product safety, and overcoming poverty and

discrimination.

Begin your analysis by conducting a Google search using the terms “limited

government” and “free enterprise economy.”

rug38189_ch05_059-071.qxd 1/3/11 4:36 PM Page 71

C H A P T E R 6

What Is Evidence?

To state an opinion is to tell others what we think about something; to

present evidence is to show others that what we think makes sense. Being

shown is much more interesting and impressive than being told—we’ve

all known this since grade school. Why, then, does so much writing and

speaking consist of piling one opinion on another, with little or no evi-

dence offered in support of any of them? As we saw in Chapter 5, one rea-

son is that the human mind is a veritable opinion factory, so most people

have an abundance of opinions to share. Another reason is that people tend

to remember their opinions and forget the process by which they got them,

much as students remember their final grade in a course long after they

have forgotten the tests and homework grades that resulted in it.

Another, and in some ways more significant, reason is that sometimes

there is little or no evidence to remember—in other words, the opinion is

based on nothing substantial. For example, in early 1999 many people

held the opinion that William Jefferson Clinton’s lying under oath did not

“rise to the level of an impeachable offense.” When asked to explain why

they thought that, some people repeated the assertion in identical or sim-

ilar words: “He shouldn’t be removed from office for what he did” or

“It’s between him and Hillary.” Some offered related opinions: “It’s a

right-wing conspiracy” or “Independent counsel Kenneth Starr is on a

witch-hunt.” Though it is impossible to be certain why they thought as they did, the fact that they expressed the opinion in the very same words

incessantly repeated by a half dozen White House advisors and innumer-

able other Clinton supporters suggests that they simply borrowed the

opinion without evaluating it.*

*The fact that many people embraced this opinion without much evidence does not mean

that no evidence could be marshalled for the view. Other supporters of President Clinton

responded more substantively.

rug38189_ch06_072-082.qxd 1/3/11 4:37 PM Page 72

73CHAPTER 6 What Is Evidence?

We can all identify with those people. More often than most of us

would care to admit, when called on to support our opinions, we manage

to produce only the flimsiest of evidence. We may soothe ourselves with

the notion that a thick folder of evidence lies misfiled in our minds, but the

very real possibility remains that flimsy evidence was all we ever had.

Critical thinkers are tempted to commit the same self-deception that

plagues others, but they have learned the value of resisting that tempta-

tion. More important, they have developed the habit of checking the qual-

ity and quantity of the evidence before forming an opinion. Also, they

review their evidence before expressing an opinion. The extra time this

takes is more than compensated for by the confidence that comes from

knowing what they are talking about.

Kinds of Evidence

To evaluate your own and other people’s opinions, you will need to un-

derstand the various kinds of evidence. This entails knowing the value

and limitations of each kind, as well as the appropriate questions to ask.

The most important kinds of evidence are personal experience, unpublished report, published report, eyewitness testimony, celebrity testimony, expert opin- ion, experiment, statistics, survey, formal observation, and research review.

It is important to note that the arrangement here is not in ascending or

descending order of reliability but rather in rough order of familiarity—

with personal experience being very familiar to most people and research review much less familiar.

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

Personal experience is the one kind of evidence we don’t have to go to the

library or the Internet to get. We carry it with us in our minds. For this rea-

son, it tends to exert a greater influence than other kinds of evidence. The

individuals we’ve met, the situations we’ve been in, and the things that

have happened to us seem more authentic and meaningful than what we

have merely heard or read. We are confident about our personal experi-

ence. Unfortunately, this confidence can cause us to attach greater signifi-

cance and universality to particular events than they deserve. If we ride in

a New York City taxicab on one occasion, we may think we are acquainted

with New York City taxicab drivers. If we have a Korean friend, we may

feel that we know Koreans in general or even Asians in general. However,

it takes more than one or a few examples to support a generalization; for

sweeping generalizations, even a dozen may not be enough.

To evaluate personal experience—your own or other people’s—ask, Are the events typical or unique? Are they sufficient in number and kind to support

rug38189_ch06_072-082.qxd 1/3/11 4:37 PM Page 73

74 PART ONE The Context

the conclusion? Remember that the vividness and dramatic quality of an

anecdote cannot compensate for its limitedness.

UNPUBLISHED REPORT

Unpublished reports are stories we hear from other people, often referred

to as gossip or hearsay. The biggest problem with such reports is that it is

difficult to confirm them. In many cases, we don’t know whether the sto-

ries are secondhand or third-, fourth-, or fiftiethhand. And stories have a way of changing as they are passed from person to person. The people

who repeat them may not be dishonest; they may, in fact, try to be accu-

rate but then inadvertently leave out some words, add others, or change

the details or the order of events.

To evaluate an unpublished report, ask, Where did the story originate? How can I confirm that the version I heard is accurate?

PUBLISHED REPORT

This kind of evidence is found in a wide variety of published or broadcast

works, from scholarly books, professional journals, and encyclopedia arti-

cles to magazine or newspaper articles, news broadcasts, and radio or tele-

vision commentaries. In scholarly works the sources of the material

usually are carefully documented in footnotes and bibliographic citations.

In nonscholarly works, the documentation may be informal, fragmentary,

or, in some cases, nonexistent. Even when the source is not cited, we can

assess the author’s and publisher’s reliability. Facts and opinions are often

mingled in contemporary publications, particularly nonscholarly ones, so

careful reading may be necessary to reveal which statements constitute

evidence and which statements should be supported with evidence.

To evaluate a published report, ask, Does the report cite the sources of all important items of information? (If so, you may wish to check them.)

Does the author have a reputation for careful reporting? Does the pub-

lisher or broadcaster have a reputation for reliability? Which statements

in the published report constitute evidence, and which should them-

selves be supported with evidence? (Another way to ask this question is

Which statements might a thoughtful person challenge? Does the author

anticipate and answer the challenges satisfactorily?)

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY

Because eyewitness testimony is commonly considered to be the most reli-

able kind of evidence, you may be surprised to find that it is sometimes

badly flawed for any one of several reasons. The external conditions may

rug38189_ch06_072-082.qxd 1/3/11 4:37 PM Page 74

75CHAPTER 6 What Is Evidence?

not have been optimal—for example, the incident may have occurred late on

a foggy night and the eyewitness may have been some distance away. The

eyewitness may have been tired or under the influence of alcohol or drugs;

his or her observation may also have been distorted by preconceptions or

expectations. Further, the person’s memory of what occurred may have been

confused by subsequent events. Such confusion can be a special problem

when considerable time has elapsed between the event and the testimony.

To evaluate eyewitness testimony, ask, What circumstances surrounding the event, including the eyewitness’s state of mind, could have distorted

his or her perception? (If any such distortion was likely, try to determine

whether it actually occurred.) What circumstances since the event—for

example, the publication of other accounts of the event—could have

affected the eyewitness’s recollection?

CELEBRITY TESTIMONY

Increasingly, celebrities are seen endorsing products and services in com-

mercials and infomercials. In addition, when they appear as guests on

radio and television talk shows, they are encouraged to state their per-

sonal views about whatever happens to be in the news at the time. On

any given day you may hear singers, actors, and athletes discussing reli-

gion, criminal justice, education, economics, international relations, cam-

paign finance reform, and psychology, among other topics. For example,

a TV host once asked an actor, “How big a factor in human life do you

believe is chance in the universe?”

Your respect for celebrities as entertainers may lead you to assume

that they know what they are talking about in interviews. This assump-

tion is often mistaken. They may be very well informed. Or they may

have been caught unawares by the host’s question and, not wanting to

seem ignorant, uttered whatever happened to come to mind. Some

celebrities may be so impressed with their own importance that they

imagine whatever they say is profound for no other reason than that they

say it! In the case of testimonials for products or services, the celebrities

may have been paid to say things about products that they know little or

nothing about.

To evaluate celebrity testimony, ask, In the case of advertisements or infomercials, is the celebrity a paid spokesperson? (This is often indicated

in small print at the end of the ad.) In the case of talk show comments,

does the celebrity offer any support for his or her views—for example,

citing research conducted by qualified people? Also, does the host ask for

such support? If the discussion consists of little more than a series of

assertions expressing the celebrity’s unsupported opinion, you would do

well to discount it no matter now much you may admire the person.

rug38189_ch06_072-082.qxd 1/3/11 4:37 PM Page 75

EXPERT OPINION

As you might expect, expert opinion is generally more reliable than most

of the varieties of evidence we have considered so far. The advantage it

enjoys over personal experience is that it can usually address the crucial

question of what is typical and what is not. Nevertheless, not even expert

opinion is consistently reliable. The most significant reason for unreliabil-

ity is that knowledge in virtually every field is rapidly expanding. A cen-

tury ago it was possible to gain expertise in more than one discipline.

Today’s scholars typically have expertise in a single narrow aspect of one discipline and may have difficulty keeping abreast of significant develop- ments in that one. Unfortunately, some people can’t resist the temptation

to think of themselves as experts in everything. A well-known astronomer,

for example, used to write articles in popular magazines and offer his

opinions on ethics, anthropology, and theology.

To evaluate expert opinion, ask, Does the person have, in addition to cre- dentials in the broad field in question, specific expertise in the particular issue under discussion? This is not always easy to ascertain by those out-

side the field, but one good indication is that the person does not just

state his or her opinion but also supports it with references to current

research. Also ask whether the expert was paid. The acceptance of money

does not necessarily taint expert opinion, but it may raise questions about

the person’s objectivity. Finally, ask whether other authorities agree or

disagree with the expert’s view.

EXPERIMENT

There are two broad types of experiments. The laboratory experiment enables researchers to vary the conditions and thereby identify causes and effects

more precisely. One disadvantage of the laboratory experiment, however,

is its artificiality. The field experiment has the advantage of occurring in a natural setting, but the presence of the researchers can influence the subjects

and distort the findings.

To evaluate experimental evidence, ask, For a laboratory experiment, has it been replicated by other researchers? For a field experiment, have other

researchers independently confirmed the findings? If replication or con-

firmation has been unsuccessfully attempted, it is best to postpone your

acceptance of the experiment’s findings.

STATISTICS

In the broad sense, the term statistics applies to any information that can be quantified, for example, the changes in average temperature over a period of

time to determine whether the phenomenon of global warming is occurring.

76 PART ONE The Context

rug38189_ch06_072-082.qxd 1/3/11 4:37 PM Page 76

77CHAPTER 6 What Is Evidence?

The term statistics may also be used more narrowly to mean quantifiable information about a group that is obtained by contacting, or otherwise

accounting for, every individual in the group. The U.S. Census is one exam-

ple of statistics in this sense. Others are the voting records of U.S. senators,

the percentage of automobile fatalities involving drunk driving, the fluctua-

tions in immigration patterns over the past century, the percentage of unwed

mothers who come from one-parent homes, and the comparative education

and income levels of various racial-ethnic groups.

As Joel Best notes, although “we think of statistics as facts that we

discover, not as numbers we create . . . , statistics do not exist indepen-

dently” but are summaries of complex information. Sometimes statistical

errors are intentional, he explains, but more often “they are the result of

confusion, incompetence, innumeracy, or selective, self-righteous efforts

to produce numbers that reaffirm principles and interests that their advo-

cates consider just and right.” Best recommends asking three questions

when evaluating any statistic: “Who created it? For what purpose was it

created? How was it created?”1

When evaluating statistical information, ask, as well, What is the source of the statistics? Is the source reliable? How old are the data? Have any im-

portant factors changed since the data were collected?

SURVEY

Surveys are among the most common tools used by professionals, partic-

ularly in the social sciences. Because the data obtained from surveys are

quantifiable, surveys are often included under the broad heading of sta-

tistics. However, we are considering them separately to highlight one

distinguishing characteristic: Surveys typically obtain data by contact-

ing, not every individual in the group (known as a population), but a rep- resentative sample of the group. Surveys are conducted by telephone contact, mail, or personal interview. The sampling may be random, sys- tematic (for example, every tenth or hundredth person in a telephone di- rectory), or stratified (the exact proportion of the component members of the group; for example, 51 percent women and 49 percent men).

“Public attitudes toward most social issues,” Joel Best warns, “are too

complex to be classified in simple pros and cons, or to be measured by a

single survey question.” Moreover, those who conduct surveys realize

that “the way questions are worded affects results,” and, if they are dis-

honest, they can frame their questions in a way that advances their per-

sonal agendas.2

When evaluating a survey, ask, Was the sample truly representative? That is, did all members of the total population surveyed have an equal

chance of being selected? Were the questions clear and unambiguous?

rug38189_ch06_072-082.qxd 1/3/11 4:37 PM Page 77

Were they objectively phrased rather than slanted? In the case of a mailed

survey, did a significant number fail to respond? If so, how might non-

respondents differ from respondents? Also, do other surveys corroborate

the survey’s findings?

FORMAL OBSERVATION

There are two kinds of formal observational studies. In detached obser- vation the observer does not interact with the individuals being stud-

ied. A child psychologist, for example, might visit a school playground

and watch how the children behave. In participant observation the researcher is involved in the activity being studied. An anthropologist

who lived with a nomadic tribe for a period of months, sharing meals

with them and taking part in their communal activities, would be a

participant observer.

When evaluating formal observation, ask, Is it likely that the presence of the observer distorted the behavior being observed? Was the observation

of sufficient duration to permit the conclusions that were drawn? Do the

conclusions overgeneralize? (For example, the observations made of a

single nomadic group might be generalized to all nomadic groups, ignor-

ing the fact that other nomadic groups may differ in important ways.)

RESEARCH REVIEW

This kind of study is undertaken when a considerable body of research

has already been done on a subject. The reviewer examines all the schol-

arly studies that have been done and then summarizes and compares

their findings. Often dozens or even hundreds of studies are examined. A

thorough review of research reveals areas of agreement and disagree-

ment and provides a valuable overview of the current state of knowledge

on the subject. For example, in reviewing the research on the impact of

TV on adolescents, Victor Strasburger examined many research studies,

including three “super studies”—one covering 67 separate studies, an-

other 230 studies, and another 188 studies.3

When evaluating a research review, ask, Do the reviewer’s conclusions seem reasonable given the research covered in the review? Has the reviewer

omitted any relevant research? (As a layperson, you may find the latter

question impossible to answer yourself. You could, however, ask it of

another expert in the field who is familiar with both the actual research

and the review.)

One additional question is applicable to all kinds of evidence: Is this

evidence relevant to the issue under consideration? If it is not relevant, it deserves no consideration, no matter how excellent it may be in other

78 PART ONE The Context

rug38189_ch06_072-082.qxd 1/3/11 4:37 PM Page 78

79CHAPTER 6 What Is Evidence?

respects. Here is an actual example of an issue that has been badly con-

fused by the use of irrelevant evidence. For years, many college admini-

strators rejected instructors’ requests for a reduction in class size for

courses such as writing, speaking, and critical thinking. The administra-

tors cited scholarly studies demonstrating that teaching effectiveness is

unrelated to class size—in other words, that teachers can be as effective

with fifty students in the classroom as they are with fifteen. Yet the schol-

arly studies in question examined only courses that impart information,

not those that develop skills. For the latter, the very courses in question,

the evidence had no relevance.

Evaluating Evidence

We all like to think of ourselves as totally objective, equally open to either

side of every issue. But that is rarely the case. Even if we have not yet

taken a firm position on an issue at the outset of our evaluation, we will

usually be tilted in one direction or the other by our overall philosophy of

life, our political or social views, our opinions on related issues, or our at-

titude toward the people associated with the various views. This tilting,

also known as bias, may be so slight that it has little or no effect on our judgment. On the other hand, it may be significant enough to short-circuit

critical thinking. The more we tilt on an issue, the greater our thinking

deficit is likely to be.

How can you tell when bias is hindering your evaluation of evi-

dence? Look for one or more of these signs:

• You approach your evaluation wanting one side to be proved right.

• You begin your investigation assuming that familiar views will prove correct.

• You look for evidence that supports the side of the issue you favor and ignore evidence that opposes it.

• You rate sources by how favorable they are to your thinking rather than by their reliability and the quality of their research.

• You are nitpickingly critical of evidence for views you oppose and uncritical of evidence for views you favor.

• When you encounter evidence that opposes your bias, you begin arguing against it, often before you have completed examining it.

Although you may not be able to eliminate your biases, you can

nevertheless identify and control them, and that is all that is necessary. The purpose of evaluating evidence is to discover the truth, regardless

of whether it is pleasant or unpleasant, and the only way to do so is to

evaluate fairly. Such an evaluation will sometimes require you to con-

clude that the view you leaned toward (or actually held) is mistaken.

rug38189_ch06_072-082.qxd 1/3/11 4:37 PM Page 79

When the evidence supports such a conclusion, have the courage to

embrace it. Changing your mind is not dishonorable, but maintaining a

false view in order to save face is not only foolish but also intellectually

dishonest.

What Constitutes Sufficient Evidence?

It is seldom easy to decide when your evidence, or that of the person

whose opinion you are evaluating, is sufficient. In making your determi-

nation you will have to consider both the quantity and the quality of the

evidence. No simple formula exists, but these general guidelines will

help you decide particular cases:

1. Evidence is sufficient when it permits a judgment to be made with certainty. Wishing, assuming, or pretending that a judgment is correct does not constitute certainty. Certainty exists when there is no good reason for doubt, no basis for dispute. The standard for conviction in a criminal trial, for example, is “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Certainty is a very difficult standard to meet, especially in controversial issues, so generally you will be forced to settle for a more modest standard.

2. If certainty is unattainable, evidence is sufficient if one view of the issue has been shown to have the force of probability. This means that the view in question is demonstrably more reasonable than any competing view. In civil court cases this standard is expressed as “a preponderance of the evidence.” Demonstrating reasonableness is, of course, very dif- ferent from merely asserting it, and all possible views must be identi- fied and evaluated before any one view can be established as most reasonable.

3. In all other cases, the evidence must be considered insufficient. In other words, if the evidence does not show one view to be more reason- able than competing views, the only prudent course of action is to withhold judgment until sufficient evidence is available. Such re- straint can be difficult, especially when you favor a particular view, but restraint is an important characteristic of the critical thinker.

Applications

1. Many years ago an expert on thinking made this observation: “Probably

the main characteristic of the trained thinker is that he does not jump to conclu-

sions on insufficient evidence as the untrained man is inclined to do.”4 (Note: At that time, he and man were commonly used to denote both men and women.) Think of several recent occasions when you formed opinions with little or no evi-

dence. In each case state the opinion and explain what kind of evidence would be

necessary to support it adequately.

2. Cartoonist Scott Adams once observed, “Reporters are faced with the

daily choice of painstakingly researching stories or writing whatever people tell

80 PART ONE The Context

rug38189_ch06_072-082.qxd 1/3/11 4:37 PM Page 80

81CHAPTER 6 What Is Evidence?

them. Both approaches pay the same.”5 In what way, if any, is this remark related

to the subject of this chapter? Explain.

3. Some years ago, a well-known television actress was on a talk show dis-

cussing a number of topics, including an episode of her show in which two les-

bians kissed on camera. The actress volunteered this opinion: “This is a time in

our society when homophobia is really huge and crimes against gays are at an

all-time high.” If the talk show host had been a critical thinker, what questions

would he have asked at that point? What kind of evidence would be helpful in

testing the reasonableness of her opinion?

4. In Chapter 5, application 10, you responded to each of the following

questions with an opinion. Review those opinions and the evidence you offered

in support of them. In each case classify the evidence as personal experience, unpublished report, published report, eyewitness testimony, celebrity testimony, expert opinion, experiment, statistics, survey, formal observation, or research review. Decide whether your evidence was sufficient. If you find it was not, explain what kind

of evidence would be necessary to support the opinion adequately.

a. In divorce cases, what guidelines should the courts use in deciding which

parent gets custody of the children?

b. Until what age should children be spanked (if indeed they should be

spanked at all)?

c. Should the minimum drinking age be sixteen in all states?

d. In what situation, if any, should the United States make the first strike

with nuclear weapons?

e. Do evil spirits exist? If so, can they influence people’s actions?

f. Does the end ever justify the means?

g. Does attending class regularly increase one’s chances for academic

success?

h. Were teachers more respected fifty years ago than they are today?

i. Does binge drinking on weekends constitute alcoholism?

j. Is antisocial behavior increasing, or are the media just doing a better job

of reporting it?

5. In Chapter 1, application 9, you expressed an opinion about each of the

statements listed below. Reexamine each of your responses, following the direc-

tions in application 4 above.

a. Health care workers should be required to be tested for HIV/AIDS.

b. Beauty contests and talent competitions for children should be banned.

c. Extremist groups like the Ku Klux Klan should be allowed to hold rallies

on public property or be issued permits to hold parades on city streets.

d. Freshman composition should be a required course for all students.

e. Athletes should be tested for anabolic steroid use.

f. Creationism should be taught in high school biology classes.

g. Polygamy should be legalized.

h. The voting age should be lowered to sixteen.

i. The prison system should give greater emphasis to the punishment of

inmates than to their rehabilitation.

j. Doctors and clinics should be required to notify parents of minors when

they prescribe birth control devices for the minors.

k. A man’s self-esteem is severely injured if his wife makes more money

than he makes.

l. Women like being dependent on men.

rug38189_ch06_072-082.qxd 1/3/11 4:37 PM Page 81

A Difference of Opinion

The following passage summarizes an important difference of opinion. After

reading the statement, use the library and/or the Internet and find what knowl-

edgeable people have said about the issue. Be sure to cover the entire range of

views. Then assess the strengths and weaknesses of each. If you conclude that

one view is entirely correct and the others are mistaken, explain how you reached

that conclusion. If, as is more likely, you find that one view is more insightful than the others but that they all make some valid points, construct a view of your

own that combines the insights from all views and explain why that view is the most reasonable of all. Present your response in a composition or an oral report,

as your instructor specifies.

Should the minimum wage be abolished? The dominant view over the past half-century is that the minimum wage should not be abolished. In fact, many

believe it is far too low and should be increased. Proponents of this view

make the moral argument that every worker deserves a “living wage” and

only the government can ensure that employers meet this obligation. They

also make the practical argument that a higher starting salary motivates

workers to work hard and improve their skills. Those who believe the

minimum wage should be abolished contend that when minimum wages

are imposed on small businesses, they are forced to increase prices and

penalize consumers or to cut jobs and limit opportunities for would-be

workers. One economist notes that minimum wage laws harm younger

workers and members of minority groups because “the net economic effect

of minimum wage laws is to make less skilled, less experienced, or other-

wise less desired workers more expensive—thereby pricing many of them

out of jobs.”6

Begin your analysis by conducting a Google search using the term “pro con mini-

mum wage.”

82 PART ONE The Context

rug38189_ch06_072-082.qxd 1/3/11 4:37 PM Page 82

C H A P T E R 7

What Is Argument?

The word argument has several meanings, so our first task is to clarify each and note how it differs from the others. One common meaning is “a

quarrel,” as in the sentence “They had a heated argument, a real scream-

ing match.” Because a quarrel consists less of thought than of emotion, a

clash of egos that frequently degenerates into mindless babble, this defi-

nition of argument has little relevance to critical thinking. For our pur- poses, therefore, an argument is not a quarrel.

Another meaning of argument is “the exchange of opinions between two or more people,” as occurs in a formal debate. In this sense of the

term, an argument is ideally a cooperative endeavor in which people

with different viewpoints work together to achieve a deeper, more accu-

rate, understanding of an issue. In such an endeavor egos are controlled

and everyone, though wanting to be right, is willing to be proved wrong.

Since everyone emerges from the process with greater insight, no one

loses. Alas, egos are not easily suppressed. Besides, most of us have been

conditioned to believe there must be a winner and a loser in every argu-

ment, just as in every athletic contest. Thus we often focus more on “scor-

ing points” against our “opponent” than on growing in knowledge and

wisdom, so even our best efforts tend to fall short of the ideal.

Although argument as “the exchange of opinions between two or more people” is relevant to critical thinking, another meaning of the term

is even more relevant to the challenge of becoming a critical thinker. Argument, in this sense, means “the line of reasoning that supports a judgment.” When we say, “John’s argument on the issue of capital pun-

ishment was more persuasive than Sally’s,” we are focusing on the qual-

ity of his individual contribution to the overall deliberation. Because our main concern in this chapter, as throughout this book, is the evaluation of

individual arguments, your own as well as other people’s, this definition

is the one we will focus on.

rug38189_ch07_083-092.qxd 1/3/11 4:38 PM Page 83

84 PART ONE The Context

*The only exception to this is pure coincidence. Consider this argument: “Fair-skinned

people are more susceptible to skin cancer than dark-skinned people. Florida has more

fair-skinned people than Michigan. Therefore, the skin cancer rate is higher in Florida than

in Michigan.” The argument is defective because the second premise lacks a basis in fact.

Yet the conclusion happens, coincidentally, to be true.

It can be helpful to think of an argument as a kind of verbal equation

without mathematical symbols. A numerical equation has the form 1 � 1 �

2 or 2 � 1 � 1. A verbal equation expresses similar relationships without

using minus, plus, or equal signs. Here is an example:

The law prohibits teachers from leading class prayers in public schools.

Wynona leads students in prayer in her public school classroom.

Therefore, Wynona is breaking the law.

Like numerical equations, arguments may be complex as well as sim-

ple. Just as the sum in a numerical equation may be composed of many

numbers (342 � 186 � 232 � 111 � 871), so the conclusion of an argu-

ment may proceed from many premises (assertions). And just as having

an incorrect number in a column of figures will result in a wrong total, so

having an incorrect assertion will lead to a wrong conclusion.* In the class

prayer argument, if we mistakenly think that the law permits teachers to

lead students in prayer, our conclusion would be that Wynona is not

breaking the law, and that conclusion would be wrong.

Numerical equations and arguments are not, however, entirely similar.

One important difference is that an argument is often more complex and

difficult to test. Does vitamin C prevent the common cold or lessen its

severity? Does television violence cause real violence? Was John F.

Kennedy killed by a single assassin? Was Israel justified in bombing

Lebanon in 2006? In these and many other matters, the evidence is either

not yet complete or is open to interpretation.

The Parts of an Argument

The field of knowledge most closely associated with the study of argu-

ment is logic, which, like other fields that deal with complex matters, has

its own special terminology. Since this book is more practical than theo-

retical, we will limit our concern to those terms that signify the parts of an

argument: the premises and the conclusion. In the argument about Wynona mentioned above, the premises are “The law prohibits teachers from

leading class prayers in public schools” and “Wynona leads students in

prayer in her public school classroom.” The conclusion is “Therefore,

Wynona is breaking the law.” (The word therefore and synonyms such as

rug38189_ch07_083-092.qxd 1/3/11 4:38 PM Page 84

85CHAPTER 7 What Is Argument?

so and consequently are often used to identify conclusions. Where they are not used, you can usually identify the conclusion by answering the ques-

tion, Which assertion do the other assertions support or reinforce?)

The basic principles logicians use in evaluating arguments are as

follows:

1. The premises are either true or false (correct or incorrect). 2. The reasoning that links the premises to the conclusion is either valid

or invalid. (To be valid, the stated conclusion, and only that conclu- sion, must follow logically from the premises.)

3. Correct premises plus valid reasoning equal a sound argument. 4. Either an incorrect premise or invalid reasoning will render an argu-

ment unsound.

Mistakes are as common in logical thinking as they are in mathematics.

This is true not only of other people’s thinking but of our own as well. Just

as we can have accurate numbers and do our best to add carefully yet come

up with the wrong answer, so, too, can we proceed from accurate informa-

tion to a wrong conclusion. Of course, when we start with inaccurate or incomplete information or reason recklessly, the chances of error are com- pounded. Here is an interesting (and humorous) example of reckless

reasoning: After a worker was fired for being habitually late, his attorney

argued that the supervisor was at fault for not demanding that the man

wear a watch!1

Inappropriate attitudes toward ideas and the reasoning process can

also lead to errors in argument. For example, if you regard your first

impressions as infallible, you are likely to embrace them uncritically, seek

out evidence that supports them and reject evidence that challenges them,

and defend them rabidly. Such an approach leaves you vulnerable both to

self-deception and to manipulation by others. In contrast, if you regard

your first impressions tentatively—as interesting possibilities rather than

certainties—and compare them to other ideas before making up your

mind, you are less likely to fool yourself or be deceived by others.

Evaluating Arguments

The basic approach to evaluating arguments can be stated simply:

Decide whether the premises are true or false and whether the reasoning that leads from them to the conclusion is valid. If both criteria are met, the argu- ment is sound. When the argument is clearly and fully stated and you

ask the right questions, this approach is relatively easy to follow. You

may, of course, have to do some investigating to determine the truth or

falsity of one or both premises. Here are some examples of clear, fully

stated, arguments:

rug38189_ch07_083-092.qxd 1/3/11 4:38 PM Page 85

86 PART ONE The Context

The Argument

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The Questions

Are all men mortal?

Is Socrates a man?

Does this conclusion follow logically from what is stated in the premises? Does any other conclusion follow equally well?

Comment: The premises obviously are true. Also, the conclusion offered, and only that conclusion, follows logically. Accordingly, the argument is sound.

The Argument

Any activity that involves physi- cal exertion is properly classi- fied as a sport.

Bodybuilding involves physical exertion.

Therefore, bodybuilding is properly classified as a sport.

The Questions

Are there any physical activi- ties that are not a sport yet are physically strenuous?

Does bodybuilding involve physical exertion?

Does this conclusion follow logically from what is stated in the premises? Would any other conclusion be as reasonable?

Comment: Even though the second premise is true and the conclusion fol- lows logically from the premises, this argument is unsound because the

first premise is false. Many physical activities are in no way related to a

sport yet are physically strenuous—moving pianos, for example. Note

that showing this argument to be unsound does not prove that body-

building should not be classified as a sport. Perhaps some other argu-

ment could be advanced that would prove to be sound.

The Argument

Guilty people usually fail lie detector tests.

Bruno failed his lie detector test.

Therefore, Bruno is guilty.

The Questions

Is this true?

Did he really?

Does this conclusion follow logically from what is stated in the premises? Would any other conclusion be as reasonable?

Comment: Both the first and the second premises are true. (The authorities could have lied about Bruno’s score, but let’s assume they didn’t.) Still,

the premises don’t provide sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion

that is given or, for that matter, any other conclusion. We need to know

rug38189_ch07_083-092.qxd 1/3/11 4:38 PM Page 86

87CHAPTER 7 What Is Argument?

whether an innocent person can fail a lie detector test. If so, then Bruno could be innocent.

The Argument

Success comes to those who work hard.

Jane is successful.

Therefore, Jane worked hard.

The Questions

Does it always?

Is she?

Does this conclusion follow logically from what is stated in the premises? Would any other conclusion be as reasonable?

Comment: The first premise is not entirely true. Some people who work hard end up failing anyway because they lack the necessary aptitude or

background experience to meet the challenge. Moreover, some people

who do not work hard succeed anyway because they have wealth and/or

influence. Even if we grant that the second premise is true, the argument

must still be judged unsound because of the first premise.

Did you ever have the experience of hearing an argument on some

issue, being impressed with it, and then hearing the opposing argument

and being even more impressed with that? It happens often. For example,

in the primary battles prior to the 2000 presidential election, a question

arose as to whether candidate George W. Bush had used cocaine many

years earlier. Some pundits argued that if he had, then he was a hypocrite

because as governor of Texas he signed into law a bill containing tough

penalties for cocaine users. The argument sounded good. But then other

pundits argued that a person who had used drugs but had learned to

avoid them was in a better position to know their danger to individuals

and society than one who had not. They reasoned that an alcoholic can

speak more authoritatively than a teetotaler on the misuse of alcohol, a

reformed criminal is more familiar with the evils of crime than a law-

abiding citizen, and so on.

Remember that your evaluation of any argument is likely to be

most effective when you are able to hear both sides or at least to con-

sider the criticisms people on each side of the issue make of the other

side’s view.

More Difficult Arguments

Unfortunately, not all arguments are clearly and/or fully stated. Following

are the main kinds of difficult situations you will encounter, along with

guidelines for dealing with them.

rug38189_ch07_083-092.qxd 1/3/11 4:38 PM Page 87

88 PART ONE The Context

When an argument is longer than a paragraph, summarize it before asking and answering your questions. The danger in summarizing, of

course, is that you might misrepresent what the person was saying. If you

are careful, however, you can avoid this misstep.

When you are uncertain which statements are the premises and which is the conclusion, ask yourself exactly what idea the person is trying to get you to accept. (That is the conclusion.) Then ask what rea-

sons are offered in support of that idea. (Those are the premises.)

When an argument contains more than two premises, ask and answer your questions about each. Don’t be daunted if there are many

premises—simply take one at a time. After eliminating any irrelevant

premises, decide whether the conclusion follows logically from the

remaining premises and if it is the only conclusion that does. If more than

one conclusion follows, decide whether the stated one is the most reason-

able conclusion.

When you are evaluating opposing arguments, neither of which is persuasive (even if one is technically sound), look for a third alternative.

Often the alternative will be one that draws a little from each argument.

The ongoing debate over whether the Ten Commandments should be

displayed in public school classrooms provides a good example. Here are

some fairly typical opposing arguments that are offered in nonlegal

discussions of the issue:*

*In addition to these, of course, there are the legal arguments concerning constitutionality.

The Affirmative Argument

Public schools (like other schools) should encourage moral values.

Displaying the Ten Command- ments would encourage moral values.

Therefore, public schools should display the Ten Commandments.

The Negative Argument

No cultural or religious group should be treated pref- erentially in public schools.

Displaying the Ten Command- ments in public schools would treat Christians and Jews preferentially.

Therefore, the Ten Command- ments should not be dis- played in public schools.

Comment: One alternative that draws on each of these arguments but goes beyond them is to argue for the display of all versions of the Ten

Commandments (and there are several), as well as any other religious

or secular list of moral values. The reasoning would be that accommo-

dating all perspectives is no more offensive than ignoring all and has

the additional benefit of emphasizing the importance of moral values.

rug38189_ch07_083-092.qxd 1/3/11 4:38 PM Page 88

89CHAPTER 7 What Is Argument?

When an argument contains hidden premises, identify them before proceeding with your evaluation. Hidden premises are clearly implied ideas

that are not recognized when the argument is conceived and expressed.

When the hidden premise is accurate, no harm is done; but when it is inaccu-

rate, it quietly corrupts the argument. Following are some examples of such

arguments. Each is presented first as it might occur in informal discus-

sion. Then it is broken down into its component parts, including hidden

premises. The questions that critical thinking would address are shown

opposite each part.

1. Argument: They should never have married—they felt no strong physical attraction to each other during courtship.

The Component Parts

Stated Premise: They felt no strong physical attraction to each other.

Hidden Premise: Strong physical attraction is the best, or perhaps the only, meaningful basis for marriage.

Conclusion: They should never have married.

The Questions

Did they feel no strong phys- ical attraction to each other?

Is strong physical attraction the best or only meaningful basis for marriage?

Do the premises lead to this conclusion and no other?

2. Argument: It’s clear why Morton is an underachiever in school—he has very little self-esteem.

The Component Parts

Stated Premise: Morton has very little self-esteem.

Hidden Premise: Self-esteem is necessary in order to achieve.

Conclusion: It’s clear why Morton is an underachiever in school. (The sense of this state- ment is “This explains why. . . .”)

The Questions

Does Morton have very little self-esteem?

Is self-esteem necessary in order to achieve?

Do the premises lead to this conclusion and no other?

3. Argument: That book should be banned because it exposes children to violence.

The Component Parts

Stated Premise: That book exposes children to violence.

First Hidden Premise: Exposure to violence is harmful.

The Questions

Does the book expose chil- dren to violence?

Is exposure to violence always harmful? (Note that in the absence of limiting terms, such as sometimes, the general term always is implied.)

rug38189_ch07_083-092.qxd 1/3/11 4:38 PM Page 89

90 PART ONE The Context

4. Argument: Pure water is healthy to drink, and Pristine Mountain Water is pure, so I’m treating my body right by drinking it rather than tap water.

The Component Parts

Stated Premise: Pure water is healthy to drink.

Stated Premise: Pristine Mountain Water is pure.

Hidden Premise: The water from my tap is not pure.

Conclusion: I’m treating my body right by drinking Pristine Mountain Water rather than tap water.

The Questions

Is pure water healthy to drink?

Is Pristine Mountain Water pure?

Is water from this person’s tap not pure?

Do the premises lead to this conclusion and no other?

It is tempting to think that the longer the passage, the less likely it

will contain hidden premises, but this is not the case. It is possible to elabo-

rate on an argument with one or more hidden premises and end up with a

book-length treatment without those premises being detected or expressed.

In fact, the longer the passage, the more difficult it is to identify hidden

premises. Whatever the length of the passage you are evaluating (or com-

posing), be alert for hidden premises.

Applications

1. Think of a TV talk show you’ve recently seen that examined a contro-

versial issue and featured two or more guests who disagreed. (If you aren’t

familiar with such shows, find one in the TV listings and watch a segment of

it.) Decide whether the exchange was a quarrel or an argument. Explain your

answer.

2. Each of the following questions has sparked serious public debate in

recent years. Select one of them and check at the library or on the Internet for an

article that presents a point of view, as opposed to a news article that merely

reports the facts. Then evaluate the argument, applying what you learned in the

chapter. (See Chapter 17 for research strategies.)

a. Should youthful offenders be treated as adults?

b. Should the states and/or the federal government provide vouchers to

parents so they can send their children to the private or public schools of

their choice?

c. Should patients be able to sue their health maintenance organizations?

Second Hidden Premise: Banning is the most appropriate reaction to such material.

Conclusion: That book should be banned.

Is banning the most appropri- ate reaction to such material?

Do the premises lead to this conclusion and no other?

rug38189_ch07_083-092.qxd 1/3/11 4:38 PM Page 90

91CHAPTER 7 What Is Argument?

d. Should a referendum be required before state and federal legislatures can

raise taxes?

e. Should marijuana be legalized for medical use?

f. Should police be permitted to impound the cars of drunk-driving

suspects?

g. Does home schooling provide as good an education as traditional class-

room teaching?

3. When a serial murderer known as the “Railroad Killer” was being sought

some years ago, the FBI interviewed people who had been in the areas of the

crimes and might have seen the perpetrator. As a result of those reports, the FBI

issued a Wanted poster for a “Hispanic male” of a certain description. During

one of the press briefings, a reporter asked the FBI agent in charge of the search

whether specifying that the suspect was Hispanic constituted discrimination.

How would you have answered if you had been that FBI agent? Present your

answer in the form of an argument.

4. Evaluate the following arguments, applying what you learned in this

chapter.

a. The U.S. defense budget should be cut drastically, and perhaps elimi-

nated entirely, because the former Soviet Union is no longer a threat to

U.S. security.

b. The present welfare system causes people to lose their self-respect and

self-confidence and makes them dependent on the government. The

entire system should be replaced by one that emphasizes responsibility

and hard work.

c. The schoolyard practice of choosing up sides is embarrassing, even

humiliating, to children who are unskilled in sports. Therefore, it should

be discouraged on the playground and abandoned in physical education

classes.

d. Background note: College administrators are debating their campus policy after receiving complaints about professors dating students. They endorse the follow- ing argument: There is nothing wrong in two unmarried adults dating, so it is accept-

able for professors to date students who are over eighteen years of age.

e. Copying computer software violates the copyright law. Still, I paid full

price for my software, and my friend not only needs it for his class but

can’t afford to purchase it himself. If I give him a copy of mine, he’ll be

helped and no one will be hurt. (The software company wouldn’t have

made a sale to him anyway because he’s broke.) Therefore, I am justified

in giving him the software.

f. “All men are created equal,” says the Declaration of Independence. Yet

lots of Americans are victims of poverty and discrimination and lack of

opportunities for education and careers. And the rich and social elites can

buy a standard of justice unavailable to the average citizen. Equality is

a myth.

g. Background note: The ancient religion known as Santeria is still practiced by a number of people in the United States. One of its beliefs is that the sacrifice of animals is pleasing to the god Olodumare. Thus, as part of their ritual, Santerian priests slit the throats of chickens, doves, turtles, and goats; drain the blood into clay pots; and prepare the animals’ flesh for eating. Many other Americans com- plain to authorities about this practice, but its supporters argue as follows:

rug38189_ch07_083-092.qxd 1/3/11 4:38 PM Page 91

92 PART ONE The Context

The U. S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. It does not

exclude religions that displease the majority. However displeasing ritual

animal sacrifice may be to other citizens, the law should uphold

Santerians’ constitutional rights.

h. Background note: In recent years many cities have experienced an increase in aggressive panhandling—the practice of approaching passersby and begging for money. Some panhandlers block people’s path and otherwise intimidate them. A number of cities have outlawed panhandling. The following argument has found expression in some court decisions: Panhandling is a form of speech. Speech is protected by the Constitution.

Therefore, panhandling is a right that cannot be abridged.

A Difference of Opinion

The following passage summarizes an important difference of opinion. After

reading the statement, use the library and/or the Internet and find what knowl-

edgeable people have said about the issue. Be sure to cover the entire range of

views. Then assess the strengths and weaknesses of each. If you conclude that

one view is entirely correct and the others are mistaken, explain how you

reached that conclusion. If, as is more likely, you find that one view is more insightful than the others but that they all make some valid points, construct

a view of your own that combines the insights from all views and explain why that view is the most reasonable of all. Present your response in a composition or

an oral report, as your instructor specifies.

Should limits be placed on monetary awards in medical malpractice lawsuits? In recent decades juries have tended to add large “pain and suffer- ing” amounts to the damages awarded in court settlements. In response to

this trend, legislators have proposed setting limits on the amounts juries can

award. Proponents of this idea believe it would reduce the number of frivo-

lous lawsuits, reduce health care costs, and keep good physicians from aban-

doning the practice of medicine. Opponents say such legislation would deny

justice to the injured and increase the likelihood of medical blunders.

Begin your analysis by conducting a Google search using the term “pro con lim-

iting malpractice awards.”

rug38189_ch07_083-092.qxd 1/3/11 4:38 PM Page 92

P A R T T W O

The Pitfalls

The first seven chapters explored the context in which thinking

occurs. You now know, popular notions notwithstanding, that individ-

uality doesn’t come automatically but must be earned again and

again, that critical thinking is as applicable to your own ideas as it is to

other people’s, that truth is discovered rather than created and gen-

uine knowledge is elusive, that opinions are only as good as the evi-

dence that supports them, and that argument is a matter not of

scoring points or shouting down others but of compiling accurate

information and reasoning logically about it.

In this section we will examine the various errors that can impair

thinking. We will also consider how you can best discover them in

other people’s writing and speaking and avoid them in your own. The

most basic error, “mine-is-better” thinking, seems rooted in our

human nature and paves the way for many of the other errors. The

other errors are grouped according to when they occur. Errors of per-

spective are erroneous notions about reality that are present in our

minds more or less continuously. Errors of procedure occur when we are

dealing with specific issues, errors of expression when we put our

thoughts into words, and errors of reaction when someone criticizes or

challenges a statement or argument we have made. The final chapter

in this section explores how these errors can occur in combination.

rug38189_ch08_093-101.qxd 1/3/11 4:38 PM Page 93

C H A P T E R 8

The Basic Problem: ”Mine Is Better”

Our beliefs have been imbibed, how or why we hardly know. . . . But let

a question be raised as to the soundness of our notions . . . and at once

we find ourselves filled with an illicit passion for them; we defend them

just as we would defend a punched shoulder. The problem, how reason-

able they really are, does not trouble us. We refuse to learn truth from

a foe.1

This observation was made by a scholar pondering the all-too-common

tendency to justify beliefs rather than refine and improve them. This

tendency is puzzling. People profess enthusiasm for personal growth and

development and spend billions of dollars on self-help books, tapes, and

seminars, yet they act as if their minds have no need of improvement.

This tendency is attributable to a “mine-is-better” perspective, which

we all have to a greater or lesser extent. It is natural enough to like our

own possessions better than other people’s.* Our possessions are exten-

sions of ourselves. When first-graders turn to their classmates and say,

“My dad is bigger than yours” or “My shoes are newer” or “My crayons

color better,” they are not just speaking about their fathers or shoes or

crayons. They are saying something about themselves: “Hey, look at me.

I’m something special.”

Several years later, those children will be saying, “My car is faster

than yours” or “My football team will go all the way this year” or “My

marks are higher than Olivia’s.” (That’s one of the great blessings for

students—although they may have to stoop to compare, they can usually

find someone with lower grades than theirs.)

Even later, when they’ve learned that it sounds boastful to say their possessions are better, they’ll continue to think they are: “My house is more expensive, my club more exclusive, my spouse more attractive, my

*One exception to the rule occurs when we are envying others. But that is a special situation that doesn’t contradict the point being made here.

rug38189_ch08_093-101.qxd 1/3/11 4:38 PM Page 94

95CHAPTER 8 The Basic Problem: “Mine Is Better”

children better behaved, my accomplishments more numerous, and my

ideas, beliefs, and values more insightful and profound than other people’s.”

All of this, as we have noted, is natural, though not especially noble

or virtuous or, in many cases, even factual—simply natural. The tendency

is probably as old as humanity. History records countless examples of it.

Most wars, for example, can be traced to some form of “mine-is-better”

thinking. Satirists have pointed their pens at it. Ambrose Bierce, for

instance, in his Devil’s Dictionary, includes the word infidel. Technically, the word means “one who is an unbeliever in some religion.” But Bierce’s

definition points up the underlying attitude in those who use the word.

He defines infidel this way: “In New York, one who does not believe in the Christian religion; in Constantinople, one who does.”2

The results of a survey of a million high school seniors illustrate the

influence of “mine-is-better” thinking. The survey addressed the ques-

tion of whether people considered themselves “above average.” Fully

70 percent of the respondents believed they were above average in lead-

ership ability, and only 2 percent believed they were below average.

Furthermore, 100 percent considered themselves above average in ability

to get along with others, 60 percent considered themselves in the top

10 percent, and 25 percent considered themselves in the top 1 percent.3 (Perhaps this inflated view is partly responsible for the conviction of many students

that if they receive a low grade, the teacher must be at fault.)

For many people, most of the time, the “mine-is-better” tendency is

balanced by the awareness that other people feel the same way about

their things, that it’s an unavoidable part of being human to do so. In

other words, many people realize that we all see ourselves in a special

way, different from everything that is not ourselves, and that whatever

we associate with ourselves becomes part of us in our minds. People who

have this understanding and are reasonably secure and self-confident can

control the tendency. The problem is, some people do not understand that

each person has a special viewpoint. For them, “mine is better” is not an

attitude that everyone has about his or her things. Rather, it is a special,

higher truth about their particular situation. Psychologists classify such

people as either egocentric or ethnocentric.

Egocentric People

Egocentric means centered or focused on oneself and interested only in one’s own interests, needs, and views. Egocentric people tend to practice

egospeak, a term coined by Edmond Addeo and Robert Burger in their book of the same name. Egospeak, they explain, is “the art of boosting our own

egos by speaking only about what we want to talk about, and not giving a

hoot in hell about what the other person wants to talk about.”4 More

rug38189_ch08_093-101.qxd 1/3/11 4:38 PM Page 95

96 PART TWO The Pitfalls

important for our discussion is what precedes the outward expression of

self-centeredness and energizes it: egocentric people’s habit of mind.

Following Addeo and Burger, we might characterize that habit as egothink. Because the perspective of egothink is very limited, egocentric people

have difficulty seeing issues from a variety of viewpoints. The world

exists for them and is defined by their beliefs and values: What disturbs

them should disturb everyone; what is of no consequence to them is

unimportant. This attitude makes it difficult for egocentric people to

observe, listen, and understand. Why should one bother paying attention

to others, including teachers and textbook authors, if they have nothing

valuable to offer? What incentive is there to learn when one already

knows everything worth knowing? For that matter, why bother with the

laborious task of investigating controversial issues, poring over expert

testimony, and evaluating evidence when one’s own opinion is the final,

infallible arbiter? It is difficult, indeed, for an egocentric person to

become proficient in critical thinking.

Ethnocentric People

Ethnocentric means excessively centered or focused on one’s group. Note the inclusion of the word “excessively.” We can feel a sense of identifica-

tion with our racial-ethnic group, religion, or culture without being ethno-

centric. We can also prefer the company of people who share our heritage

and perspective over the company of others without being intolerant. The

familiar is naturally more comfortable than the unfamiliar and to pretend

otherwise is to delude ourselves. Accordingly, the fact that Korean

Americans tend to associate almost exclusively with one another or that

the local Polish American club does not issue invitations to Italians, Finns,

or African Americans should not be regarded as a sign of ethnocentrism.

What distinguishes ethnocentric individuals from those who feel a

normal sense of identification with their group is that ethnocentric people

believe (a) that their group is not merely different from other groups but

fundamentally and completely superior to them and (b) that the motiva-

tions and intentions of other groups are suspect. These beliefs create a

bias that blocks critical thinking. Ethnocentric people are eager to chal-

lenge the views of other groups but unwilling to question the views of

their own group. As a result, they tend to respond to complex situations

with oversimplifications. They acknowledge no middle ground to

issues—things are all one way, the way that accords with their group’s per- spective. They also tend to form negative stereotypes of other groups, as psychologist Gordon Allport explained many years ago:

By taking a negative view of great groups of mankind, we somehow

make life simpler. For example, if I reject all foreigners as a category,

rug38189_ch08_093-101.qxd 1/3/11 4:38 PM Page 96

97CHAPTER 8 The Basic Problem: “Mine Is Better”

I don’t have to bother with them—except to keep them out of my coun-

try. If I can ticket, then, all Negroes as comprising an inferior and objec-

tionable race, I conveniently dispose of a tenth of my fellow citizens. If

I can put the Catholics into another category and reject them, my life is still

further simplified. I then pare again and slice off the Jew . . . and so it goes.5

Ethnocentric people’s prejudice has an additional function. It fills

their need for an out-group to blame for real and imagined problems in

society. Take any problem—street crime, drug trafficking, corruption in gov-

ernment, political assassinations, labor strikes, pornography, rising food

prices—and there is a ready-made villain to blame it on: The Jews are

responsible—or the Italians, African Americans, or Hispanics. Ethnocentrics

achieve instant diagnosis—it’s as easy as matching column a to column b.

And they get a large target at which they can point their anger and fear

and inadequacy and frustration.

Controlling “Mine-Is-Better” Thinking

It’s clear what the extreme “mine-is-better” attitude of egocentric and

ethnocentric people does to their judgment. It twists and warps it, often

beyond correction. The effect of the “mine-is-better” tendencies of the rest

of us is less dramatic but no less real.

Our preference for our own thinking can prevent us from identifying

flaws in our own ideas, as well as from seeing and building on other peo-

ple’s ideas. Similarly, our pride in our own religion can lead us to dismiss

too quickly the beliefs and practices of other religions and ignore mis-

takes in our religious history. Our preference for our own political party

can make us support inferior candidates and programs. Our allegiance to

our own opinions can shut us off from other perspectives, blind us to

unfamiliar truths, and enslave us to yesterday’s conclusions.

Furthermore, our readiness to accept uncritically those who appeal to

our preconceived notions leaves us vulnerable to those who would

manipulate us for their own purposes. Historians tell us that is precisely

why Hitler succeeded in winning control of Germany and wreaking

havoc on a good part of the world.

“Mine-is-better” thinking is the most basic problem for critical

thinkers because, left unchecked, it can distort perception and corrupt

judgment. The more mired we are in subjectivity, the less effective will be

our critical thinking. Though perfect objectivity may be unattainable, by

controlling our “mine-is-better” tendencies, we can achieve a significant

degree of objectivity.

Does anything said so far in this chapter suggest that “mine is better”

can never be an objective, accurate assessment of a situation? Decidedly not. To think that would be to fall into the fallacy of relativism (this fallacy is

rug38189_ch08_093-101.qxd 1/3/11 4:38 PM Page 97

98 PART TWO The Pitfalls

discussed in Chapter 9). In the great majority of cases in which two or more

ideas (beliefs, theories, conclusions) are in competition, one will be more rea-

sonable, more in keeping with the evidence, than all the others. And if you

are diligent in your effort to be a critical thinker, your idea will often prove to

be the best one. But that determination is properly made after all the ideas have been evaluated. The problem with “mine-is-better” thinking is that it

tempts us to forgo evaluation and take it for granted that our idea is best.

One way to gain control of “mine-is-better” thinking is to keep in

mind that, like other people, we too are prone to it and that its influence

will be strongest when the subject is one we really care about. As G. K.

Chesterton observed,

We are all exact and scientific on the subjects we do not care about. We

all immediately detect exaggeration in . . . a patriotic speech from

Paraguay. We all require sobriety on the subject of the sea serpent. But

the moment we begin to believe in a thing ourselves, that moment we

begin easily to overstate it; and the moment our souls become serious,

our words become a little wild.6

Another way to control “mine-is-better” thinking is to be alert for sig-

nals of its presence. Those signals can be found both in our feelings and in

our thoughts:

• In feelings: Very pleasant, favorable sensations; the desire to embrace a statement or argument immediately, without appraising it further. Or very unpleasant, negative sensations; the desire to attack and denounce a statement or argument without delay.

• In thoughts: Ideas such as “I’m glad that experts are taking such a position—I’ve thought it all along” and “No use wasting time ana- lyzing this evidence—it must be conclusive.” Or ideas such as “This view is outrageous because it challenges what I have always thought—I refuse to consider it.”

Whenever you find yourself reacting in any of these ways, you can be

reasonably sure you are being victimized by “mine-is-better” thinking.

The appropriate response is to resist the reaction and force yourself to

consider the matter fair-mindedly. Chances are this won’t be easy to

accomplish—your ego will offer a dozen reasons for indulging your

“mine-is-better” impulse—but your progress as a critical thinker depends

on your succeeding. The other errors in thinking, covered in the next four

chapters, are all at least aggravated by “mine-is-better” thinking.

Applications

1. Suppose you have determined that a person making a particular argu-

ment is egocentric or ethnocentric. Would that determination be sufficient cause

for you to dismiss the argument? Why or why not?

rug38189_ch08_093-101.qxd 1/3/11 4:38 PM Page 98

99CHAPTER 8 The Basic Problem: “Mine Is Better”

2. Some people claim that contemporary American culture tends to increase

rather than diminish egocentrism and ethnocentrism. If this is true, then the abil-

ity to think critically is being undermined. Study the media for evidence that

supports or refutes this charge, and write a report on your findings. (Be sure to

look for subtle, as well as obvious, clues—for example, the advice offered on talk

shows and the appeals used in advertisements, as well as the formal statements

of agencies promoting policy changes in government and elsewhere.)

3. Recall an occasion when you observed someone demonstrating one or

more of the characteristics of ethnocentrism in his or her behavior. Describe the

occasion, the way in which the characteristics were revealed, and the effect they

had on the person’s judgment.

4. Compose a summary of this chapter for the person whose ethnocentrism

you described in application 3. Make it as persuasive as you can for that person.

That is, focus on the particular occasion of his or her “mine-is-better” thinking

and the effects of that thinking on his or her judgment.

5. Think of two illustrations of your own “mine-is-better” thinking. Describe

that thinking and the way in which you first became aware of it. If you can, deter-

mine what caused you to develop that way of thinking.

6. Evaluate the following arguments as you did the arguments in Chapter 7,

application 4. First identify the argument’s component parts (including hidden

premises) and ask relevant questions. Then check the accuracy of each premise,

stated or hidden, and decide whether the conclusion is the most reasonable one.

Note that checking the accuracy of the premises may require obtaining sufficient

evidence to permit a judgment. (Be alert to your own “mine-is-better” thinking.

Don’t allow it to influence your analysis.) If you find a premise to be inaccurate

or a conclusion to be less than completely reasonable, revise the argument

accordingly.

a. Background note: Many schools around the country are experiencing signifi- cant budget reductions. Forced to cut activities from their programs, they must decide where their priorities lie. Some follow the reasoning expressed in this argument. Argument: Interscholastic sports programs build character and prepare young athletes to meet the challenges of life. In addition, competition

with other schools provides the student body with entertainment and an

opportunity to express school spirit and loyalty. Therefore, in all budget

considerations, interscholastic sports programs should be given as high

a priority as academic programs.

b. Background note: Concerned with the rise in teenage pregnancy, the Baltimore, Maryland, school system became the first in the nation to offer Norplant, a sur- gically implanted contraceptive, to teenagers. School officials’ reasoning was probably, at least in part, as follows: Argument: Teenage pregnancy continues to rise despite efforts to educate students about the use of condoms. Norplant will effectively prevent

pregnancy. Therefore, the school system should make Norplant available.

7. State and support your position on each of the following issues. Be sure

to recognize and overcome your “mine-is-better” tendencies and base your

response on critical thinking.

a. Carl F. Henry, a leading evangelical theologian, warns that the wide-

spread attitude that there are no moral standards other than what the

rug38189_ch08_093-101.qxd 1/3/11 4:38 PM Page 99

100 PART TWO The Pitfalls

majority approves is a threat to our country. The survival of democratic

society, he suggests, depends on recognizing definite moral standards,

such as the biblical criteria of morality and justice.7

b. A Hasidic rabbi serving a three-year term (for bank fraud) in a federal

prison petitioned a U.S. district court to order the prison to provide a

kosher kitchen, utensils, and diet for him. He argued that his health was

failing because the food served at the prison did not meet his kosher

requirements. He could eat only lettuce, oranges, apples, carrots, and dry

rice cereal.8

c. Both heavy metal and gangsta rap music have drawn pointed criticism

from a number of social critics. They argue that such music at least aggra-

vates (and perhaps causes) antisocial attitudes and thus can be blamed

for the increase in violent crime.

d. Some people believe the penalty for driving while intoxicated should be

stiffened. One provision they are urging be added to the law is manda-

tory jail sentences for repeat offenders.

8. Read the following dialogues carefully. Note any evidence of “mine-is-

better” thinking. Then decide which view in each dialogue is more reasonable

and why. (Be sure to guard against your own “mine-is-better” thinking.)

a. Background note: On a trip to Spain in November 1982, Pope John Paul II acknowledged that the Spanish Inquisition—which began in 1480 and lasted for more than 300 years and resulted in many people’s being imprisoned, tortured, and burned at the stake—was a mistake.9

Ralph: It’s about time the Catholic church officially condemned the Inquisition.

Bernice: The pope shouldn’t have admitted that publicly. Ralph: Why? Do you think five hundred years after the fact is too soon? Should he have waited for one thousand years to pass?

Bernice: Don’t be sarcastic. I mean that his statement will undoubtedly weaken the faith of many Catholics. If you love someone or something—

in this case, the Church—you should do nothing to cause it shame or

embarrassment. Of course the Inquisition was wrong, but it serves no

good purpose to say so now and remind people of the Church’s error.

b. Background note: When an unmarried high school biology teacher in a Long Island, New York, school became pregnant, a group of parents petitioned the school board to fire her. They reasoned that her pregnancy was proof of immoral- ity and that allowing her to remain a teacher would set a poor example for stu- dents. The school board refused to fire her.10

Arthur: Good for the school board. Their action must have taken courage. Pious hypocrites can generate a lot of pressure.

Guinevere: Why do you call them hypocrites? They had a right to express their view.

Arthur: Do you mean you agree with that nonsense about the pregnant teacher being immoral and a poor example to students?

Guinevere: Yes, I suppose I do. Not that I think everybody deserves firing from his or her job in such circumstances. I think teachers are in a special

category. More should be expected of them. They should have to measure

up to a higher standard of conduct than people in other occupations be-

cause they are in charge of young people’s education, and young people

are impressionable.

rug38189_ch08_093-101.qxd 1/3/11 4:38 PM Page 100

101CHAPTER 8 The Basic Problem: “Mine Is Better”

9. Group discussion exercise: Reflect on the following statement. Does it make sense? Does anything you read in this chapter help explain it? If so, what? Discuss

your ideas with two or three classmates.

It doesn’t matter if everyone in the world thinks you’re wrong. If you think

you’re right, that’s all that counts.

A Difference of Opinion

The following passage summarizes an important difference of opinion. After

reading the statement, use the library and/or the Internet and find what knowl-

edgeable people have said about the issue. Be sure to cover the entire range of

views. Then assess the strengths and weaknesses of each. If you conclude that one

view is entirely correct and the others are mistaken, explain how you reached that

conclusion. If, as is more likely, you find that one view is more insightful than the others but that they all make some valid points, construct a view of your own

that combines the insights from all views and explain why that view is the most reasonable of all. Present your response in a composition or an oral report, as

your instructor specifies.

Is a national identity card a good idea for America? One of the conse- quences of the events of 9/11/01 is heightened concern for national security.

Among the proposals that have been advanced is the creation of a national

identity card system. Proponents of the idea say that it would help thwart

the efforts of those who would harm us and undermine our way of life.

Opponents claim it would, instead, take away precious freedoms and enable

the government to intrude in our lives.

Begin your analysis by conducting a Google search using the term “pro con

national identity card.”

rug38189_ch08_093-101.qxd 1/3/11 4:38 PM Page 101

102

C H A P T E R 9

Errors of Perspective

Imagine that you wear eyeglasses with serious distortions in the lenses

but are unaware of the problem. You have every reason to believe that the

people, places, and things you look at are as they appear, whereas in real-

ity they are quite different. When you share your perceptions with others

and they challenge them, you are surprised at first, puzzled at their inabil-

ity to see the world as clearly as you do. Eventually you either stop com-

municating with others or become more assertive, hoping by the sheer

force of your expression to solve what you are convinced is their problem.

Now imagine that, by some happy circumstance, you suddenly realize

that the problem is not their faulty perception but your defective glasses. You

rush to the nearest optician, purchase a new pair, see more accurately, grow

in knowledge, and experience a new sense of confidence and contentment.

Errors of perspective are like seriously distorted lenses, except in-

stead of being perched on our noses, they inhabit our minds. If you are

prone to one or more of these errors, you can be sure that they will work

their mischief more or less constantly. They will shape the attitudes and

habits you bring to the evaluation of issues and create expectations that

bias your thinking. Moreover, you may not even be aware of their exis-

tence unless you evaluate your patterns of thought. This chapter is

designed to help you do that and to root out whatever errors of perspec-

tive are obstructing your critical thinking. We will examine seven specific

errors: poverty of aspect, unwarranted assumptions, the either/or outlook, mind- less conformity, absolutisim, relativism, and bias for or against change.

Poverty of Aspect*

Karl Duncker, a cognitive researcher, coined the term poverty of aspect to refer to the limitation that comes from taking a narrow rather than a

broad view on problems and issues. A similar term, with which you may

rug38189_ch09_102-114.qxd 1/3/11 4:39 PM Page 102

103CHAPTER 9 Errors of Perspective

be more familiar, is tunnel vision. In Duncker ’s view, poverty of aspect is “the chief characteristic of poor thinking.” No doubt poverty of aspect

has many causes, including simple intellectual sloth. But two causes are

especially noteworthy: the multiplication of the academic disciplines

over the course of history and the explosion of knowledge that has taken

place in every discipline, especially during the previous century.

In ancient times a single discipline, philosophy, embraced every area

of knowledge. Over the course of centuries, other disciplines were added:

grammar, logic, rhetoric, geometry, astronomy, arithmetic, and music in

the Middle Ages; physics, biology, and chemistry in the sixteenth through

nineteenth centuries; psychology, sociology, and anthropology in the late

nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. (Business and the various tech-

nologies came even later.) As more disciplines were formed, scholarly

research became more specialized. For example, psychologists focused

on activities occurring within individual people, sociologists on interac- tions among people, anthropologists on the physical and cultural devel- opment of societies. Such differences produced specialized vocabularies

and different approaches to research.

Eventually there came an explosion of knowledge that prompted

scholars to even greater specialization than ever. This specialization deep-

ened understanding and multiplied scholarly insights. Unfortunately, it

also cut off many scholars from the insights of disciplines other than their

own and aggravated the condition Duncker called poverty of aspect. This

poverty creates significant problems in the analysis of complex issues.

Consider the issue of the causes of a particular war. Sociologists will tend

to focus on social conditions, economists on economic conditions, and

psychologists on the inner drives and urges of the leaders of the countries

involved.* Because war is a complex phenomenon, however, the most

meaningful answer usually will be a combination of all these factors (and perhaps some others as well). Only scholars who have learned to go

beyond the limitations of their individual discipline’s perspective are

likely to find meaningful answers.

Of course, poverty of aspect is a danger for everyone, not only people

with highly specialized educations. Unless you recognize the limitations

of your experience and discipline your mind to broaden your outlook

beyond the familiar, to examine all relevant points of view, and to under-

stand before judging, you are almost certain to see narrowly and, as a

result, to think poorly.

*A similar tendency exists among physicians: For the very same physical condition,

an internist is likely to write a prescription for a drug, a homeopathic physician is likely to

prescribe vitamin therapy, and a surgeon is likely to recommend an operation.

rug38189_ch09_102-114.qxd 1/3/11 4:39 PM Page 103

104 PART TWO The Pitfalls

Unwarranted Assumptions

Assumptions are ideas that are merely taken for granted rather than pro-

duced by conscious thought. Making assumptions is natural enough, and

many assumptions are not only harmless but helpful. When you get up in

the morning and head out for class, you assume your watch is working,

the car will start, and the professor will be there to teach. You may occa-

sionally encounter a surprise—a broken watch, a dead car battery—but

that won’t invalidate the assumption or diminish the time it saves you.

(You wouldn’t get much accomplished if you had to ponder every move

you made each day.)

When are assumptions unwarranted? Whenever you take too much for granted—that is, more than is justified by your experience or the par-

ticular circumstance. Smokers who assume that because the habit hasn’t

caused them noticeable physical harm already it never will are making an

unwarranted assumption. So are sunbathers who assume that their skin

is impervious to solar radiation and investors who assume a stock tip

they found on an Internet bulletin board is reliable.

Many people who hold a pro-choice position on abortion assume that

the right to an abortion is expressed in the U.S. Constitution, that the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision is logically unassailable, and that the pro- life position is held only by conservative Christians. All three assump-

tions are unwarranted. Justice Byron White, in his Roe v. Wade dissent, rejected any constitutional basis for the majority decision, terming it an

“exercise of raw judicial power.” The argument that life begins when the

genetic “blueprint” is established at conception and that a human being

is present from that moment on, though unfashionable, is not illogical.

And abortion is opposed not only by conservative Christians but also, for

example, by Mennonites, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus. Although

Jews remain divided on the issue, many oppose abortion (for example,

members of Jews for Life and Efrat). Nonreligious groups opposing abor-

tion include the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League, Pagans for Life,

Libertarians for Life, Feminists for Life, and the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays

and Lesbians. (All of these groups have Web sites).

The most common unwarranted assumptions include the following:

The assumption that people’s senses are always trustworthy. The fact is that beliefs and desires can distort perception, causing people to see and hear selectively or inaccurately.

The assumption that if an idea is widely reported, it must be true. Fiction can be disseminated as far and as widely as truth.

The assumption that having reasons proves that we have reasoned logically. Reasons may be borrowed uncritically from others, and even if they have been thought out, they may still be illogical.

rug38189_ch09_102-114.qxd 1/3/11 4:39 PM Page 104

105CHAPTER 9 Errors of Perspective

The assumption that familiar ideas are more valid than unfamiliar ones. Familiarity merely indicates having heard or read the idea before; it provides no guarantee that what we have heard or read is correct.

The assumption that if one event follows another in time, it must have been caused by the other. The order of and closeness in time between two events could have been accidental.

The assumption that every event or phenomenon has a single cause. Some events have multiple causes. For example, in medicine it is well known that numerous risk factors may contribute to a person’s contracting a disease.

The assumption that the majority view is the correct view. Majorities have been wrong—for example, in supporting the execution of witches and in condoning slavery.

The assumption that the way things are is the way they should be. Humans are imperfect, and their inventions, including ideas, always allow room for improvement.

The assumption that change is always for the better. In some cases, change improves matters; in others, it makes matters worse. For example, when the government has sought to gain revenue by increasing tax rates, the net effect usually has been a decline in revenue. (For numerous examples of the error of this assumption, do a Google search using the search term “unintended conse- quences.”)

The assumption that appearances are trustworthy. Appearances can be mistaken. For example, American novelist Sinclair Lewis was travel- ing on an ocean liner to England. As he and a friend were walking on the deck, he noticed a woman sitting on a deck chair reading one of his novels. Filled with pride, he remarked to his friend what a good feeling it was to see someone so absorbed in his work. At that very moment, the woman threw the book overboard.1

The assumption that if an idea is in our mind it is our own idea and deserves to be defended. Some, ideally most, ideas in our mind are the result of our careful analysis. Others, in some cases an embarrass- ingly large number, are uncritically absorbed from other people and therefore are not “our own” in any meaningful sense.

The assumption that the stronger our conviction about an idea, the more valid the idea. An idea’s validity is determined by the amount and quality of the evidence that supports it. The strength of our convic- tion is irrelevant. In other words, it is possible to be absolutely con- vinced and still be wrong.

The assumption that if we find an error in someone’s argument, we have disproved the argument. An argument can contain minor flaws yet be sound. For example, one or two items of evidence may be flawed, yet the remaining evidence may be sufficient to support the argu- ment. Simply said, it takes more than nitpicking to disprove an argument.

rug38189_ch09_102-114.qxd 1/3/11 4:39 PM Page 105

106 PART TWO The Pitfalls

Remember that assumptions are usually implied rather than expressed

directly, much like the hidden premises in arguments. To identify them,

develop the habit of reading (and listening) between the lines for ideas that

are unexpressed but nevertheless clearly implied. Once you have identified

an assumption, evaluate it and decide whether it is warranted.

The Either/Or Outlook

The either/or outlook is the expectation that the only reasonable view of

any issue is either total affirmation or total rejection. Unfortunately, it is

not hard to find examples of this outlook, even in serious discussions.

David Hackett Fischer gives the following examples from actual book

titles: The Robber Barons—Pirates or Pioneers? The New Deal—Revolution or Evolution? The Medieval Mind—Faith or Reason? What Is History—Fact or Fancy?2

The problem with the either/or outlook is that it rejects the very real

possibility that the most reasonable view may be both / and—in other words, a less extreme view. Take, for example, the troubling issue of wel-

fare reform. One extreme position is to keep the present welfare system

just as it is. The opposite extreme is to eliminate the system entirely.

Might one of those views be correct? Absolutely. On the other hand, the

best solution might be neither to keep nor to abandon the old system but

to change it for the better.

Similarly, in the debate over school vouchers, the question is often

posed, “Should we improve public schools or give parents vouchers to

use in the schools of their choice?” It is not necessary to accept one of

these views and reject the other. It is possible to affirm both—in other words, to increase the funding of public schools and allow parents to use their children’s share of the money to choose the particular school, public

or private, they prefer.

Yet another example of either/or thinking has occurred in the dis-

cussion of an even more recent controversy—why so many boys have

fallen behind girls academically in the past few decades. In a talk show

exchange, one professor argued that teachers, sensitive to feminist criti-

cism, have been giving more attention to girls than to boys. Another

rejected that explanation and blamed the excessive emphasis fathers

place on their sons’ involvement in sports. Each felt it necessary to

denounce the other ’s view, but there was no need for that. The academic

problems of boys may be traceable to both those causes and perhaps to several others as well.

Whenever you are examining an issue and find yourself considering

only two alternatives, ask yourself whether additional alternatives exist

and, if they do, give them a fair hearing.

rug38189_ch09_102-114.qxd 1/3/11 4:39 PM Page 106

107CHAPTER 9 Errors of Perspective

Mindless Conformity

The term for behaving as others do is conformity. In some situations con- formity is the wisest course of action. Children conform when they stay

away from hot stoves and look both ways before crossing the street. We

all conform when we enter and exit buildings through the designated

doors, use the “up” escalator to go up, and go to the end rather than the

front of the checkout line. Such conformity makes life easier and safer.

(The person you cut in on may be bigger, stronger, and armed!) Another positive kind of conformity is imitation of good role models—people

whose example is worth imitating. This kind of conformity helps us

develop our capacities and become better individuals.

In contrast, mindless conformity is unreasonable and, in many cases,

unreasoning. It consists of following others’ example because we are too

lazy or fearful to think for ourselves. In a well-known experiment, eight

students entered a laboratory. Seven were in league with the professor; the

eighth was the unknowing subject of the experiment. The students were

shown four lines on an otherwise blank page and asked to decide which of

the three lower lines (identified as A, B, and C) matched the top line in

length. Line A was exactly the same length as the top line, 10 inches. The

other lines were clearly much shorter or longer. Each of the seven collabo-

rators, in turn, gave the wrong answer, and the pressure mounted on the unknowing subject. When he or she was asked, the choice was clear: Give

the obviously right answer and stand alone or the wrong answer and enjoy the support of the group. Believe it or not, only one out of every five who participated in the experiment gave the correct answer.3

Many advertisers encourage mindless conformity. An excellent

example is a Budweiser commercial that featured the line, “Why ask

why? Try Bud Dry.” The various groups people belong to—from Friday

night poker clubs to churches, political parties, fraternities, and unions—

can also generate pressure to conform. Even groups pledged to fight con-

formity and promote free thinking can do so. Hippie communes in the

1960s were often as intolerant of dissenting ideas, values, and lifestyles as

was the mainstream society they were rebelling against. Liberal col-

leagues praised author Nat Hentoff for his defense of freedom of expres-

sion as long as he agreed with them, but many were quick to denounce

him when he took the position that a fetus is a human being and as such

is entitled to the protection of the law.4 Conservatives who favor gun con-

trol and black authors who oppose affirmative action have been similarly

pressured to conform to the majority views of their groups.

The secret to avoiding mindless conformity is to resist whatever

pleading, teasing, and prodding others exert to make you think and

speak and act as they do. Instead of succumbing, ask yourself what is

rug38189_ch09_102-114.qxd 1/3/11 4:39 PM Page 107

108 PART TWO The Pitfalls

reasonable and right and follow that path, regardless of whether that

places you in the majority or the minority.

Absolutism

Absolutism is the belief that there must be rules but no exceptions.

Absolutists expect the truth about issues to be clear-cut, certain, and simple

when, in reality, it often is ambiguous, less than certain, and complex.

Because of their unreasonable expectations, absolutists tend to be impatient

in their thinking and therefore susceptible to oversimplification and hasty

conclusions. Moreover, once they have made up their minds, they tend to

hold their views more dogmatically than do critical thinkers—that is, they

tend to be unwilling to entertain evidence that challenges them. And once a

rule is established, absolutists refuse to allow exceptions. For example,

after entering the school building, a young honor student realized he had

forgotten to remove his knife from his pocket. Realizing that his school had a

zero weapons policy, he immediately went to the principal’s office and turned

over the knife to a staff member. Instead of praising him for being responsible,

the administrator suspended the boy from school and announced that he was

considering expelling him.5

To say that vulnerability to errors and reluctance to change one’s

mind characterize absolutists is not to suggest that other people do not

possess the same weaknesses. (As noted in previous chapters, all human

beings are susceptible to these and other cognitive shortcomings.) It is

only to say that absolutists are more vulnerable than others because of

their aversion to exceptions. Note, too, that it is possible to believe in

absolutes without being an absolutist. For example, you can believe that

murder is always morally wrong but that in certain circumstances, such

as self-defense, culpability for the act is diminished or eliminated.

The key to overcoming absolutism is this: When you begin to exam-

ine any issue, even one that you have thought about before, commit your-

self to accepting the truth as you find it rather than demanding that it be

neat and simple.

Relativism

Relativism is the polar opposite of absolutism. Whereas the absolutist

does not acknowledge exceptions to rules, the relativist believes that the

existence of exceptions proves there can be no rules. The central error of

relativism is the belief that truth is created rather than discovered. If some-

one attempts to demonstrate that something is true, relativists tend to say,

“Whose truth are you talking about? Mine may be different from yours.”

They believe that whatever a person believes is true is, by that belief, true

rug38189_ch09_102-114.qxd 1/3/11 4:39 PM Page 108

109CHAPTER 9 Errors of Perspective

for him or her. Relativism also holds that morality is subjective rather than

objective—in other words, that moral rules are binding only on those who

accept them. The relativist’s credo is “If a person thinks any behavior is

morally acceptable, then it is acceptable for that person.”

Relativism opposes critical thinking, the study of ethics, and the

processes of law. The point of critical thinking is to separate truth from

falsity, the reasonable from the unreasonable; if nothing is false or unrea-

sonable, critical thinking is pointless. Similarly, if everything that anyone

wants to do is good, then nothing is bad and moral discourse has no pur-

pose. And if choosing to do something is a justification for doing it, the

laws against rape, child molestation, and murder are an infringement on

the rights of the perpetrator.

The simple test of any perspective is whether it can be consistently

applied in everyday life. Relativists can’t challenge the correctness of

other people’s views without contradicting themselves. Nor can they

protest genital mutilation in North Africa, genocide in Central Europe,

slave labor in the Orient, or racism in North America without denying

their own belief that morality is subjective. To overcome relativism,

remind yourself from time to time that some ideas, and some standards

of conduct, are better than others and that the challenge of critical think-

ing is to discover the best ones.

Bias for or Against Change

Are you for or against change? The only reasonable answer is “It depends

on what the change is.” Some changes improve matters; others make

matters worse. Yet many people lack that balanced perspective. They

have a bias for or against change. Bias for change is more common than it

used to be, no doubt because we live in an age of unprecedented change,

especially in technology; because many changes are beneficial, we may

make the mistake of believing that all are.

Bias against change, however, is still more prevalent than bias for

change. One reason is the force of familiarity. Most of us prefer ideas that

we know and feel comfortable with.

When Galileo said, “The earth moves around the sun,” people were

upset, partly because thousands of sunrises and sunsets had told them

the sun did the moving, but also partly because they simply had never before heard of the earth’s moving. The new idea threatened their fixed

belief that the earth was the center of the solar system. They had that idea

neatly packaged in their minds. It was a basic part of their understanding

of the universe, and it was intertwined with their religion. And now this

upstart Galileo was demanding no less than that they untie the package,

or reopen the issue.

rug38189_ch09_102-114.qxd 1/3/11 4:39 PM Page 109

110 PART TWO The Pitfalls

Shortly after the advent of bicycles, people said they would undermine

“feminine modesty.” Physicians said they would cause “nymphomania,”

“hysteria,” “voluptuous sensations,” “lubricious overexcitement,” and

“sensual madness.”6 Some people considered the movement to restrict

child labor in sweatshops a communist plot. And when astronauts first

landed on the moon, at least one elderly man expressed total disbelief.

“It’s a trick thought up by the TV people,” he said. “It’s impossible for a

man to reach the moon.”

Another reason bias against change is so prevalent is our “mine-is-

better” perspective. Our habits of thinking and acting seem to us the only

right ways of thinking and acting. New ideas challenge our sense of secu-

rity, so we tend to resist them. This explains why many people cling to

outmoded traditions.* For example, the man in Robert Frost’s poem

“Mending Wall” kept repairing the wall between his land and his neigh-

bor’s not because there was still any good purpose in doing so, but only

because his father had done so before him. And consider this case of

uncritical dependence on past ways: A girl was told by her mother,

“Never put a hat on a table or a coat on a bed.” She accepted the direction

and followed it faithfully for years. One day, many years later, she

repeated the direction to her own teenage daughter, and the daughter

asked, “Why?” The woman realized that she had never been curious

enough to ask her own mother. Her curiosity at long last aroused, she

asked her mother (by then in her eighties). The mother replied, “Because

when I was a little girl some neighbor children were infested with lice,

and my mother explained I should never put a hat on a table or a coat on

a bed.” The woman had spent her entire adult life following a rule she

had been taught without once wondering about its purpose or validity.7

Despite resistance to change, however, many new ideas do manage to

take hold. We might suppose that when they do, those who fought so

hard for them would remember the resistance they had to overcome.

Ironically, however, they often forget very quickly. In fact, they some-

times display the same fear and insecurity they so deplored in others. An

example occurred in psychiatry. Sigmund Freud and his followers were

ostracized and bitterly attacked for suggesting that sexuality was an

important factor in the development of personality. The hostility toward

Freud was so strong, in fact, that his masterwork, The Interpretation of Dreams, was ignored when it was first published in 1900. It took eight years for six hundred copies of the book to be sold.8

Yet when Freud’s ideas became accepted, he and his followers

showed no greater tolerance; in fact, they ostracized and attacked those

*Don’t make the mistake of thinking that the older the tradition, the less valuable it is. An

ancient tradition may be more sensible than the latest vogue idea. The only way to be sure,

of course, is to give it fair and impartial consideration.

rug38189_ch09_102-114.qxd 1/3/11 4:39 PM Page 110

111CHAPTER 9 Errors of Perspective

who challenged any part of his theory. Karen Horney, for example, chal-

lenged Freud’s view of women as being driven by penis envy. She

believed, too, that neurosis is caused not only by frustrated sexual drives

but also by various cultural conflicts and that people’s behavior is not

only determined by instinctual drives but can in many instances be self-

directed and modified. For these theories (today widely accepted), she

was rewarded with rebuke and ostracism by the Freudian dogmatists.9

To overcome either variety of bias toward change, monitor your reac-

tion to new ideas. Don’t be surprised if you strongly favor or oppose an

idea the first time you encounter it. However, refuse to endorse your first

impression uncritically. Instead, suspend judgment until you have exam-

ined the idea carefully. If the idea proves insightful and well substanti-

ated, accept it regardless of its oldness or newness; if it is flawed, reject it.

Applications

1. Examine each of the following dialogues. Identify any assumptions made by

the speakers. Be precise. If possible, decide whether the assumptions are warranted.

a. Olaf: Did you hear the good news? School may not open on schedule this year.

Olga: How come? Olaf: The teachers may be on strike. Olga: Strike? That’s ridiculous. They’re already making good money.

b. Janice: What movie is playing at the theater tonight? Mike: I don’t know the title. It’s something about lesbians. Do you want to go?

Janice: No thanks. I’ll wait for a quality film. c. Boris: Boy, talk about unfair graders. Nelson’s the worst.

Bridget: Why? What did he do? Boris: What did he do? He gave me a D� on the midterm, that’s all—after I spent twelve straight hours studying for it. I may just make an appoint-

ment to see the dean about him.

d. Mrs. Smith: The Harrisons are having marital problems. I’ll bet they’ll be separating soon.

Mr. Jones: How do you know? Mrs. Smith: I heard it at the supermarket. Helen told Gail and Gail told me. Mr. Jones: I knew it wouldn’t work out. Jeb Harrison is such a blah person. I can’t blame Ruth for wanting to leave him.

2. Apply your critical thinking to the following cases. Be sure to identify all

your assumptions and decide whether they are warranted.

a. A Cambridge, Massachusetts, man got tired of looking at his neighbor’s

uncut lawn, and the untrimmed shrubs that reached above the second-story

window, and took his grievance to court. The neighbor admitted to the

judge that he hadn’t cut the lawn in fourteen years, but he argued that he

preferred a natural lawn to a manicured one and untrimmed to trimmed

shrubs. The judge decided he was perfectly within his legal rights in

leaving his lawn and shrubs uncut, regardless of what his neighbor felt.10

Do you think the judge’s decision was fair?

rug38189_ch09_102-114.qxd 1/3/11 4:39 PM Page 111

112 PART TWO The Pitfalls

b. Some parents who believe their college-age sons or daughters have been

brainwashed by religious cults kidnap their children and have them

deprogrammed. Should they be allowed to do this?

c. Some parents keep their children out of school in the belief that they can

educate them better at home. Should this be permitted?

d. Many motorcyclists object to the laws of some states that require them

and their passengers to wear helmets. They believe they should be free to

decide for themselves whether to wear helmets. Do you agree?

3. Examine each of the following statements and decide whether it contains

an error. If you find an error, identify it and explain it in such a way that someone

who did not read this chapter would understand.

a. The only alternative to affirmative action is acceptance of discrimination

against minorities.

b. We have to choose between creationism and evolution. No middle

ground is possible.

4. List several examples of desirable conformity and several of undesirable

conformity. Explain why each is desirable or undesirable.

5. Advertising is frequently designed to appeal to the tendency to conform.

Describe at least three print ads or commercials that are so designed, and explain

the ways they appeal to conformity so that someone who did not read this chap-

ter would understand.

6. In each of the following situations, the person is conforming. Study each sit-

uation and determine what effects the conformity will have on that person and on

other people. On the basis of those effects, decide whether the conformity is desir-

able. If your decision depends on the degree of the conformity or the circumstances

in which it occurred, explain in what situations you would approve and why.

a. Bert is thirteen. His friends are insensitive to other people and even look for

opportunities to ridicule them. If a classmate is overweight or homely or

unusually shy or not too intelligent, they will taunt the person about it. If the

person shows signs of being bothered by the cruelty, they will see this as a

sign of weakness and increase the abuse. Bert knows this behavior is wrong

and derives no pleasure from it, but he goes along with it and even indulges

in it from time to time so as not to appear weak to his friends. He realizes

that, in their eyes, if he is not with them completely, then he is against them.

b. Rose works in a dress factory. Shortly after she began work, she realized

that the other workers’ output was unrealistically low and that she could

complete twice as much work as the others without straining. Then, in sub-

tle ways, her co-workers let her know that if she worked at a reasonable

pace, the employer would become aware of their deception and demand

increased production from them. Knowing she would at the very least be

ostracized if she did not conform to their work pace, she decided to do so.

c. Alex is a freshman representative in the state legislature. When an impor-

tant issue is being debated, he is approached by a powerful lobbyist who

informs him that his political career will stand a better chance of surviv-

ing if Alex votes a certain way. The lobbyist mentions the names of half

a dozen other representatives and suggests that Alex ask them about the

wisdom of voting that way. He contacts them and they say, in effect,

“We’re supporting the position of that lobbying group; if you value your

career, you’ll do the same.” He takes their advice and conforms.

rug38189_ch09_102-114.qxd 1/3/11 4:39 PM Page 112

113CHAPTER 9 Errors of Perspective

7. Do you tend more toward absolutism or relativism? In what specific

areas are you most likely to commit this error of perspective? Politics? Religion?

Social issues? Moral decisions? Be specific in answering. The more fully you

understand your characteristic tendencies toward error, the more successful you

can be in overcoming them.

8. Do you tend to be more biased for change or against it? Do you tend to

be for it in some areas of life but against it in others? Be as specific as you can in

describing your tendency.

9. Each of the following statements recommends a change. Note whether your

reaction is favorable, unfavorable, or somewhere between. Then evaluate each idea,

taking care to put aside whatever bias you may have and judge the idea fairly.

a. The national sovereignty of all countries, including the United States,

should be surrendered to the United Nations so that there will no longer

be artificial boundaries separating people.

b. Cockfighting, dogfighting, and bullfighting should be televised for the

enjoyment of the minority who enjoy these “sports.”

c. A federal law should be passed requiring women to retain their maiden

names when they marry (that is, forbidding them from adopting their

husbands’ names).

d. Cemeteries should open their gates to leisure-time activities for the liv-

ing. Appropriate activities would include cycling, jogging, fishing, nature

hiking, and (space permitting) team sports.

e. Federal and state penitentiaries should allow inmates to leave prisons

during daytime hours to hold jobs or attend college classes. (The only

ones who should be denied this privilege are psychopaths.)

f. Colleges should not admit any student who has been out of high school

fewer than three years.

g. To encourage a better turnout at the polls for elections, lotteries should be

held. (Voters would send in a ballot stub as proof that they voted. Prizes

would be donated by companies.)11

h. Retired people should be used as teachers’ aides even if they lack college

degrees.12

i. Everyone should be issued and required to carry a national identity card,

identifying himself or herself as a U.S. citizen.13

j. Churches and synagogues should remove all restrictions on women’s

participation in liturgical and counseling services, thus permitting

women to serve as priests, ministers, and rabbis.

k. Colleges should charge juniors and seniors higher tuition than that

charged to freshmen and sophomores.

10. Bill Beausay, a sports psychologist, suggests that sports be rated much as

films once were: X, R, or G, depending on the amount of danger and/or violence

in them. He urges that children not be allowed to take part in any X-rated sport

at an early age. Such sports include motorcycle and auto racing, hockey, football,

boxing, and horse racing.14 Decide whether his suggestion has merit. Be sure to

avoid resistance to change.

11. Decide whether you accept or reject the following arguments. Be careful

to avoid both “mine-is-better” thinking and the errors discussed in this chapter

and to judge the issues impartially. You might want to research the issues further

before judging.

rug38189_ch09_102-114.qxd 1/3/11 4:39 PM Page 113

114 PART TWO The Pitfalls

a. Beer and wine commercials should be banned from television because

they glamorize drinking, leading people to associate it with love, friend-

ship, and happiness. Such associations are every bit as misleading as

those used to sell cigarettes. Alcohol commercials surely are a contribut-

ing factor in the current increase in alcohol abuse by adults and children.

b. Beauty pageants today give somewhat more attention to talent than pageants

did in the past. But the underlying message is the same: ”Beauty in a woman

is strictly a surface matter. Only those with ample bosoms, pretty faces, and

trim figures need apply.” These pageants make a mockery of the truth that

inner beauty, character, is the real measure of a woman (or of a man).

c. Background note: One reason the court system is clogged with cases is that pris- oners are filing what some regard as frivolous lawsuits against the state or fed- eral government—for example, suits claiming their rights are being violated because the prison food doesn’t meet their dietary preferences. Law books are available in the prison library for prisoners to use in preparing their lawsuits. Argument: Frivolous lawsuits clog the court system. The availability of law books in prison libraries encourages prisoners to file such suits.

Therefore, law books should be removed from prison libraries.

d. The duties of the president of the United States are too numerous and

complex for one individual to fulfill, so the office of the presidency

should be changed from a one-person office to a three-member board.

A Difference of Opinion

The following passage summarizes an important difference of opinion. After

reading the statement, use the library and/or the Internet and find what knowl-

edgeable people have said about the issue. Be sure to cover the entire range

of views. Then assess the strengths and weaknesses of each. If you conclude

that one view is entirely correct and the others are mistaken, explain how you

reached that conclusion. If, as is more likely, you find that one view is more insightful than the others but that they all make some valid points, construct a

view of your own that combines the insights from all views and explain why that view is the most reasonable of all. Present your response in a composition or an

oral report, as your instructor specifies.

Who’s to blame for obesity? There’s no denying it—people are carrying more weight these days, the number of obese people is higher than ever, and

health problems are multiplying as a result. However, the question of what

has caused the change is controversial. Some blame the ready availability of

calorie-rich, fat-laden, artery-clogging fast food. Others fault the steady

stream of commercials and print advertisements teasing and tempting peo-

ple to eat and drink more often and in greater quantities than is good for

them, and to snack between meals. Still others point to the fact that today’s

young people spend more time sitting in front of the TV set and playing

video games than young people in generations past. (For some reason,

excess pounds acquired in youth are especially difficult to shed.) And there

are people who reject all these reasons and put the blame squarely on the

reigning philosophy of self-indulgence and instant gratification.

Begin your analysis by conducting a Google search using the term “causes of

obesity in America.”

rug38189_ch09_102-114.qxd 1/3/11 4:39 PM Page 114

115

C H A P T E R 1 0

Errors of Procedure

In Chapter 9 we examined errors of perspective, flawed outlooks that

create significant obstacles to critical thinking even before we address any

issue. In this chapter we will examine the kinds of errors that occur in the

process of addressing specific issues: biased consideration of evidence, double standard, hasty conclusion, overgeneralization and stereotyping, oversimplifica- tion, and the post hoc fallacy.

Biased Consideration of Evidence

We have noted that although you may find it pleasant to believe you

approach issues with perfect impartiality, such is seldom the case. You

will generally lean in one direction or another. There’s nothing odd or

shameful about this fact. It’s a natural reaction, not just for you but for

everyone else as well. Nevertheless, it is important to understand how

that leaning can cause you to commit the error of biased consideration of

evidence. One form of this error is seeking only evidence that confirms

your bias. Another form occurs when evidence is presented to you that

challenges your bias and you choose an interpretation that favors your

bias, even when other interpretations are more reasonable. In his exami-

nation of where everyday reasoning goes wrong, Thomas Gilovich docu-

ments both forms of bias.1

How exactly does biased consideration of evidence affect our judg-

ment in actual cases? Suppose you are examining the issue of why some

African American communities are plagued with crime, low levels of aca-

demic achievement, and high unemployment. Suppose, too, that you are

approaching the issue not with an open mind but instead with a firm

belief that the cause of the problem is poverty and discrimination. (This

belief would be understandable because poverty and discrimination have

received more attention in the press than other explanations.) Your

rug38189_ch10_115-125.qxd 1/3/11 4:40 PM Page 115

116 PART TWO The Pitfalls

unintended and perhaps unconscious bias would likely keep you from

consulting opposing viewpoints, and might even lead you to label all

such viewpoints as manifestations of racism! Here are some valuable

facts and arguments that your bias would cause you to ignore. (Note: All of the authors are African American.)

• Larry Elder casts doubt on the notion that poverty causes crime by demonstrating that in the 1960s the San Francisco neighborhood that had the lowest income, highest unemployment, and highest amount of substandard housing was Chinatown, yet in 1965 in the entire state of California only five Chinese individuals were sent to prison. Concerning the idea that poverty causes poor academic per- formance, he points out that the schools in Barbados have smaller budgets than urban schools in the United States and over 50 percent of the students come from single-parent homes, yet the average scores of Barbados students on the SAT is 1345 out of a possible 1600 (nearly double the average score of their U.S. inner-city counterparts and considerably higher than the average for all U.S. students.2

• John McWhorter argues that most problems in the black community can be traced to one or more of the following causes: a sense of victimhood, the idea that black Americans are exempt from the rules and standards other Americans must live by, and anti-intellectualism—that is, the idea that education and the development of the mind are unimportant.3

• Jesse Lee Peterson claims, “Black leaders do not need the kind of self- appointed leaders they currently have. . . . By preaching race hatred and the cleverly packaged ideology of socialism, these leaders have convinced millions of blacks that white America owes them special treatment: welfare checks, affirmative action programs, and even dif- ferent grading systems in our nation’s universities. Black educators have even created a fictional Afrocentrist history that pushes phony notions of black racial superiority in our nation’s schools.”4

• Shelby Steele argues that the goals of the Civil Rights movement in America have been compromised by both the white and the black communities—whites by letting their guilt over slavery and discrimi- nation lead them to create giveaway programs that made blacks de- pendent on the government and blacks by accepting the programs and exchanging personal responsibility for a sense of entitlement.5

• Juan Williams’s Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America—and What We Can Do About It—begins by crediting Bill Cosby for courageously call- ing on American blacks to develop a healthier attitude toward educa- tion, to stop having children out of wedlock, and to take parenting seriously. Williams documents the accuracy of Cosby’s views, expands on their import, and offers a plan to accomplish related goals.6

Should the views of these authors be considered the final, authorita-

tive word on the issue? Of course not. Yet they represent a serious,

rug38189_ch10_115-125.qxd 1/3/11 4:40 PM Page 116

117CHAPTER 10 Errors of Procedure

informed contribution to the public debate, and no analysis that ignores

them can be considered fair and responsible.

The worst aspect of bias is that it often occurs innocently, without

one’s awareness, and not just among students. Even professional scholars

can commit this error. (That is why you should test the views of authori-

ties for impartiality.) To avoid biased selection of evidence, begin your

investigation by seeking out individuals whose views oppose your bias and then go on to those that support it. Also, choose the most reasonable interpretation, regardless of whether it flatters your bias.

Double Standard

As the name implies, double standard consists of using one standard of

judgment for our ideas and ideas compatible with our own and an

entirely different—and much more demanding—standard for ideas that

disagree with ours. People who employ a double standard ignore incon-

sistencies, contradictions, and outrageous overstatements in arguments

they agree with, yet engage in nitpicking when evaluating their oppo-

nents’ arguments. Even their vocabulary reflects the double standard.

The very same behavior is called “imaginative,” “forceful,” or “forthright”

in the case of an ally and “utopian,” “belligerent,” or “mean-spirited” in

the case of an opponent.

The error of the double standard is also common in issues of free

speech. Many people who are outspoken proponents of free speech for

ideas they agree with are eager to silence those they disagree with.

To avoid the error of the double standard, decide in advance what

judgment criteria you will use and apply those criteria consistently, even

if the data in question do not support your view.

Hasty Conclusion

Hasty conclusion is a premature judgment—that is, a judgment made with-

out sufficient evidence. It takes mental discipline to resist jumping to con-

clusions, and many people lack such discipline. They are in the habit of

accepting the first judgment that comes to mind, never bothering to inquire

whether a different judgment might be as reasonable or perhaps even more

so. If they see a man getting into a taxicab with a woman other than his wife,

they immediately conclude she is his mistress, when she could just as well

be a relative, a business associate, or a client. If a friend passes without

speaking to them, they conclude that they have been snubbed, when the

person may have been preoccupied and have failed to notice them.

Hasty conclusions can occur in scholarly pursuits as well as in everyday

situations. As noted briefly in Chapter 1, one of the most ambitious tests

rug38189_ch10_115-125.qxd 1/3/11 4:40 PM Page 117

118 PART TWO The Pitfalls

of human intelligence ever conducted led to hasty conclusions; almost a

century later it remains a vivid testimony to the harm they can do. During

World War I, psychologists administered intelligence tests to almost 2 mil-

lion army recruits. The resulting scores, expressed in terms of mental age,

were as follows: immigrants from northern Europe, 13; immigrants from

southern and central Europe, 11; U.S.-born blacks, 10. The psychologists

leaped to the conclusion that southern and central Europeans and blacks

are morons. (The term was considered scientific at that time.) This conclu- sion was instrumental in the framing of the 1924 immigration law that

discriminated against southern and central Europeans and reinforced

negative stereotypes about African Americans.*

If these psychologists had asked one simple question—Is the conclusion

that southern and central Europeans and U.S.-born blacks are morons the

only possible conclusion?—they would have wondered whether the design

and administration of the test might be at fault. They also would have found

that the test directions varied from site to site, with some recruits told to fin-

ish each part before moving on and others not, and that recruits at the back

of the test room sometimes could not hear the instructions at all. In addition,

they would have found that the same form of the test was given to recruits

who could read and write English, those who spoke only a foreign lan-

guage, and those who had never learned to read and write.

What could have explained why the different groups had very different scores? On average, the northern Europeans had been in the United States

for twenty or more years and therefore were fluent in English and reason-

ably well educated. In contrast, the southern and central Europeans had

arrived more recently and were neither fluent in English nor (since many

were poor) well educated. Finally, many U.S.-born blacks had been

denied the opportunity for an education.

To avoid hasty conclusions, identify all possible conclusions before

you select any one. Then decide whether you have sufficient evidence to

support any of those conclusions and, if so, which conclusion that is.

Remember that there is no shame in postponing judgment until you obtain additional evidence.

Overgeneralization and Stereotyping

Generalizing is the mental activity by which we draw broad conclusions

from particular experiences. A child hears one dog bark and concludes

that barking is characteristic of dogs. This generalization is true, barkless

*For a fuller discussion of this subject, see Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man (New York: Norton, 1981), chap. 5. Incidentally, many of the psychologists who embraced

this conclusion went on to popularize the use of the IQ test in education. One of them,

Carl Brigham, later developed the Scholastic Aptitude Test, popularly known as the SAT.

rug38189_ch10_115-125.qxd 1/3/11 4:40 PM Page 118

119CHAPTER 10 Errors of Procedure

Basenjis notwithstanding. When Mommy says, “Be careful of that pencil,

it can poke your eye out,” the child understands, again rightly, that all

pencils have that capacity. As these modest examples suggest, generaliz-

ing is not only natural but indispensable to learning. We never see things

in general—that is, all dogs, all pencils, all mountains, all rivers, all teach-

ers, or all anything else. Rather, we see particular members of a general

class—individually or in groups—and generalize from them.

As long as we exercise reasonable care, generalizing serves us well.

Unfortunately, it is easy to overgeneralize—that is, to ascribe to all the members of a group what fits only some members. If you visit New York

City and meet a few rude people, you would be correct in saying, “Some

New Yorkers are rude,” but not “Most New Yorkers are rude,” let alone

New Yorkers are rude,”* Yet such sweeping generalizations are heard

every day, not only about New Yorkers, but also about liberals, conserva-

tives, born-again Christians, politicians, homosexuals, feminists, environ-

mentalists, intellectuals, and many other groups.

A stereotype is an overgeneralization that is especially resistant to

change. The most common types of stereotypes are ethnic and religious.

There are stereotypes of Jews, Poles, African Americans, Hispanics,

Italians, fundamentalists, Catholics, atheists—and “dead, white, European

males,” or DWEMs. As you might expect, any generalization that is fixed

and unbending can be considered a stereotype. Although stereotypes

may be either positive or negative, they are more often negative. Sadly,

people who deplore the negative stereotyping of their own groups often

do not hesitate to negatively stereotype other groups.

Does every reference to group characteristics constitute a stereotype?

No. Recurring patterns of thinking and acting are observable in groups, and

references to those patterns are therefore legitimate. In ancient times the

Chinese were more creative than most other peoples; in the late nineteenth

century and much of the twentieth, German industrial technology led the

world; in recent decades the Japanese have demonstrated remarkable

inventiveness and concern for quality. Furthermore, not all cultural patterns

are complimentary. For centuries the Spanish and Portuguese disdained

manual labor, thinking it a sign of dishonor, and emigrants to Latin America

carried that attitude with them. Today Sri Lankans have a similar attitude.

The prevalence of this attitude in these societies can be acknowledged with-

out suggesting that all Hispanics and Sri Lankans are lazy. (Incidentally, the

belief that manual labor is dishonorable reflects illogical reasoning rather

than indolence.) As Thomas Sowell points out, the acknowledgment and

examination of all cultural patterns, desirable and undesirable, advantageous

*Note that any generalization that does not include a specific qualification such as most, many, some, several, or Agnes is understood to mean all members of the group. Thus saying, “New Yorkers are rude,” is the same as saying, “All New Yorkers are rude.”

rug38189_ch10_115-125.qxd 1/3/11 4:40 PM Page 119

120 PART TWO The Pitfalls

and disadvantageous, is essential to understanding the success and failure

of groups, nations, and entire civilizations.7

Both overgeneralizations and stereotypes hinder critical thinking be-

cause they prevent us from seeing the differences among people within

groups. To avoid these errors, resist the urge to force individual people,

places, or things into rigid categories. In forming generalizations, keep in

mind that the more limited your experience, the more modest you should

make your assertion. In the continuums presented below, the center terms

(one or some, occasionally, and possible) require the least experience. Each division to the right or the left of the center requires additional experience.

The Subject Continuum

all / most / many / one or some / few / almost none / none

The Frequency Continuum

always / usually / often / occasionally / seldom / hardly ever / never

The Certainty Continuum

certainly so / probable / possible / improbable / certainly not so

Oversimplification

Simplification is not only useful but essential, particularly at a time like the

present, when knowledge is expanding so rapidly. People who know a

great deal about a subject find it necessary to communicate with those who

know little or nothing about it. Teachers must explain to students, experi-

enced employees to novices, attorneys to clients, physicians to patients,

and scientists to the general public. Simplification scales down complex

ideas to a level that can be understood by less knowledgeable people.

Oversimplification, on the other hand, goes beyond making complex ideas easier to grasp; it twists and distorts the ideas. Instead of informing

people, oversimplification misleads them. Unfortunately, oversimplified

statements can sound insightful; in such cases, the errors can be detected

only by careful analysis. Here are two typical examples of oversimplification:

Oversimplification If the students haven’t learned,

the teacher hasn’t taught.

Analysis Students’ failure to learn is some-

times the teacher’s fault and

sometimes the students’ own

fault for not putting forth the

required effort. This statement

suggests that the fault always lies with the teacher; thus it

oversimplifies.

rug38189_ch10_115-125.qxd 1/3/11 4:40 PM Page 120

121CHAPTER 10 Errors of Procedure

Oversimplification often occurs in matters about which people

have strong feelings. When laws were passed requiring restaurants to

serve any customer, regardless of race, religion, or national origin,

some restaurant owners were angry. They reasoned that people who

invest their hard-earned money in a business have the right to serve or

not serve whomever they please. That side of the issue was so important

to them that they regarded it as the only side. But there was another

important side: the right of citizens to have access to public places.

Similarly, when the Federal Aviation Administration published regu-

lations governing hang gliders and ultralight motorized aircraft, the U.S.

Hang Gliders Association protested. It argued that the government “has

no business regulating an outdoor recreational sport that consists largely

of people running and gliding down remote hills and sand dunes.” The

association was seeing one side of the issue, the side that affected it. If

that were the only side, this position would be reasonable. But there is

another important side to the issue: keeping the airspace safe for all who

use it, including commercial and private planes. (The FAA reports that

hang gliders have been observed as high as 13,000 feet.8) By ignoring that

side, the association oversimplified the issue.

The desire for ratings and financial success has pressured some jour-

nalists to abandon the traditional ideals of balanced, accurate reporting and

instead to sensationalize their stories. That is why a considerable amount of

contemporary news and commentary deals in speculation, gossip, and

unfounded opinion and why shouting matches between proponents of

opposing views often substitute for reasoned debate. The unfortunate result

of this sensationalizing is that issues are oversimplified. Be alert for over-

simplification in what you read and hear, and avoid it in your own thinking

and expression.

The Post Hoc Fallacy

Post hoc is an abbreviation of a Latin term, post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which means “after this, therefore because of this.” It expresses the reasoning

We know ourselves better than

others know us.

It is true that we know some

things about ourselves better than

others do; for example, our hopes,

dreams, and fantasies. Yet there

are things about ourselves that we

unconsciously block to preserve

our self-image; for example, per-

sonal faults such as envy, petti-

ness, and hypocrisy. These faults

are often perfectly clear to others.

By ignoring this fact, the statement

in question oversimplifies.

rug38189_ch10_115-125.qxd 1/3/11 4:40 PM Page 121

122 PART TWO The Pitfalls

that when one thing occurs after another, it must be the result of the other.

The error in this thinking is the failure to realize that mere order and close-

ness in time does not prove a cause-and-effect relationship. One event can

follow another by coincidence and thus be entirely unrelated to it.

The post hoc fallacy is likely the basis of most superstitions. Misfortune

befalls someone shortly after he walks under a ladder or breaks a mirror

or has a black cat cross his path, and he judges that event to be responsi-

ble for the misfortune.

Sam is in the habit of arriving late to English class. Yesterday the pro-

fessor told him that the next time he was tardy, he would be refused admis-

sion. Today Sam got a composition back with a grade of D. He reasons that

the professor gave him a low grade out of anger over his lateness. Sam has

committed the post hoc fallacy. Maybe the professor did lower the grade

for that reason, and maybe not. The paper may simply have been inferior.

Without additional evidence, Sam should withhold judgment.

There is nothing wrong with inquiring into cause-and-effect relation-

ships. In fact, the search for truth will often require that you do so. However,

you should be careful to avoid the post hoc error––withhold judgment until

you have evaluated all possible explanations, including coincidence.

Applications

1. Ebonics is an African American dialect that some educators wanted to make

a legitimate second language in California schools. One critic of the proposal wrote

the following: “In plain talk, ‘Ebonics’ is no more than African American gutter

slang. . . . If Ebonics has any credibility at all, it is as the dialect of the street—the

dialect of the pimp, the idiom of the gang-banger and the street thug, the jargon of

the school dropout, a form of pidgin English that reeks of African American fail-

ure.”9 Does anything you read in this chapter apply to this quotation? Explain.

2. An author argued that the real meaning of Christmas, the birth of Christ,

has been “buried under an avalanche of toys, tinsel, artificial trees, and fruit

cakes”and that we ought to rediscover that lost meaning and message. One of

his points was this: “The more Christian, in the true sense of the word, America

becomes, the more morally sensitive it will be and the better for all of us—

Christians and non-Christians, atheists and agnostics alike.” Does anything you

read in this chapter apply to this quotation? Explain.

3. Charles, an atheist, is writing a paper on the issue of prayer in public

schools. He is well acquainted with the arguments advanced by those who oppose

such prayer but unfamiliar with the other side of the issue. Charles reasons that

because the paper he produces will be his own, it would be not only distasteful but

foolish for him to read material that he knows he disagrees with and will ulti-

mately argue against. So he confines his research to articles and books that oppose

all prayer in the schools. Do you agree or disagree with his reasoning? Explain.

4. Describe one or more situations in which you or someone you know

committed the error of the double standard. Explain the error in terms that

someone who did not read this chapter would understand.

rug38189_ch10_115-125.qxd 1/3/11 4:40 PM Page 122

123CHAPTER 10 Errors of Procedure

5. Describe one or more situations in which you or someone you know

committed the post hoc fallacy. Explain the error in terms that someone who did

not read this chapter would understand.

6. In late August, the Lees, a Chinese American family, moved into Louise’s

neighborhood, and Louise became acquainted with one of the children, Susan, a

girl her own age. A week later, during school registration, Louise passed Susan

in the hall, but Susan didn’t even look at her. Which of the following conclusions

was Louise justified in drawing? (You may select more than one or reject all of

them.) Explain your answer with appropriate references to the chapter.

a. Susan behaved rudely.

b. Susan is a rude person.

c. The Lees are a rude family.

d. Chinese Americans are rude.

e. The Chinese are rude.

f. Asians are rude.

7. While reading her evening newspaper, Jean notices that her congres-

sional representative has voted against a highway proposal that would bring rev-

enue to the area. She recalls that a recent poll of the voters in the district revealed

that 63 percent favor the proposal. Concluding that the representative has violated

the people’s trust, Jean composes an angry letter reminding the representative of

his obligation to support the will of the majority. Is Jean guilty of an error in

thinking? Explain your answer.

8. Ramona and Stuart are arguing over whether their ten-year-old son

should have certain duties around the home, such as taking out the garbage and

mowing the lawn. Ramona thinks he should. Stuart’s response is as follows:

“When I was a kid, a close friend of mine was so busy with household chores

that he could never play with the rest of the guys. He always had a hurt look on

his face then, and as he got older, he became increasingly bitter about it. I vowed

a long time ago that I would never burden my son with duties and responsibili-

ties. He’ll have more than enough of them when he grows up.” Evaluate Stuart’s

conclusion in light of the chapter.

9. Analyze the following ideas. Decide whether each is an oversimplifica-

tion. Explain your reasoning carefully.

a. “I need only consult with myself with regard to what I wish to do; what I

feel to be right is right, what I feel to be wrong is wrong.” (Jean-Jacques

Rousseau)

b. Elected officials should be held accountable to a higher ethical standard

than is the average citizen.

c. Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.

d. You can be anything you want to be. (self-help slogan)

e. “Everything I do is an attempt to meet legitimate needs.” (Matthew

McKay and Patrick Fanning)

10. Apply your critical thinking to the following cases. Be especially careful

to avoid the errors explained in this and previous chapters.

a. An Oklahoma man was sentenced to ninety-nine years in prison for in-

decent exposure. The prosecutor was able to ask for and get such a long

sentence because the man had eleven prior convictions for burglary. The

district attorney explained, “People are just tired of crime—they want the

repeat offenders off the streets.”10 Do you support the sentence in this case?

rug38189_ch10_115-125.qxd 1/3/11 4:40 PM Page 123

124 PART TWO The Pitfalls

b. A Connecticut teenager who stabbed a neighbor to death argued that he

had not been responsible for his actions because at the time he had been

possessed by demons. Despite that defense he was found guilty.11 Do you

agree with the verdict in this case?

c. A New York woman was having an argument with her neighbor over

their children. In anger she used an anti-Semitic obscenity. Because it is

a misdemeanor in New York to harass others with racial or ethnic slurs,

the woman was sentenced to thirty-five hours of community service.12

Do you think such a law makes sense?

d. A high school anatomy class in Agoura, California, dissects human ca-

davers as well as cats and frogs. The teacher obtains the bodies from a

university medical school.13 Do you approve of this practice?

e. Some people believe the college degree should be abolished as a job

requirement. They reason that because it is possible to be qualified for

many jobs without formal academic preparation (or, conversely, to be

unprepared for many jobs even with a college degree), the only criterion

employers should use for hiring and promoting is ability. Do you agree?

11. In application 1 above, you evaluated a quotation about Ebonics. The

author of that quotation is Ken Hamblin, an African American author and radio

talk show host. Does the fact that he is African American prompt you to change

your assessment of the quotation? Should it? Why or why not?

A Difference of Opinion

The following passage summarizes an important difference of opinion. After

reading the statement, use the library and/or the Internet and find what knowl-

edgeable people have said about the issue. Be sure to cover the entire range of

views. Then assess the strengths and weaknesses of each. If you conclude that

one view is entirely correct and the others are mistaken, explain how you

reached that conclusion. If, as is more likely, you find that one view is more insightful than the others but that they all make some valid points, construct a

view of your own that combines the insights from all views and explain why that view is the most reasonable of all. Present your response in a composition or an

oral report, as your instructor specifies.

Do all claims of discrimination deserve to be taken seriously? Discrimination may be defined as acting out prejudice toward others. Over

the past half century Americans have become aware of the unfairness of dis-

crimination and the importance of laws that protect people from its effects.

Some people believe such laws will continue to have value only if all claims

of discrimination are taken seriously. Others, however, believe the opposite.

They argue that the key to fighting genuine discrimination is to be aggres-

sive in exposing and denouncing phony claims. In your analysis of this

issue, evaluate the following cases, among others.

1. After an Illinois high school basketball player was arrested twice for

driving under the influence of alcohol, the coach kicked him off the

team. The young man responded by claiming that because he was an

alcoholic, his dismissal constituted discrimination under the Americans

with Disabilities Act. Based on that reasoning, he sued for $100,000 in

damages and demanded reinstatement on the team.

rug38189_ch10_115-125.qxd 1/3/11 4:40 PM Page 124

125CHAPTER 10 Errors of Procedure

2. A 5-foot-8-inch, 240-pound woman claimed that the requirement that

Jazzercise instructors be slender and athletic constituted weight dis-

crimination.

3. When a candidate for the New London, Connecticut, police force got an

unusually high score on a problem-solving exam, the police chief and

the city attorney rejected him, reasoning that he was too bright for the

job and would probably be bored. The candidate filed a discrimination

lawsuit against them.

4. Two women filed racial discrimination charges against Southwest

Airlines because, in an attempt to speed the boarding process, a flight

attendant said over the loudspeaker, “Eeenie, meenie, minie, moe; pick

a seat, we’ve gotta go.” They contended that they were injured because

they were reminded that many years earlier a different version of the

rhyme had contained a racial slur.

5. A white Michigan firefighter with sixteen years of service scored fifth

on the promotion list for lieutenant but was denied a promotion because

two black firefighters (one of whom had scored twelfth and the other

twenty-first) were moved ahead of him to achieve racial balance. The

white firefighter filed a discrimination lawsuit.

6. Some top universities have restrictive admissions policies for Asian

Americans. These policies have the effect of denying admission to

highly qualified Asian American students while accepting less-qualified

students of other racial groups. Although students occasionally file dis-

crimination lawsuits, they more typically do not.

rug38189_ch10_115-125.qxd 1/3/11 4:40 PM Page 125

126

C H A P T E R 1 1

Errors of Expression

We have already examined two categories of errors: those that create

obstacles to critical thinking before we address any issue and those that

occur in the process of addressing specific issues. In this chapter we will

examine a third category: errors that occur in expressing our views to oth-

ers, orally or in writing. These errors are contradiction, arguing in a circle, meaningless statement, mistaken authority, false analogy, and irrational appeal.

At this point you may be wondering, Aren’t the errors listed above

thinking errors? If so, what’s the point of calling them “errors of expression”? Excellent questions both. The errors in this chapter, like those we have

already considered and those we will consider in the next chapter, are

without exception errors of thought because they originate in the mind,

more or less consciously (sometimes dimly so). We would therefore be

perfectly justified in treating all kinds of error under a single heading—

“Errors of Thought,” for example, or “Logical Fallacies.” In fact, many

books on thinking treat them just that way.

The rationale for using four categories is that different errors tend to

occur—or at least are most evident—at different stages in the overall

process of thinking. Although errors of expression may begin to take

shape in the mind at some earlier time, they are most easily recognized

and corrected when we are speaking or writing. Treating them in a sepa-

rate category, “Errors of Expression,” helps us remember when to be alert

for them.

Contradiction

One of the fundamental principles of logic is the principle of contradic-

tion, which states that no statement can be both true and false at the same time in the same way. The best way to see its correctness is to try to construct a statement that disproves it. Here are just a few possibilities:

rug38189_ch11_126-134.qxd 1/3/11 4:41 PM Page 126

127CHAPTER 11 Errors of Expression

Argument: O. J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson. (Comment: The principle requires us to say he either did or he didn’t. But what if he hired someone else to murder her? Wouldn’t he then have mur- dered her yet not murdered her? Yes, but not “in the same way.” He would have murdered her in the sense of being responsible for the act but not in the sense of having carried it out.)

Argument: Buster weighs 198 pounds. (Comment: He weighs either 198 pounds or some other weight. It can’t be both ways. But what if he was cramming a Twinkie in his mouth while you were uttering that statement and he gained a tenth of an ounce when he swal- lowed? Then we’d have to say that at one instant he weighed 198 pounds and the next instant he weighed slightly more.)

Argument: Franklin D. Roosevelt was an Olympic athlete who later became president of the United States. (Comment: This seems to chal- lenge the principle of contradiction because the statement is only partly true—he was never an Olympic athlete. Yet if we examine the statement closely, we see that it is really two statements fused together, one of them false and the other true.)

Test the principle of contradiction with statements of your own, if you

wish, but don’t be disappointed when you fail to disprove it. Critical think-

ing in every subject from architecture to zoology depends on this principle.

When exactly does contradiction occur? When a person says one

thing now and the opposite later. A suspect, for example, may today

admit that he committed the crime he is accused of and tomorrow deny

his guilt. Relativists argue that everyone creates his or her own truth and

no view is more worthy than any other, and then they contradict them-

selves by castigating people who disagree with them. A scholar who pro-

pounds the view that the material world is an illusion and only the

immaterial or spiritual world is real may take his neighbor to court in a

property dispute. More than a few television moguls make the rounds of

talk shows arguing that the violent, sex-sodden shows they produce have

no influence on people’s behavior and then, almost in the next breath,

praise public service announcements for AIDS prevention and the respon-

sible use of alcohol for making the world better.

To overcome contradiction, monitor what you say and write. The

moment you detect any inconsistency, examine it carefully. Decide whether

it is explainable or whether it constitutes a contradiction. If it proves to be

a contradiction, reexamine the issue and take a view that is both consis-

tent and reasonable.

Arguing in a Circle

A person arguing in a circle attempts to prove a statement by repeating it

in a different form. When the statement is brief, the circular argument

may be quite obvious. For example, if someone says, “Divorce is on the

rug38189_ch11_126-134.qxd 1/3/11 4:41 PM Page 127

128 PART TWO The Pitfalls

rise today because more marriages are breaking up,” few people would

fail to see the circularity. But consider the same sentence in expanded

form: “The rate of divorce is appreciably higher in the present generation

than it was in previous generations. Before a reason can be adduced for

this trend, a number of factors must be considered, including the differ-

ence in the average age at which a couple marries. However, most experts

tend to believe that the cause is the increased number of failed mar-

riages.” This is the same circular argument but is more difficult to detect.

The point is not that writers deliberately construct circular arguments but

that such arguments can unfold without our being aware of them.

To detect circularity in your writing, it is not enough to read and nod

in agreement with yourself. You must check to be sure the evidence you

offer in support of your view is not merely a restatement of the view in

different words.

Meaningless Statement

The popular Dean Witter advertising slogan, “We measure success one

investor at a time,” is delivered in a grave tone of voice. If sound were the

measure of meaningfulness, this line would be truly profound. However,

substance is the real measure, and this slogan fails the test. At best it

means that each investor represents a single datum that, when added to

others, equals the company’s performance. Big deal. At other brokerage

houses, that datum means the same thing. Another example of a meaning-

less statement is LensCrafters’ slogan, “Helping people to see better, one

hour at a time.” This slogan conjures up an image of attentive optometrists

constantly performing unspecified tasks that improve clients’ vision, but

in fact it is an oblique and rather silly reference to the company’s promise

to make glasses in an hour. In the course of presenting ideas, people often find it useful or neces-

sary to present the reasons that underlie their thoughts and actions. A

meaningless explanation is one in which the reasons make no sense. For

example, a used-car dealer says in a commercial, “I’ll cosign your loan

even if you’ve had a bankruptcy. That’s because we take the trouble to

handpick and inspect these cars before you even see them. . . . We guaran-

tee financing because we sell only quality cars.” The careful viewer won-

ders, How can care in selecting cars ensure that purchasers will meet their

credit obligations? (Answer: It can’t.) The following headline from a print

advertisement for a furniture company offers another example of mean-

ingless explanation: “Good news! Due to the unprecedented success of

our giant furniture sale, we have extended it for ten days.” If it was so

successful, we might ask, how is it that they still have enough merchan-

dise for a ten-day extension? (The more cynical among us might translate

rug38189_ch11_126-134.qxd 1/3/11 4:41 PM Page 128

129CHAPTER 11 Errors of Expression

the headline as follows: “The sale was such a flop that we’re left with a

warehouse full of inferior merchandise and we’re desperate to have peo-

ple buy it.”)

To detect meaningless statements in your writing, look at what you

have said as critically as you look at what other people say. Ask, Am I

really making sense?

Mistaken Authority

The fallacy of mistaken authority ascribes authority to someone who does

not possess it. It has become more common since the cult of celebrity has

grown in the media. A television interviewer once asked actress Cybill

Shepherd, “Did your role in that television drama give you any insights

into adoption fraud?” It would have been reasonable to ask how the role

expanded her knowledge. But to ask her for "insights" assumes a level of

expertise that simply playing a role does not provide; it is much like ask-

ing someone who played a plastic surgeon for insights into surgery. A sub-

tler form of this error occurs when experts in one field present themselves

as authorities in another; for example, when scientists speak as ethicists or

theologians. This happens more than you might imagine.

To avoid the error of mistaken authority, check to be sure that all the

sources you cite as authorities possess expertise in the particular subject

you are writing about.

False Analogy

An analogy is an attempt to explain something relatively unfamiliar by

referring to something different but more familiar, saying in effect, “This is like that.” Analogies can be helpful in promoting understanding, particu-

larly of complex ideas, but they have the potential to be misleading. An

analogy is acceptable as long as the similarities claimed are real. Here is

an example of an acceptable analogy. An author discussing the contem-

porary problems of some black inner-city residents in America makes the

point that not all these problems are effects of slavery. An analogy with

cancer illuminates this point:

We can all understand, in principle, that even a great historic evil does

not automatically explain all other subsequent evils. . . . Cancer can

indeed be fatal, but it does not explain all fatalities, or even most

fatalities.1

A false analogy, in contrast, claims similarities that do not withstand

scrutiny. A humorous example of a false analogy was given by a

University of Pisa professor in 1633: “Animals, which move, have limbs

and muscles; the earth has no limbs and muscles, hence it does not

rug38189_ch11_126-134.qxd 1/3/11 4:41 PM Page 129

130 PART TWO The Pitfalls

move.”2 A more recent and infamous example is the one traditionally

used by revolutionaries and terrorists around the world to justify killing

people: “If you want to make an omelette, you’ve got to break some

eggs.” In this case, the critical thinker rightly responds, “But people are

very unlike eggs!”

Always test your analogies to be sure that the similarities they claim

are real and reasonable and that no important dissimilarities exist.

Irrational Appeal

An irrational appeal encourages people to accept ideas for some reason

other than reasonableness. Such an appeal says, in effect, “There’s no

need to think critically about this idea or compare it with alternative

ideas—just accept it.” In reality, of course, it is always appropriate to

think critically about ideas, because ideas that seem correct are some-

times incorrrect and incorrect ideas can have harmful consequences.

The most common kinds of irrational appeals are to emotion, tradition, moderation, authority, common belief, and tolerance. However, it would be a mistake to conclude that every such appeal is necessarily irrational. Some appeals, as we will see, are legitimate; critical thinking demands that we

discern which are rational and which are not.

IRRATIONAL APPEAL TO EMOTION

A rational appeal to emotion not only stimulates feelings but also demon- strates their appropriateness to the ideas being presented. For example, a

public service commercial against drunk driving might use an accident

scene to make us feel sadness and pity for the victims and thus take more

seriously the verbal message “Don’t mix drinking and driving.” An ad

for an international charity might show us the faces of hungry children as

a narrator explains that the cost of feeding a child is only eighty cents a

day. Such appeals are legitimate because they either explain the connec-

tion between the feelings and the ideas or at least invite us to think about

that connection.

In contrast, an irrational appeal to emotion uses feelings as a substitute for thought. This kind of appeal stimulates feelings of fear, resentment,

guilt, love of family or country, or pity without demonstrating their

appropriateness. A politician might say that her opponent’s budgetary

proposal will take food out of the mouths of the nation’s children or rob

elderly people of their social security benefits without offering any docu-

mentation for the charge. A lawyer might describe his client’s love for his

mother, kindness to animals, and overall feeling of benevolence toward

the world in an effort to evoke sufficient sympathy to make the jury

rug38189_ch11_126-134.qxd 1/3/11 4:41 PM Page 130

131CHAPTER 11 Errors of Expression

forget about the evidence against his client. The most audacious court-

room example of such an appeal (often used to define the Yiddish term

chutzpah) is the case of the man who killed both his parents and then begged the court for mercy because he was an orphan!

IRRATIONAL APPEAL TO TRADITION

To be rational, an appeal to tradition must not only tell people how old and revered the tradition is but also show that it still deserves our

endorsement. An irrational appeal urges maintaining the tradition merely because we’ve always done so. Irrational appeals of this kind have been

used to obstruct advances in every field, including science, technology, and

medicine. People initially argued against the toothbrush, the umbrella, the

airplane, the telephone, the computer, and virtually every other invention

because “our ancestors got along nicely without these newfangled gadg-

ets.” For many years, doctors refused to accept indisputable evidence that

washing their hands between patients curtailed the spread of disease

simply because washing hands between patients was not part of the med-

ical tradition.

IRRATIONAL APPEAL TO MODERATION

A rational appeal to moderation includes an explanation of why the more moderate idea or action is preferable to less moderate alternatives. An

irrational appeal to moderation is offered on the erroneous presumption that moderation is always preferable. Consider the issue of slavery at the

time of the Civil War. Some people regarded the keeping of slaves as a

moral abomination that should be abolished, others as a legitimate form

of ownership that should be preserved. The moderate view would have

been to let each person decide for himself or herself whether to own

slaves. (The slaves, of course, would not have a say in the decision.)

Today no responsible person would endorse that view.

IRRATIONAL APPEAL TO AUTHORITY

The authority cited may be a person, a book or document, or an agency

(such as the Supreme Court). A rational appeal to authority says, or at least implies, “Here is what one or more authorities say,” and proceeds to show

why that view should be accepted. An irrational appeal to authority says, “Here is what one or more authorities say—accept it unquestioningly.”

Because authorities enjoy no special protection from error, the idea that

their pronouncements should never be questioned is foolish and there-

fore unacceptable.

rug38189_ch11_126-134.qxd 1/3/11 4:41 PM Page 131

132 PART TWO The Pitfalls

IRRATIONAL APPEAL TO COMMON BELIEF

A rational appeal to common belief says, “Most people believe this,” and goes on to show the reasonableness of the belief. An irrational appeal to common belief says, “Believe this because most people believe it.” Such irrational appeals are often accompanied by statements such as “Everyone

knows that,” “No reasonable person would deny that,” or “It’s common

sense.” The problem is, many ideas that were at one time accepted as com-

mon sense—sacrificing virgins to ensure a good harvest and abandoning

babies to die because they were thought to be cursed, for example—are

now recognized as uncommon nonsense or worse. The fact that many or

most people believe something is not a sufficient reason for us to believe it.

IRRATIONAL APPEAL TO TOLERANCE

A rational appeal to tolerance explains why tolerance is appropriate in the particular situation in question. An irrational appeal says, “Because toler- ance is good in general, it is the right response to every situation, including

this one.” This is sheer nonsense. Some acts—terrorism, rape, and child

abuse, for example—cry out for condemnation. A society that tolerates these

acts encourages them and commits a further offense against the victims.

In summary, the best way to distinguish between rational and irra-

tional appeals is to ask whether the appeal is accompanied by an explana-

tion of why you should accept it. If an explanation is offered and it proves reasonable, the appeal is rational. If no explanation is offered or if the

explanation is not credible, then the appeal is irrational.

Applications

1. A British physician made the following statement in 1932: “If your eyes

are set wide apart you should be a vegetarian, because you inherit the digestive

characteristics of bovine or equine ancestry.”3 What error in thinking would you

classify this as? Explain.

2. Henry Veatch contends that if we embrace moral relativism (the belief

that no one moral judgment is better than any other), we cannot take a position

on any moral issue without contradicting ourselves.4 Is Veatch correct? Make

your answer as concrete as possible—that is, mention specific positions on par-

ticular issues.

3. From your observation of others, give an example of each of the errors

described in this chapter.

4. Which of the errors presented in this chapter have you committed? In each

case explain the error and describe the circumstances under which it occurred.

5. Read the following dialogue carefully. If you note any of the errors in

thinking discussed in this chapter or in Chapters 9 and 10, identify them. Then

decide which view of the issue is more reasonable and explain why you think so,

taking care to avoid the errors discussed in this and previous chapters.

rug38189_ch11_126-134.qxd 1/3/11 4:41 PM Page 132

133CHAPTER 11 Errors of Expression

Background note: In past decades college officials debated whether to censor student newspapers that published stories containing four-letter words and explicit sexual references. The debate continues, but the issue has changed. Some student papers are publishing articles that ridicule African Americans, women, and homosexuals. And others are urging students to paint graffiti on campus buildings and take up shop-lifting to combat conformity.5

Ernest: Such articles may be childish and tasteless, but that’s no reason to censor them.

Georgina: Are you kidding? Minorities pay good money to go to college. And on most campuses, I’m sure, their student activity fee pays for the

student newspaper. Where’s the fairness in charging them for articles that

insult them or that encourage lawbreaking, which ultimately costs them

as taxpayers?

Ernest: Why is everything a money issue with you? So a buck or so from every student’s activity fee goes to the newspaper. Big deal. That

doesn’t give every student the right to play fascist and set editorial

policy. The articles are written in a spirit of fun or for shock value.

Censorship is not the answer. If a pesky fly buzzes around your head,

you don’t fire an elephant gun at it. Well, maybe you do, but no

sensible person does.

6. Evaluate the following arguments, following the approach you learned in

Chapter 7. Take care to avoid the errors in thinking discussed in this and previ-

ous chapters.

a. Background note: From time to time people have challenged the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Their objection is usually to the words “under God.” Their reasoning is as follows: Argument: A public school recitation that claims the United States is “under God” is an endorsement of religion and thus violates the constitutional

requirement that church and state be kept separate. Therefore, the recita-

tion of the Pledge of Allegiance should not be permitted.

b. Background note: More and more communities are trying to do something about the growing problem of litter, which is not only unsightly but in many cases unsanitary and dangerous. Here is an argument addressing one aspect of the problem: Argument: Things that have monetary value are less likely to be discarded (or at least more likely to be recovered) than things that don’t have such

value. For that reason a twenty-five-cent deposit on bottles and cans

would virtually eliminate that part of the litter problem.

7. Examine each of the following issues. If you need more information in

order to make an informed judgment, obtain it. Then determine what view of the

issue is most reasonable. Be sure to avoid the errors in thinking discussed in this

and previous chapters.

a. Many people believe that pornography exploits women by portraying

them as objects rather than as persons and creating the false impression

that they secretly yearn to be raped. Do you agree with this view?

b. Reports of human rights violations (such as imprisonment without formal

charges or trial, torture, and even murder) continue to come from a num-

ber of countries that receive foreign aid from the United States. Many peo-

ple believe the United States should demand that those countries end such

violations as a condition of receiving foreign aid. Do you agree?

c. The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that a church founded by a woman

who calls herself “a pagan and a witch” is entitled to a property tax

rug38189_ch11_126-134.qxd 1/3/11 4:41 PM Page 133

134 PART TWO The Pitfalls

exemption on the building her group uses for worship.6 Do you endorse

that court ruling?

d. There are many broken homes today, crimes of violence are reported in

almost every edition of the news, and pornography is more available to

young people than ever. Some people believe that teaching religion in the

schools would go a long way toward solving these social problems. Would it?

e. It is often argued that the only reason conservative groups oppose pre-

marital sex is prudishness. Is this true?

f. Six-year-old Elián Gonzalez fled Cuba on a makeshift boat with his

mother and a number of other people. The boat sank on the way to

Florida, leaving only one survivor, Elián, who was found by fishermen

and taken to his relatives in Miami. The legal battle that followed was in

the news for months. The issue that divided the country, and indeed the

world, was this: Should the boy have been allowed to stay in the United

States, the country his mother was fleeing to, or should he have been

returned to his father in Cuba? In the end, the decision was made to send

the boy back to Cuba. Was that the right decision?

A Difference of Opinion

The following passage summarizes an important difference of opinion. After

reading the statement, use the library and/or the Internet and find what knowl-

edgeable people have said about the issue. Be sure to cover the entire range of

views. Then assess the strengths and weaknesses of each. If you conclude that one

view is entirely correct and the others are mistaken, explain how you reached that

conclusion. If, as is more likely, you find that one view is more insightful than the others but that they all make some valid points, construct a view of your own

that combines the insights from all views and explain why that view is the most reasonable of all. Present your response in a composition or an oral report, as

your instructor specifies.

Should animals have the same rights as people? The idea of animal rights may seem strange if you’ve never heard it before. But it is not a

new idea. Eighteenth-century French philosopher Voltaire reasoned that

because animals have feelings and can understand, at least in a primi-

tive way, they therefore have rights. Albert Schweitzer, the famous jun-

gle doctor and humanitarian, believed that “reverence for life” applies

not just to humans, but to all living creatures.

Dr. Thomas Regan, professor of philosophy at North Carolina State

University, argued persuasively for such rights in his book Animal Rights and Human Obligations. He believes that people resist the idea that animals have rights largely because they think of the world as belonging exclu-

sively to humans. They see dogs and cats and even more “exotic” animals

like dolphins and apes as objects rather than creatures, as things to be

owned and used. He concludes that “it’s not crazy to believe, as some Eastern cultures do, that animals have rights. Our aim is to break some

standard patterns of thought about animals that are held in Western

society.”

Begin your analysis by conducting a Google search using the term

“pro con animal rights.”

rug38189_ch11_126-134.qxd 1/3/11 4:41 PM Page 134

135

C H A P T E R 1 2

Errors of Reaction

Before you began studying critical thinking, you might not have imag-

ined that so many pitfalls lie in wait for the unsuspecting. So far we have

discussed seven errors of perspective, six errors of procedure, and six

errors of expression—nineteen in all, and we’re not quite done yet. The

final category is errors of reaction, which occur after we have expressed our ideas and others have criticized or challenged them. What causes us

to commit errors of reaction? Perhaps the best general answer to this

question was offered many years ago by Rowland W. Jepson in a book he

wrote on the subject of thinking:

When we have once adopted an opinion, our pride makes us loth to

admit that we are wrong. When objections are made to our views, we are

more concerned with discovering how to combat them than how much

truth or sound sense there may be in them; we are at pains rather to find

fresh support for our own views, than to face frankly any new facts that

appear to contradict them. We all know how easy it is to become annoyed

at the suggestion that we have made a mistake; that our first feeling is

that we would rather do anything than admit it, and our first thought is

“How can I explain it away?”1

This determination to explain away whatever does not flatter us or

our point of view reflects our urge to save face and preserve our self-

image. Each of us has a self-image, generally a favorable one. We like to

think of ourselves as wise, responsible, intelligent, observant, coura-

geous, generous, considerate, and so on. We also want others to think of

us this way. Our errors and personal failings have the power to undermine

our reputation, so we are tempted to escape responsibility for them. The

child who loses his temper and punches his playmate, for example, might

say, “It’s not my fault. She made me do it by laughing at me.” The student

who does poorly in a course might say, “The professor gave me a D.” (Whenever she does well, of course, she will say, “I earned an A.”)

rug38189_ch12_135-143.qxd 1/3/11 4:42 PM Page 135

136 PART TWO The Pitfalls

A businessperson who makes a mistake at work might claim, “It’s not my

fault. The directions were misleading.”

Some people manage to resist the temptation to save face, but most of

us fall victim to it from time to time. The trigger mechanism differs

among individuals. Those who pride themselves on being good judges of

people may be mature and balanced about many things, but when the

candidate they voted for is found guilty of misusing his or her office, they

may persist in denying the evidence, scream about the hypocrisy of the

opposing party, and predict that in years to come the judgment will be

reversed. They may do all of this merely to preserve the image of their

perceptiveness in judging people.

Similarly, people who believe they possess unusual self-control may

deny that they are slaves to smoking or drinking and strain good sense

in defending their habit. (“No one has really proved that smoking is harmful— besides, it relieves tension” or “I don’t drink because I have

to but because I enjoy it. I can stop anytime I want to.”) When people

who think of themselves as totally self-sufficient are reminded that they

owe someone money, they may find fault with that person for remind-

ing them. Those who see themselves as sensitive to others and com-

pletely free of prejudice may denounce anyone who points, however

innocently and constructively, to evidence that suggests otherwise. In

each of these cases, the people are trying to maintain their favorable

self-image.

For many individuals the need to save face centers on a particular

role in their lives. Sam thinks of himself as a very devoted father who

sacrifices for his children and has a close relationship with them. One

day during an argument, his son blurts out that for years Sam has been

more concerned with his business and his own leisure pursuits than

with his children and has, in fact, ignored and rejected them. Sam turns

to his wife and demands that she tell the boy his charge is untrue. His

wife slowly and painfully replies that the charge is essentially true. Sam storms out of the house, angry and hurt, convinced that he has been

grievously wronged.

For still others, it is neither the particular aspect of the image nor

the role involved that triggers the face-saving reaction. It is the people

who are observing. Are they friends or strangers? Parents or peers?

Employers or co-workers? What some people think of us we may not

care about at all; what others think of us we may care about beyond all

reasonableness.

To summarize, errors of reaction are face-saving devices we use to

explain away criticism of our ideas. We will discuss five specific errors—

automatic rejection, changing the subject, shifting the burden of proof, straw man, and attacking the critic.

rug38189_ch12_135-143.qxd 1/3/11 4:42 PM Page 136

137CHAPTER 12 Errors of Reaction

Automatic Rejection

As critical thinkers we need a reasonable basis for accepting or rejecting

any argument or claim, including challenges to our ideas. The only way

to establish that basis is to evaluate the challenge and make an honest

determination of its worth. Liking or disliking it, feeling pleased or dis-

pleased with it, is not enough. To reject criticism without giving it a fair

hearing is to commit the error of automatic rejection.

Some years ago I was discussing a thought-provoking article on the

effects of marijuana with a college instructor friend. The article, which

appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association, reported the results of a clinical study of marijuana use.2 The authors concluded that

“contrary to what is frequently reported, we have found the effect of mar-

ijuana to be not merely that of a mild intoxicant which causes a slight

exaggeration of usual adolescent behavior, but a specific and separate

clinical syndrome.” The principal effects they noted were “disturbed

awareness of the self, apathy, confusion and poor reality testing.” They

presented the details of thirteen actual cases to demonstrate these effects.

My friend confided that his own experiences with marijuana while in

college showed all these signs and that the changes in his behavior

closely paralleled those described in the thirteen cases. That is, he had

become somewhat slovenly, irritable, and forgetful; had experienced dif-

ficulty concentrating on his studies and paying attention in class; and had

suffered frequent headaches. Yet at that time, he explained, he not only

dismissed the then-available medical research that challenged his view

that pot smoking was harmless—he also denied the testimony of his per- sonal experience with the drug! His automatic rejection of whatever chal- lenged his view was so effective, he noted, that five years passed before

he was able to consider the evidence fairly.

A college professor colleague of mine shared a similar experience of

automatic rejection of unpleasant ideas. While reading a book that dis-

cussed effective teaching, she explained, she encountered a chapter that

examined a particular classroom practice and showed how it was not

only ineffective but actually harmful to learning. As soon as the approach

was identified, she recognized it as one of her own favorite approaches. As she read further into the author’s criticism of it (she recounted to me

later), she began to feel defensive and even angry. “No,” she mumbled to

herself, “the author is wrong. The approach is a good one. He just doesn’t

understand.” The professor had nothing rational to base these reactions

on—simply the impulse to save face. No one else was around. She was

alone with the author’s words. Yet defending the approach, and saving

herself the embarrassment of admitting she didn’t know as much as she

thought she did, became more important than knowing the truth.

rug38189_ch12_135-143.qxd 1/3/11 4:42 PM Page 137

138 PART TWO The Pitfalls

Eventually the professor realized what she was doing and forced herself

to consider the author’s arguments fairly—but doing so, she confided to

me, took effort.

The temptation to automatically reject challenges to your ideas can be

powerful. A good way to lessen that temptation is to put some emotional

distance between your ideas and your ego. Think of them as possessions

that you can keep or discard rather than as extensions of your self. This

will make you less defensive about them.

Changing the Subject

Changing the subject consists of abruptly turning a discussion in a differ-

ent direction. Not every shift constitutes an error. The new direction may

be more promising. Or it may be a way to provide a timely but polite

rebuke. Suppose someone asks you a rude or inappropriately personal

question, such as “What is your annual income?” or “Why don’t you and

your spouse have any children?” Having no obligation to reply, you

might say something totally unrelated to the question, such as “I wonder

which teams will make it to the Super Bowl” or “The Northeast has had

an unusually hot summer this year.” This is a perfectly legitimate way of

letting the person know the question was improper.

Changing the subject is an error only when the original issue is

appropriate and the shift is used deceptively. Sadly, this kind of shift is

common in interviews of public figures. The interviewer asks a question,

and the interviewee avoids that question and talks about something else.

Clever individuals will manage to mention the subject of the question

and thus create the impression that they are being forthright when in fact

they are not. For example, a presidential candidate asked the question

What is your position on abortion? might answer something like this:

The issue of abortion has divided our nation more than any other issue

of the twentieth century. What disturbs me most is that the tone of dis-

cussion has become so harsh and the distrust of other people’s integrity

so intense that meaningful debate is all but impossible. We must have

that debate, the issue cries out for it, and if I am elected, I pledge to do

my part to create the conditions that will make it possible.

This is an eloquent, moving answer to a question that wasn’t asked! Meanwhile, the question that was asked is left unanswered. In this case there is good reason to suspect that the candidate intended not to answer the

question because any answer he could give would alienate some group of

voters. In fact, he may have been warned by advisors before beginning his

campaign, “Whenever you are asked about abortion, change the subject.”

Politicians are not the only ones who shift issues to avoid addressing

difficult questions or to escape potentially awkward situations. This tactic

rug38189_ch12_135-143.qxd 1/3/11 4:42 PM Page 138

139CHAPTER 12 Errors of Reaction

is used in all walks of life. In legal circles, for example, legend has it that an

attorney’s assistant once rushed into the courtroom and handed the attor-

ney a note that read, “It appears we have no case. Abuse the plaintiff.”

Intentionally changing the subject frustrates the purpose of discus-

sion. To avoid this error, face difficult questions head-on. If you know the

answer, state it. If the issue is too complex to permit a certain answer,

state what you believe to be probable and explain your reasoning. If you

lack sufficient knowledge to speak of probabilities, say so. No reasonable

person will think less of you for candidly admitting ignorance.

Shifting the Burden of Proof

The error of shifting the burden of proof consists of demanding that oth-

ers disprove our assertions. Let’s say Bill asserts, “The greatest single

cause of exploding health care costs in this country is unnecessary refer-

ral of patients for costly medical testing.” Barbara then asks Bill to explain

why he believes that to be the case. He responds, “Can you cite any evi-

dence to disprove it? If you can’t, then say so.” Bill is guilty of shifting the

burden of proof. He made an assertion; he should be ready to support it if

asked and not demand that others refute it. The rule is that whoever

makes the assertion bears the burden of supporting it, and the more the

assertion departs from what knowledgeable people believe, the greater

the responsibility of the person making the assertion to support it.

You will be less likely to shift the burden of proof if you learn to

expect your ideas to be questioned and criticized and prepare to support

them before you express them.

Straw Man

The term straw man was coined by logicians to denote an argument with- out substance. The term shares its meaning with the word scarecrow, a pile of straw stuffed in human clothing and placed in a garden or field to scare

away birds. To commit the error of straw man is to put false words in

someone else’s mouth and then expose their falsity, conveniently forget-

ting that the other person never said them. Suppose you are discussing

with a friend whether the sale of assault weapons should be banned and

the conversation goes as follows:

You: I oppose any restriction on the sale of guns. It should make no difference whether we’re talking about a pistol, a rifle, a shotgun, or an assault weapon. A gun is a gun. And a constitutional right is a constitutional right.

Your friend: You say it “should make no difference” what kind of gun is involved. I say it should make a difference

rug38189_ch12_135-143.qxd 1/3/11 4:42 PM Page 139

140 PART TWO The Pitfalls

because the guns you mentioned are very different from one another. Assault weapons are unlike other kinds of guns—they are not designed for hunting, or even for self-defense, but only for killing people, often indiscriminately. That’s why they should be banned.

You [feeling defensive because you realize your friend’s point will be difficult to answer]:

So you believe you should decide what weapons are acceptable and what weapons aren’t. It’s exactly this kind of arrogance by self-appointed social reformers that everyone who values the Constitution should fear.

You have committed the error of straw man. If your friend is alert,

she will respond: “First you put irresponsible words in my mouth, and

then you say I’m irresponsible. I’d prefer to hear your reaction to what I

really said.”

To avoid straw man, be scrupulously accurate in quoting or para-

phrasing other people’s words.

Attacking the Critic

Attacking the critic is the attempt to discredit an idea or argument by dis-

paraging the person who expressed it. People typically resort to this error

of reaction after their ideas or behaviors have been called into question.

Instead of responding to the real issue, the actual ideas or behaviors that

have been questioned, they create a diversionary issue—the real or imag-

ined failings, or the motivation, of the person who raised the issue. When

Paula Jones accused then president Clinton of having made improper sex-

ual advances toward her, one Clinton spokesman made the comment that

almost anything could be accomplished “by dragging a hundred dollar bill

through a trailer court,” implying that Jones’s character was suspect.

When other women came forward with charges that Clinton had

harassed them, the president’s advisors adopted what became known as

the “nuts and sluts” strategy—that is, they insinuated that anyone who

made such a charge must be mentally unstable or sexually promiscuous

and therefore untrustworthy. Later, when Dick Morris, a former advisor

to Clinton, joined Fox News as a consultant and offered his analysis of

Clinton’s behavior and the alleged cover-up strategies, some Clinton loy-

alists claimed that nothing Morris said was credible because he himself

had committed sexual indiscretions and also was disgruntled over his

loss of status in the White House.

Attacking the critic is an error because ideas and people are not syn-

onymous. However interesting it may be to probe people’s motives, such

exploration tells us nothing about the quality of their ideas. Even people

rug38189_ch12_135-143.qxd 1/3/11 4:42 PM Page 140

141CHAPTER 12 Errors of Reaction

with questionable motives and outright liars sometimes tell the truth.

This is not to say that honesty is unimportant or that we should unques-

tioningly accept the word of people whose integrity we have reason to

suspect. It is only to say that it is unreasonable to substitute speculations or judgments about people themselves for judgments of their ideas.

Applications

1. Which, if any, of the following statements are consistent with the view

detailed in this chapter? Explain your choices.

a. The urge to save face and preserve our image is unavoidable.

b. The urge to save face and preserve our image is a normal tendency.

c. The urge to save face and preserve our image is dishonest.

d. The urge to save face and preserve our image is harmful.

e. The urge to save face and preserve our image is controllable.

2. In discussing research on human behavior, David Myers writes, “That

which we have done we tend to justify as right” and “we not only stand up for

what we believe, we also believe in what we have stood up for [emphasis added].”3

In what ways do these statements relate to what you learned in this chapter?

3. Which of the errors presented in this chapter have you committed?

Describe each error you have committed and explain the circumstances under

which it occurred.

4. We all know that it is difficult to forgive people who have offended us.

But the ancient Roman philosopher Seneca argued that the reverse is also true—

it is difficult to forgive those whom we have offended. Is this idea reasonable? If so, does anything you have learned in Chapters 9 through 12 provide insight into

the idea? If not, why not?

5. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that state, city, and county govern-

ments may not hand over their decison-making power to churches. The Court’s

decision nullified a Massachusetts law giving churches a veto power over the

liquor licensing of any bar or restaurant that would be established within 500 feet

of church buildings.4 Was the Court’s decision the most reasonable one? In decid-

ing, take care to avoid the errors discussed in Chapters 9 through 12.

6. A woman wrote to “Dear Abby” complaining that her son was taking

his fiancee’s name when they married. Abby replied that the young man was an

adult and free to make his own decision, so the mother should accept the situa-

tion gracefully. No doubt many people thought Abby’s advice was sound, but

others may have disagreed, reasoning that there’s something bizarre and unmanly

about a man giving up his family name. In this view the act insults his ancestors.

Evaluate this issue, taking care to avoid the errors discussed in Chapters 9

through 12.

7. On some campuses, when damage occurs on a dormitory floor and the

responsible person or persons are not identified, repair costs are charged to all

those who live on the floor. Many students believe this is unfair. They claim that

damage is sometimes done by strangers who are visiting the dormitory. And

even when the perpetrators live on the floor, these students argue, this policy

punishes innocent residents for other people’s behavior over which they have no

rug38189_ch12_135-143.qxd 1/3/11 4:42 PM Page 141

142 PART TWO The Pitfalls

control. Are these objections to the policy reasonable, or is the policy the fairest

solution to the problem? In making your decision, take care to avoid the errors

discussed in Chapters 9 through 12.

8. Sherri is a sophomore in college. When she is home for spring vacation,

she is very irritable with her parents. She seizes every opportunity to criticize

them and their values and manages to take offense at their every comment to her.

Just before she returns to college, she causes a row in which she accuses them of

never having given her enough attention and love. Her parents are at a loss to

understand her behavior. What they do not know is that for the past several months

she has been living off-campus with her boyfriend and using the money her par-

ents send her to help support him. Explain how this fact might have influenced

her behavior toward her parents.

9. Evaluate the following arguments, following the approach you learned in

Chapter 7. Take care to avoid the errors in thinking discussed in this chapter and

in previous ones.

a. Argument: Taking animals from the wild and exhibiting them for human pleasure is a violation of their natural rights. Therefore, zoos should be

outlawed.

b. Background note: In 1993 a gay organization took the Ancient Order of Hibernians (AOH), the organizers of New York’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade, to court. The charge was that the AOH illegally discriminated against the gay organization by excluding it from the parade. The reasoning of the AOH was as follows: Argument: This parade honors one of the saints of our church. Our reli- gion teaches that homosexuality is a sin. To require us to include gay

organizations in the parade would be a violation of our rights.

c. Background note: In recent years an increasing number of people have com- plained about the level of violence and the amount of sexual material on televi- sion. Television industry spokespeople have generally dismissed the complaints, reasoning as follows: Argument: Contemporary shows depict life more realistically than shows of twenty or thirty years ago. Our position is that such depiction does not

cause or aggravate social problems, so until research proves otherwise,

we will continue to produce programming that tells the truth about life,

honestly and fearlessly.

d. Argument: For years criminals have sold the rights to their life stories to publishers and movie producers. The more terrible their crimes, the more

money publishers and producers have usually been willing to pay. This

practice, in effect, rewards criminals for their crimes and should be

ended. The profits criminals receive in this manner should be placed in a

fund to be distributed among the victims of their crimes.

A Difference of Opinion

The following passage summarizes an important difference of opinion. After

reading the statement, use the library and/or the Internet and find what knowl-

edgeable people have said about the issue. Be sure to cover the entire range of

views. Then assess the strengths and weaknesses of each. If you conclude that

one view is entirely correct and the others are mistaken, explain how you reached

rug38189_ch12_135-143.qxd 1/3/11 4:42 PM Page 142

143CHAPTER 12 Errors of Reaction

that conclusion. If, as is more likely, you find that one view is more insightful than the others but that they all make some valid points, construct a view of your own

that combines the insights from all views and explain why that view is the most reasonable of all. Present your response in a composition or an oral report, as

your instructor specifies.

Is the TV industry’s manipulation of our minds and emotions a danger to us? This issue has been around for a long time but has been intensifying in recent years. Those who believe the “manipulation” is dangerous point to the following devices and their purported effects:

• Biased news programs give us one side of every story and thereby deny

us the breadth and depth of information necessary to carry out our duties

as citizens.

• Confrontational talk shows, populated by guests with polar opposite

views and no interest in any perspective but their own, extol anger and

rudeness rather than respectful, reasoned discussion.

• Laugh tracks and applause tracks in comedy shows induce us to laugh at

what is not funny and thereby prevent our sense of humor from develop-

ing beyond the level of junior high school.

• The artificial pace and excitement of dramatic programs—with their con-

stant shifts among several plot lines, gratuitous sexual encounters, explo-

sions, car chases, and other sensory appeals—make us disappointed with

the natural pace of daily life.

• The multiplication of scenes of violence in crime shows—graphic depic-

tion of a violent crime and close-ups of the victim at the scene, in the labo-

ratory, in the villain’s mental flashbacks, and so on—erode our natural

and healthy sense of horror and revulsion.

• The number, noise level, and artificial excitement of commercials force us

to be distracted and thereby shrink our attention span.

• The emotional appeals of commercials—this product will make you happy, healthy, successful, loved—tempt us to want what we don’t need and buy what we can’t afford.

Those who disagree with these claims argue that all the devices other than

those related to commercials make television more interesting and entertain-

ing and that the devices used in commercials are unavoidable because the

sponsors pay for the programming and have a right to present their products

to good advantage. They also claim that viewers can distinguish between TV

and real life.

Begin your analysis by conducting a Google search using one or more of the fol-

lowing terms: “media manipulation,” “media bias,” “media propaganda,” “media

sensationalism.”

rug38189_ch12_135-143.qxd 1/3/11 4:42 PM Page 143

144

C H A P T E R 1 3

The Errors in Combination

The previous five chapters examined the errors that occur at various

stages of the thinking process. Those chapters had two aims: to help you

avoid the errors in your thinking and to help you recognize them when

they occur in other people’s thinking. Each error was treated in isolation—

a hasty conclusion or oversimplification in one passage, an unwarranted

assumption in another, an overgeneralization or stereotype in a third, and

so on. Errors frequently occur just that way, singly. They can, however,

occur in combination. For example, “mine-is-better” thinking may create a

bias against change that leads us to biased selection of evidence and a

hasty conclusion. Although the possible combinations that can occur are

innumerable, they all have one thing in common: They pose a greater

obstacle to critical thinking than does any one error by itself.

Before discussing combinations of errors further, let’s summarize the

individual errors and the strategies we discussed for avoiding them. You

will recall that the most fundamental critical thinking error is “mine-is-

better” thinking, in which we assume that our ideas must be superior to

other people’s simply because they are our ideas. In reality, of course, our

ideas are as likely to be mistaken as anyone else’s. To overcome “mine-is-

better” thinking, we must be as critical of our own ideas as we are of

other people’s.

A summary of the other errors and their antidotes follows.

Errors of Perspective

The Error

Poverty of aspect

How to Recognize and Deal with It

Limiting one’s perspective on issues; having tunnel vision. Poverty of aspect sometimes is attributable to intellectual sloth; other times it is a by-product of

rug38189_ch13_144-156.qxd 1/3/11 4:43 PM Page 144

145CHAPTER 13 The Errors in Combination

Unwarranted assumptions

Either/or outlook

Mindless conformity

Absolutism

Relativism

specialized education and train- ing. To avoid poverty of aspect when evaluating issues, look beyond the familiar, examine all relevant points of view, and understand before judging.

Assumptions are ideas that are taken for granted rather than consciously reasoned out. When what is taken for granted is unjustified by one’s experience or by the situation, the assump- tion is unwarranted. Because assumptions seldom are expressed directly, the only way to identify them is to “read between the lines” for what is unstated but clearly implied.

The expectation that the only reasonable view of any issue will be total affirmation or total rejection. This error rules out the possibility that the most rea- sonable view might lie between the extremes. To avoid this error, consider all possible alter- natives.

Adopting others’ views unthinkingly because we are too lazy or fearful to form our own. To overcome this error, develop the habit of resisting the internal and external pres- sures and make up your own mind.

The belief that rules do not admit of exceptions. This belief causes us to demand that the truth be neat and simple, when in reality it is often messy and complex. To avoid this error, accept the truth as you find it rather than requiring that it fit your preconceptions.

The belief that no view is better than any other, that any idea you choose to embrace is

rug38189_ch13_144-156.qxd 1/3/11 4:43 PM Page 145

146 PART TWO The Pitfalls

Errors of Procedure

Bias for or against change

automatically correct. To avoid relativism, remind yourself that some ideas, and some standards of conduct, are better than oth- ers and that the challenge of critical thinking is to discover the best ones.

Bias for change assumes that change is always for the best; bias against change assumes that change is always for the worst. To avoid both errors, give any proposal for change a fair hear- ing and decide, apart from your predisposition, whether the change is actually positive or negative.

The Error

Biased consideration of evidence

Double standard

Hasty conclusion

How to Recognize and Deal with It

One form of this error is seeking evidence that confirms your bias and ignoring evidence that challenges it. Another is inter- preting evidence in a way that favors your bias. To avoid this error, begin your investigation by seeking out individuals whose views oppose your bias, then go on to those whose views support it. Also, choose the most reasonable interpreta- tion of the evidence.

Using one set of criteria for judging arguments we agree with and another standard for judging arguments we disagree with. To avoid this error, decide in advance what judgment crite- ria you will use and apply those criteria consistently, regardless of whether the data in question support your view.

A premature judgment—that is, a judgment made without sufficient evidence. To avoid

rug38189_ch13_144-156.qxd 1/3/11 4:43 PM Page 146

147CHAPTER 13 The Errors in Combination

Errors of Expression

Overgeneralization and stereotyping

Oversimplification

Post hoc fallacy

drawing a hasty conclusion, identify all possible conclusions before you select any one. Then decide whether you have suffi- cient evidence to support any of those conclusions and, if so, which conclusion that is.

Overgeneralization is ascribing to all the members of a group a quality that fits only some mem- bers. A stereotype is an overgen- eralization that is rigidly main- tained. To avoid these errors, resist the urge to force individ- ual people, places, and things into hard categories. And keep in mind that the more limited your experience, the more mod- est your assertions should be.

Oversimplification goes beyond making complex ideas easier to grasp—it twists and distorts the ideas. Instead of informing peo- ple, oversimplification misleads them. To avoid this error, refuse to adopt superficial views and make a special effort to under- stand issues in their complexity.

This error is rooted in the idea that when one thing occurs after another, it must be the result of the other, when in reality the sequence may be coincidental. To avoid the post hoc fallacy, withhold judgment of a cause- and-effect relationship until you have ruled out other possible causes, including coincidence.

The Error

Contradiction

How to Recognize and Deal with It

To claim that a statement is both true and false at the same time in the same way. To avoid this

rug38189_ch13_144-156.qxd 1/3/11 4:43 PM Page 147

148 PART TWO The Pitfalls

Arguing in a circle

Meaningless statement

Mistaken authority

False analogy

Irrational appeal

error, monitor what you say and write. The moment you detect any inconsistency, examine it carefully. Decide whether it is explainable or whether it consti- tutes a contradiction. If it is a contradiction, revise your state- ment to make it consistent and reasonable.

Attempting to prove a state- ment by repeating it in a differ- ent form. To avoid this error, check your arguments to be sure you are offering genuine evidence and not merely repeat- ing your claim.

A statement in which the rea- soning presented makes no sense. To avoid this error, check to be sure that the reasons you offer to explain your thoughts and actions really do explain them.

Ascribing authority to some- one who does not possess it. To avoid this error, check to be sure that all the sources you cite as authorities possess expertise in the particular subject you are writing or speaking about.

An analogy is an attempt to explain something relatively unfamiliar by referring to some- thing different but more familiar, saying, in effect, “This is like that.” A false analogy claims similarities that do not with- stand scrutiny. To avoid this error, test your analogies to be sure that the similarities they claim are real and reasonable and that no important dissimi- larities exist.

Appeals to emotion, tradition, moderation, authority, common belief, and tolerance may be either rational or irrational.

rug38189_ch13_144-156.qxd 1/3/11 4:43 PM Page 148

149CHAPTER 13 The Errors in Combination

Errors of Reaction

They are irrational, and there- fore unacceptable, when they are unreasonable in the particu- lar situation under discussion and/or when they discourage thought. To avoid this error, make sure your appeals com- plement thought rather than substitute for it.

The Error

Automatic rejection

Changing the subject

Shifting the burden of proof

Straw man

How to Recognize and Deal with It

The refusal to give criticism of your ideas (or behaviors) a fair hearing. To avoid this error, think of your ideas as posses- sions that you can keep or dis- card rather than as extensions of your ego. This will make you less defensive about them.

Abruptly and deceptively turning a discussion away from the issue under discussion. To avoid this error, face difficult questions head-on rather than trying to avoid them.

Demanding that others disprove our assertions. To avoid this error, understand that the bur- den of supporting any assertion rests with the person who makes it rather than the one who ques- tions it. Accept the responsibil- ity of supporting your assertions.

To commit the error of straw man is to put false words in someone else’s mouth and then expose their falsity, conve- niently forgetting that the other person never said them. To avoid this error, be scrupu- lously accurate in quoting or paraphrasing other people’s words.

rug38189_ch13_144-156.qxd 1/3/11 4:43 PM Page 149

150 PART TWO The Pitfalls

Sample Combinations of Errors

Now let’s examine several combinations of errors and determine the spe-

cific ways they affect the thinking of the people involved.

EXAMPLE 1

Claude is an active worker for his political party. Because he feels a strong

personal identification with the party and is therefore convinced that its

platform and its candidates represent the salvation of the country, he is

unusually zealous in his efforts. One day he is having lunch with Nell, a

business acquaintance. The discussion predictably turns to politics. Claude

delivers a few pronouncements on his candidate and on the opposition. His

candidate, he asserts, is a brilliant theorist and practitioner. Her opponent, in

Claude’s view, is a complete fool. Claude volunteers harsh judgments of the

opponent’s political record and of his family and associates and rattles on

about how the country will be ruined if he is elected.

After listening for a while, Nell challenges Claude. She quietly presents

facts that disprove many of Claude’s ideas and points up the extravagance

of Claude’s assertions. Although there is nothing personal in Nell’s chal-

lenge and it is presented in a calm, objective way, Claude becomes angry. He

accuses Nell of distorting his words, denies having said certain things that

he did say, and stubbornly clings to other things he said despite the facts

Nell has presented.

Let’s reconstruct what happened in terms of the errors we have been

studying. Claude’s initial problem was his “mine-is-better” attitude,

which blinded him to the possibility that his candidate and platform were

not perfect and that the opposition had some merit. In other words, it

made him overvalue the things he identified with and undervalue those

he did not. Accordingly, when he spoke about the candidates and the plat-

forms, he was inclined to oversimplify. Then, when Nell called his errors

to his attention (as someone sooner or later was bound to do), Claude was

driven to relieve his embarrassment through face-saving devices. Because

the more deeply one is committed to an idea, the less likely one is to admit

error. Claude undoubtedly learned little from the incident.

EXAMPLE 2

When Sam was thirteen years old, he didn’t really want to smoke, but his

friends goaded him into doing so. He took to it well, though, feeling more

Attacking the critic Attempting to discredit an idea or argument by disparaging the person who expressed it. To avoid attacking the critic, focus your critical thinking on ideas rather than on the people who express them.

rug38189_ch13_144-156.qxd 1/3/11 4:43 PM Page 150

151CHAPTER 13 The Errors in Combination

like one of the guys with a cigarette dangling out of the corner of his mouth.

As he progressed from an occasional cigarette to a pack-a-day habit, the cost

became prohibitive, and he began to steal money from his parents to buy

cigarettes. “Hey, it’s either that or do without,” he reasoned, “and I’m not

about to do without.”

Now Sam is forty years old, married with a couple of children, and still

smoking. He has developed a wheeze but attributes it to an allergy. Each

new surgeon general’s report on the dangers of smoking sends him into a

tirade. “They haven’t been able to prove smoking causes any disease,” he argues, “so it’s up to the individual to decide whether he’ll be harmed by it.”

More recently, when tobacco companies were accused of adding nicotine

and suppressing unfavorable test results, Sam defended them. “Those exec-

utives are wealthy. They have no reason to harm millions of men, women,

and children.” What incenses him most of all is the nonsmoking zones at

work, in airports, and in other public places. “I don’t tell other people what

to do and when and where to do it, so no one has any business telling me.”

Sam’s first error was being victimized by conformity. His rationale for

stealing reveals either/or thinking. (There was an alternative to stealing—

get a part-time job.) His attribution of the wheeze to an allergy showed

face-saving, and his tirades against the surgeon general’s reports con-

tained the unwarranted assumption that individual smokers are informed

enough to decide whether they’ll be harmed. His reasoning about execu-

tives assumed that wealthy people are not tempted to do wrong. But there

are other temptations than financial gain to be considered, such as retain-

ing prestige and being included in the inner circle of management. Finally,

Sam oversimplified the issue of smoking in public places, notably by ignor-

ing the problem of secondhand smoke.

EXAMPLE 3

Stephen enrolls as a freshman at Progress Technical College. He notices that

he has an eight-o’clock English class three days a week. Because he’s a late

riser, this disturbs him. But when he attends the first class, he notices that

the instructor’s name is Stein. “Wow,” he thinks to himself, “what better

break could a Jewish kid who likes to sleep in the morning have than a

Jewish instructor!” Over the next few weeks, he seizes any excuse to stay

after class, talk with Mr. Stein, and win his favor. For his first two composi-

tions, Stephen chooses subjects that will permit him to stress his Jewishness

(and thereby impress Mr. Stein). Soon he decides that Mr. Stein “under-

stands” him. He begins to cut class occasionally and hands in about one

assignment out of four. When he sees Mr. Stein, Stephen plies him with

pathetic tales of misfortune. His midterm grade is D, but he tells himself that

Mr. Stein is just trying to scare him and will raise his grade in the end. Thus

he attends class even less frequently and does less work. Eventually, the

semester ends, and he receives an F in English. His first reaction is disbelief.

He rushes to see Mr. Stein, who says, “I made it clear on the first day of class

that students could expect to pass only if they attended class and did their

homework faithfully. I’m sorry about the grade, but you deserve it.” From

rug38189_ch13_144-156.qxd 1/3/11 4:43 PM Page 151

152 PART TWO The Pitfalls

that moment on, Stephen refuses to speak to Mr. Stein when he passes him

on campus. And whenever the conversation in the snack bar or dorm turns

to teachers, he loudly denounces Mr. Stein as a phony.

Stephen’s first error was the unwarranted assumption that Mr. Stein

is Jewish. (Many people named Stein are not Jewish.) Next he embraced

the stereotype of Jews as quick to take care of their own. These errors led

him to reject the most reasonable interpretation of his midterm grade and

to believe instead that it was not cause for concern. When he finally failed

the course, rather than acknowledge his dereliction and fallacious think-

ing, he resorted to the face-saving tactic of atttacking Mr. Stein’s integrity.

A Sensible View of Terminology

From time to time you may experience difficulty calling an error by its

proper name. For example, you may have trouble distinguishing among

oversimplification, hasty conclusion, and unwarranted assumption. (This

is a common source of confusion.) The following comparison should help

eliminate, or at least minimize, that confusion.

Oversimplification

Is stated directly.

Occurs as a sim- ple assertion or as the premise of an argument.

Distorts reality by misstatement or omission.

Hasty conclusion

Is stated directly.

Occurs as the con- clusion of an argument.

Fails to account for one or more significant items of evidence.

Assumption

Is unstated but implied.

Often is a hidden premise in an argument.

May be either warranted (sup- ported by the evidence) or unwarranted.

Knowing the right terminology is advantageous, but more important

is recognizing where reasoning has gone awry and being able to explain

the error in terms of the issue involved. In the vast majority of cases, plain

language will do that job nicely.

Applications

1. Each of the following passages suggests an error in thinking. Decide

what error each suggests and explain your answer.

a. In 1876, after learning of Alexander Graham Bell’s patent for the tele-

phone, a Western Union telegraph executive sent the following in-house

memo: “The ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously con-

sidered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no

value to us.”1

rug38189_ch13_144-156.qxd 1/3/11 4:43 PM Page 152

153CHAPTER 13 The Errors in Combination

b. Many years ago Dr. Wellington Koo, a respected Asian diplomat, attended

a formal dinner and happened to be seated next to an American man who

did not know him. When soup was served, the stranger said to Dr. Koo in

a friendly voice, “Likee soupee?” Dr. Koo nodded in reply. Later, when

the meal was finished, Dr. Koo was introduced, walked to the podium,

and gave an eloquent presentation in perfect English. When he returned

to his seat, he turned to the stranger and said, with a twinkle in his eye,

“Likee speechee?”2

c. Psychological research reveals that human beings have a tendency “to

attribute the behavior of others to personality factors and that of our-

selves to situational factors.” In other words, if someone else acts offen-

sively, we believe that is the way he or she is, whereas when we act

offensively, we say we had no choice under the circumstances.3

2. In 1903 Mercedes automobile executives reasoned that the total world-

wide demand for automobiles would never exceed a million vehicles because the

number of people capable of being chauffeurs would never exceed that number.4

Given the history of automobile sales in the twentieth century, that prediction is

laughable. But where exactly did the executives’ thinking go wrong? What spe-

cific error or combination of errors did they commit?

3. Not many years ago prosecutors in some states stipulated that one or

more of the following conditions must exist before they would file rape charges:

(a) the force used by the rapist was sufficient to make the victim fear serious

injury or death, (b) the victim earnestly resisted the assault, and (c) at least one

other witness corroborated the victim’s charge of rape. Are these conditions

reasonable? What error(s) in thinking, if any, do they suggest? Explain your

answer.

4. Three Southern California professors of medicine devised a hoax as an

experiment. They paid a professional actor to lecture three groups of educators.

Armed with a fake identity (“Dr. Myron L. Fox of the Albert Einstein University”),

false but impressive credentials, and a scholarly sounding topic (“Mathematical

Game Theory as Applied to Physical Education”), the actor proceeded to present

one meaningless, conflicting statement after another. His words were a combina-

tion of double-talk and academic jargon. During the question-and-answer

period, he made even less sense. Yet not one of the fifty-five educators in his audience realized they had been tricked. Virtually all of them believed they had learned some- thing. Some even praised the impostor in this manner: “Excellent presentation,

enjoyed listening. Has warm manner . . . lively examples . . . extremely articu-

late.”5 Explain what combination of the errors discussed in Chapters 9 through

12 may have accounted for the audience’s gullibility.

5. Analyze the following case as was done in this chapter with the cases of

Claude, Sam, and Stephen:

A middle-aged couple, Ann and Dan, learn that their twenty-two-year-old

daughter, a senior in college, is a lesbian. They are appalled. They were

raised to believe that lesbianism is willful moral degeneracy. Struggling to

cope with their new awareness, each begins to blame the other—Ann sug-

gests that Dan has always been cold and aloof with the girl, and Dan claims

that Ann has smothered her with affection. After many hours of arguing,

they decide that there is a more direct cause of her deviance—the college.

“You’d think educated people would be alert to the danger of degeneracy

rug38189_ch13_144-156.qxd 1/3/11 4:43 PM Page 153

154 PART TWO The Pitfalls

with all the girls crammed into dorms,” Ann cries. Dan shouts, “Damn it,

I’m going to send a letter to the chairman of that college’s board of trustees. I

want the dean of students fired.”

6. Examine each of the following issues. If you need more information to

make an informed judgment, obtain it. Then determine what view of the issue is

most reasonable. Be sure to avoid the errors in thinking summarized in this

chapter.

a. When Alabama prisons and jails became seriously overcrowded, a U.S.

district judge ordered that more than three hundred convicts be granted

early release. The group included murderers, rapists, and repeat offend-

ers. The judge’s argument was that serious overcrowding in prisons and

jails is a violation of prisoners’ rights against “cruel and unusual punish-

ment.”6 Do you share the judge’s view?

b. U.S. law has accorded most charitable and educational groups tax-exempt

status as long as they refrain from lobbying activities. However, veterans’

groups like the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars tradi-

tionally were regarded as exceptions; that is, they were permitted to lobby

extensively on issues such as the ratification of the Panama Canal treaties,

Alaskan national parks, national security, and Saturday mail delivery (as

well as issues more directly involving veterans) without jeopardizing their

tax-exempt status. Then in 1982 a federal appeals court eliminated special

treatment for veterans’ groups, arguing that it violated the equal protection

guarantees of the Constitution.7 Do you agree with this court decision?

7. Evaluate the following arguments, following the approach you learned in

Chapter 7. Take care to avoid the errors in thinking summarized in this chapter.

a. Professor Wiley takes unfair advantage of his students by requiring them

to buy a textbook that he himself wrote and gets royalties from.

b. Frivolous lawsuits clog the court systems and create a burden for people

who have done no wrong. Therefore, people who lose such lawsuits

should be compelled to pay both court costs and the attorney’s fees of the

person they wrongly charged.

c. I never vote in national elections. I figure that my vote will be canceled by

someone else’s. Besides, all politicians are going to rob the public, so it

doesn’t matter who gets elected.

d. Dogfighting is a sport in which two specially trained dogs (often, but not

always, pitbull terriers) do combat until one is killed or badly maimed. It

is illegal in most states. But should it be? I say no. If I own a dog, it’s my

property and I should be able to do whatever I wish with it.

e. Whenever Americans buy automobiles, clothing, and electronic equip-

ment from other countries, they undermine American business and hurt

American workers. Patriotism demands that we refrain from buying

from foreign competitors even when their prices are lower and their qual-

ity is higher.

f. It’s absurd to believe in life after death because no one has ever returned

from the grave.

g. Women in the military should be required to undergo the same physical

training as are men. They also should not be exempted from frontline duty.

h. Some years ago New York State Social Services officials directed local adoption

agencies not to reject applicants solely because they were homosexual or had a

history of alcoholism or drug abuse, a criminal record, a dependency on

rug38189_ch13_144-156.qxd 1/3/11 4:43 PM Page 154

155CHAPTER 13 The Errors in Combination

welfare, or a severe emotional or physical handicap.8 I think this is outrageous.

People who fall into any of these categories obviously are not fit to be parents,

and child welfare agencies have an obligation to protect children from them.

i. It’s ironic that during the very time when baseball great Pete Rose was

being castigated for his alleged gambling on sports events, newspapers

were filled with stories about the Illinois and Pennsylvania lotteries and

their respective $62.5 million and $115 million jackpots. Millions of peo-

ple were placing bets on those lotteries, as well as dozens of other state

lotteries, and that was regarded as perfectly legitimate. And yet a base-

ball legend was being threatened with disgrace and expulsion from the

game he loved. The whole fiasco can be explained only in terms of monu-

mental ignorance or hypocrisy.

j. For the past few decades, most Americans have swallowed the liberal

line that everyone deserves a college education. As a result, college

courses have been watered down, and the college degree has been ren-

dered meaningless. It’s high time we adopt a more realistic view. College

should be reserved for those who not only have taken a demanding high

school program but have excelled in it.

8. Read each of the following dialogues carefully. If you note any of the

errors in thinking summarized in this chapter, identify them. Then decide which

view of the issue is more reasonable and explain why you think so.

a. Background note: A born-again Texas businessman and a television evangelist smashed $1 million worth of art objects and threw them into a lake after reading the following verse from Deuteronomy in the Bible: “The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver and gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God.” The objects, which belonged to the businessman, were mostly gold, silver, jade, and ivory figures associated with Eastern religions. Cecil: That’s a real measure of faith, the willingness to discard earthly treasures out of spiritual conviction.

Ellie: It’s more like an act of lunacy. It’s a terrible waste of wealth. If he’d wanted to express his religious conviction, he could have done some-

thing to help his fellow human beings.

Cecil: By doing what? Ellie: He could have sold the objects, taken the million dollars, and given it to the needy of the world. Or he could have donated it to a religious

organization or a hospital. Instead, he threw it away and helped no one.

Cecil: You don’t understand. Selling the objects would have corrupted others. He’s a religious man. The Bible told him what to do, and he had

no choice but to obey.

b. Background note: A former Florida policewoman filed a federal discrimination suit, alleging that she was fired because of a sex-change operation. The officer, now a man, charged that the firing violated his constitutional rights and asked for both monetary damages and reinstatement on the police force.9

Christine: If the cause for the firing was as the officer describes it, then it was improper.

Renee: I disagree. A police officer is a public official and should not engage in behavior that disgraces that office.

Christine: What’s disgraceful about having a sex-change operation? Renee: It’s sick, strange, and abnormal, and it makes the police depart- ment the laughingstock of the community.

rug38189_ch13_144-156.qxd 1/3/11 4:43 PM Page 155

156 PART TWO The Pitfalls

Christine: Wrong. The only concern of the police department and of the general public should be the officer’s performance of his or her duty.

Whether he or she decides to have a sex-change operation is no more their

business than if the officer decides to take up stamp collecting as a hobby.

c. Quentin: There’d be a lot less ignorance in the world today if parents didn’t pass on their views to their children.

Lois: How can they avoid doing so? Quentin: By letting children form their own views. There’s no law that says Democrats have to make little Democrats of their children, or that

Protestants have to pass on their Protestantism.

Lois: What should they do when their children ask them about politics or religion or democracy?

Quentin: Send them to the encyclopedia, or, if the parents are capable of objective explanation, explain to them the various views that are possible

and encourage them to choose their own.

Lois: How can you ask a three-year-old to make a choice about religion or politics or philosophy?

Quentin: In the case of young children, the parents would simply explain as much as the children could understand and say that when they get

older they can decide for themselves.

Lois: How would all this benefit children or society? Quentin: It would make it possible for children to grow up without their parents’ prejudices and would help control the number of ignoramuses in

the world.

A Difference of Opinion

The following passage summarizes an important difference of opinion. After read-

ing the statement, use the library and/or the Internet and find what knowledgeable

people have said about the issue. Be sure to cover the entire range of views. Then

assess the strengths and weaknesses of each. If you conclude that one view is

entirely correct and the others are mistaken, explain how you reached that conclu-

sion. If, as is more likely, you find that one view is more insightful than the others but that they all make some valid points, construct a view of your own that combines the insights from all views and explain why that view is the most reasonable of all.

Present your response in a composition or an oral report, as your instructor specifies.

Should teachers be paid on the basis of performance? Believe it or not, this question was seriously considered by the largest teachers’ union in the coun-

try, the National Education Association, at its national convention in 2000.

Moreover, in 2010 the Florida legislature passed such a bill. (The governor

subsequently vetoed it.) Proponents of the idea of paying teachers according

to their performance point to the decline in student performance over the

past halfcentury and argue that tying teachers’ pay to learning will motivate

teachers to do a better job in the classroom. Opponents claim that students’

poor performance in school has many causes, and inadequate instruction

may be the least of them. They also predict that lowering teachers’ pay (or

curtailing pay increases) would drive good teachers out of the profession.

Begin your analysis by conducting a Google search using the term “teachers’

performance pay.”

rug38189_ch13_144-156.qxd 1/3/11 4:43 PM Page 156

P A R T T H R E E

A Strategy

Part One of this book, “The Context,” presented the fundamental

“tools and rules” involved in critical thinking. Part Two, “The Pitfalls,”

explained the many ways in which thinking can go wrong and what

you can do to avoid them. Part Three presents a step-by-step

approach for you to use in addressing issues. Following this approach

will enable you to smoothly and effectively integrate the habits and

skills you have learned. Thinking, remember, is an active use of the

mind, a performance activity, every bit as much as is playing tennis or

the piano, driving a car, or cooking Thanksgiving dinner. The quality

lies in the doing.

The first chapter in Part Three, “Knowing Yourself,” draws together

the insights you have been gaining about yourself since Chapter 1 and

may even add a few new ones. (The more familiar you are with your

strengths and weaknesses, the better you will be able to employ your

skills.) The remaining chapters guide you through the process of

critical thinking from observation to judgment and persuasion.

157

rug38189_ch14_157-163.qxd 1/3/11 4:44 PM Page 157

158

C H A P T E R 1 4

Knowing Yourself

Western philosophy virtually began with Socrates’ advice “Know thy-

self.” Ever since, thoughtful men and women have realized that knowing

oneself is the key to wisdom. As Sidney J. Harris observed, “Ninety

percent of the world’s woe comes from people not knowing themselves,

their abilities, their frailties, and even their real virtues. Most of us go

almost all the way through life as complete strangers to ourselves.” No

doubt Scottish poet Robert Burns had this reality in mind when he longed

for the gift "to see ourselves as others see us."

Some of what we have to learn about ourselves is pleasant while a cer-

tain amount is inevitably unpleasant, but it all can make a valuable contribu-

tion to our self-improvement. The way to achieve self-knowledge is to ask

lots of probing questions. Following are some of the most fundamental ones.

Am I quiet or talkative? Generally optimistic or pessimistic? Hard-

working or lazy? Fearful or brave? Serious or easygoing? Modest or proud?

Competitive or noncompetitive? Am I nervous or at ease with strangers? Do

I retain my poise and presence of mind in emergencies? Am I confident in

everything I do? Do I resent certain types of people (the popular classmate,

for example)? Would I be more accurately classified as a leader or a follower?

How trustworthy am I? Can I keep a secret, or must I reveal it to at

least one or two others? Am I loyal to my friends? Do I ever use people?

How sensitive am I to the feelings of others? Do I ever purposely hurt

others? Am I jealous of anyone? Do I enjoy causing trouble? Do I sow

seeds of suspicion and dissension among people? Do I rush to spread the

latest gossip? Do I talk behind friends’ backs? Are my comments about

others usually favorable or unfavorable? Do I criticize others’ real or

imagined faults as a means of boosting my own ego? Do I keep my prom-

ises? How tolerant am I of people’s faults and mistakes?

Am I truthful with other people? With myself? How objective am I in

assessing my skills and talents? How intelligent am I? How studious am

rug38189_ch14_157-163.qxd 1/3/11 4:44 PM Page 158

159CHAPTER 14 Knowing Yourself

I in school? How many different roles do I play with other people?

Which of those roles are authentic? Which roles are masks designed to

hide aspects of myself I would be ashamed or embarrassed to have oth-

ers see? How reasonable are my plans for the future? Do I work well

under pressure?

Critical Thinking Inventory

In addition to the foregoing questions, numerous questions are sug-

gested by the previous thirteen chapters. The following questions will

help you take inventory of the habits and attitudes that affect your

thinking:

1. Exactly what influences have shaped my identity? How have they done so? How has my self-image been affected? In what situations am I less an individual because of these influences?

2. In what ways am I like the good thinker (as outlined in Chapter 2)? In what ways like the poor thinker? What kinds of situations seem to bring out my best and worst qualities?

3. To what extent has my perspective on truth been reasonable? (Refer to Chapter 3 if necessary.)

4. How careful am I about separating hearsay and rumor from fact? About distinguishing the known from assumptions or guesses? How difficult is it for me to say “I don’t know”?

5. How consistent am I in taking the trouble to make my opinions informed?

6. To what extent do I think that “mine is better” (not only the personal “mine” but the ethnocentric “mine” as well)? In what ways has this kind of thinking affected my view of personal problems and public issues? To what extent does it affect my ability to listen to those who disagree with me? My ability to control my emotions? My willing- ness to change my mind and revise a judgment?

7. In what matters am I inclined to assume too much, take too much for granted?

8. To what degree do I tend to have the either/or outlook, expecting that the right answer will always be extreme and never moderate?

9. To what or to whom do I feel the strongest urge to conform? In what situations has this conformist tendency interfered with my judgment?

10. Do I tend to be an absolutist, demanding that truth be neat and simple, or a relativist, claiming that everyone creates his or her own truth? In what ways has my characteristic tendency hindered my development as a critical thinker?

11. In what matters am I most biased toward change? Am I overly accepting of change or overly resistant to it? What is the cause of this tendency and how can I best control it?

rug38189_ch14_157-163.qxd 1/3/11 4:44 PM Page 159

160 PART THREE A Strategy

12. In what situations do I seek to confirm my biases rather than control them? In what situations do I interpret evidence in a way that flatters my bias?

13. How often do I approach issues with a double standard, overlooking flaws in arguments that agree with mine and nitpicking those that disagree?

14. To what extent do I tend to jump to conclusions? Do I tend to do so more in certain areas? If so, which? Do I draw my conclusions pre- maturely purely for the sake of convenience? Am I motivated by the desire to sound authoritative and impress people?

15. To what extent do I overgeneralize? What kinds of stereotypes do I most readily accept? Racial? Religious? Ethnic?

16. To what extent do I oversimplify complex matters? Am I simply un- willing to take the trouble to learn the truth in its complexity? Or do I feel threatened by answers that are not neat and tidy? What has made me this way?

17. What errors of expression do I most often commit? Reasoning that if B follows A, A must be the cause of B? Shifting the issue to avoid dif- ficult or embarrassing discussions? Contradicting myself? Arguing in a circle? Making meaningless statements? Confusing real with bogus authorities? Making false analogies? Using irrational appeals?

18. Which of the following errors are most characteristic of my responses to challenges and criticism of my ideas: automatic rejection? shifting the burden of proof? straw man? attacking the critic rather than dis- cussing the issue?

Using Your Inventory

As important as the foregoing questions are, one question is considerably

more important: How can you most effectively use your personal inventory to improve your critical thinking performance? The answer is to apply the following strategy:

1. Answer all the questions in the critical thinking inventory honestly and thoroughly, acknowledging not only the pleasant facts about yourself but also the unpleasant ones. (If you ignore the latter, they will influence you no less; in fact, your refusal to face them may intensify the harm they do.)

2. Reflect on your answers, noting the areas in which you are especially vulnerable. Don’t expect to be equally vulnerable in all circumstances; it is common for some to be more troublesome than others. Your goal here is to know your intellectual habits so well that you can predict exactly which thinking problem will arise for you in any particular situation.

3. Whenever you address an issue, anticipate what problems are likely to undermine your thinking at each stage of the thinking process and make a conscious effort to resist their influence.

rug38189_ch14_157-163.qxd 1/3/11 4:44 PM Page 160

161CHAPTER 14 Knowing Yourself

Challenge and Reward

It is one thing to understand the steps necessary to improving your think-

ing and quite another to use them effectively. The latter task is a formida-

ble challenge that will take continuing effort over a long period of time.

Is the challenge worth the effort? Let’s consider what is known about

the role of thinking in everyday life. The most respected educators stress

the importance of going beyond mere memorization and reflecting on the

significance and application of facts. Thinking skills are necessary to

understand and profit from college courses. Business and professional

leaders stress that proficiency in thinking is necessary to solve problems

and make decisions on the job. (Books written in recent years about

achieving excellence underline the value of thinking skills.)

In addition, more and more psychologists affirm that thinking skills

play a crucial role in our personal lives. The leading form of psychother-

apy in this country, in fact, is cognitive therapy. This therapy is based on

the idea that most mental problems (neuroses) result from faulty thinking

habits. Noted psychologist Albert Ellis, founder of the Institute of Rational-

Emotive Therapy, claims, “Man can live the most self-fulfilling, creative,

and emotionally satisfying life by intelligently organizing and disciplining

his thinking.”1

Like other famous psychologists before him, Ellis notes that to organize

our thinking we must wrestle with our own negative tendencies. “As

Freud and his daughter Anna accurately observed,” he says, “and as

Adler agreed, humans are prone to avoid focusing on and coping with

their problems and instead often sweep them under the rug by resorting

to rationalization, denial, compensation, identification, projection, avoid-

ance, repression, and other defensive maneuvers.”

In short, although the challenge of improving your thinking is great,

no other kind of self-improvement has the potential to affect every area of

your life so positively.

Applications

1. Examine yourself in light of the questions presented in the chapter. Don’t

settle for things you already know about yourself. Rather, try to expand your

self-awareness. And don’t ignore your less favorable characteristics. Discuss the

results of your self-examination.

2. Apply your critical thinking to each of the following cases. Make a con-

scious effort to apply your new self-knowledge, anticipating the problems in

thinking to which you will be vulnerable and resisting their influence on your

judgment.

a. A California woman who owned two duplex apartments refused to lease

to unmarried couples because she was a devout Presbyterian. The state

charged her with illegal discrimination. She claimed that she had acted

rug38189_ch14_157-163.qxd 1/3/11 4:44 PM Page 161

162 PART THREE A Strategy

within her right to the free exercise of her religion. The court ruled against

her, fined her $454, and ordered her to inform prospective tenants (a) that

she had been in trouble with the state housing commission, (b) that her

claim to the free exercise of religion was rejected by the court, and (c) that

she now accepts the government’s “equal housing opportunity” policy.2

Was justice done in this case?

b. Most people’s consciousness has been raised about the evil of child abuse,

some people’s to the point of denouncing the practice of spanking chil-

dren. But many others believe that spanking is not necessarily abusive

and can be a positive means of developing children’s sense of right and

wrong and guiding them to responsibility and self-discipline. What is

your view on this issue?

c. A group of convicts brought legal action against the prison system, con-

tending that their religious freedom was violated because they were not

allowed to use an interfaith chapel to worship Satan.3 Should prison offi-

cials have allowed them to use the chapel?

d. Canadian government officials passed legislation to curtail cigarette com-

pany sponsorship of athletic and cultural events. Banned are logos on

race cars and the displays of company names on signs at events spon-

sored by tobacco companies.4 Should the United States follow Canada’s

example?

e. A Stillwater, Oklahoma, police officer came home to find his daughter

and her boyfriend copulating on the couch. The boy pulled up his pants

and rushed past the officer. As he went by, the officer slapped him in the

face with an open hand. Subsequently, the boy’s mother called city offi-

cials and complained about the “assault.” As a result, the officer was

demoted and given a $700 pay cut. The city council later reversed the

ruling but voted to fine the officer a week’s pay.5 Do you agree with the

city’s handling of this case?

f. Some educators are urging that colleges become more selective than they

have been in the past few decades. Specifically, these people propose that

remedial courses be eliminated and entrance requirements tightened. This

would mean that students who are deficient in basic skills, earned poor

marks in high school, or did poorly on admissions tests would not be

accepted into college. Do you agree with this view?

g. An outstanding senior English major (with a 3.7 grade point average out

of a possible 4.0) at Princeton University submitted an analysis of a novel

for her Spanish American literature course. Her professor determined

that the paper was plagiarized—that is, that it was copied, virtually word

for word, from a scholarly reference work without proper acknowledg-

ments. The student subsequently claimed she had committed only a “tech-

nical error.” The case was referred to a faculty-student committee on

discipline, which, after a hearing, recommended withholding the stu-

dent’s degree for one year and notifying the law schools to which she

had applied of the details of the decision. Believing the penalty to be too

harsh, the student took the matter to court.6 Do you believe the committee’s

decision was too harsh?

h. A federal court has ruled that Christmas (like Hanukkah, Easter, and

Passover) may be observed in the public schools as a cultural event but

not as a religious holiday. Educational lawyers interpret that as mean-

ing that songs like “Silent Night” may be sung in a class learning about

rug38189_ch14_157-163.qxd 1/3/11 4:44 PM Page 162

163CHAPTER 14 Knowing Yourself

religious customs or in a music appreciation class but not as a religious

celebration.7 Do you support the idea of banning all religious celebrations

from the schools in this manner?

i. When Elizabeth Taylor learned that a TV movie based on her life was in

preparation, she went to court to block its production, claiming that the

so-called docudrama was “simply a fancy new name for old-fashioned

invasion of privacy, defamation, and violation of an actor’s rights.”8

Some people would say that her request should have been denied because

it represents censorship. What do you think? (Would you think differ-

ently if the docudrama concerned the life of a deceased celebrity, such as

Kurt Cobain or Elvis Presley?)

j. Shirley MacLaine, the well-known actress, is also a best-selling author. In

her books she claims to have lived a number of former lives. For example,

she says she once lived as a male teacher who committed suicide on the

lost continent of Atlantis.9 Do you find such claims believable?

rug38189_ch14_157-163.qxd 1/3/11 4:44 PM Page 163

164

C H A P T E R 1 5

Being Observant

French chemist Louis Pasteur once said, “Chance favors the prepared

mind.” True enough. He might have added that it also favors the obser-

vant eye. Many obvious things wait to be seen, yet we never notice them.

What color eyes does your father have? Does your mother part her hair

on the left or the right? What is the pattern of the wallpaper in your din-

ing room? How many of the houses on your street have white roofs?

Being observant is not merely an interesting quality that enlivens our

days. Clear and sound thinking often depends on subtleties that are

revealed only by close observation—in other words, by attentive seeing

and hearing. If there are gaps in our seeing and hearing, then the percep-

tions on which we base our judgments are less likely to be complete

and accurate. In addition, the keener our observation, the less likely we

will be to commit to stereotypes, oversimplifications, and unwarranted

assumptions.

Observing People

What people say and the way they say it (and sometimes what they omit saying) can be valuable clues to their unspoken views and attitudes.

Noticing these things can help us decide which areas are sensitive for peo-

ple, which areas their understanding seems weak in, and what approaches

would be most fruitful in communicating with them.

When they are listening, people give certain signals to indicate

approval or disapproval of what is being said. An occasional nodding of

the head, an encouraging smile, even a low “uh-huh” of assent all signal

“I’m in agreement with you.” On the other hand, a slight shaking of the

head, a raising of the eyebrows, a pursing of the lips as the eyes roll

upward, or a frown all suggest at least partial disagreement. Similarly,

people who are bored with a discussion will usually betray their boredom

rug38189_ch15_164-170.qxd 1/3/11 4:45 PM Page 164

165CHAPTER 15 Being Observant

even if they are trying not to. The way they glance at their watches, sigh

resignedly, turn their attention to someone or something outside the

expected focus, nervously fidget with an article of their clothing, or fre-

quently shift position communicates their wish to change the subject or

their companions.

A great deal can be told from even a simple exchange of greetings by

two people passing each other. Merely the tone in which the greeting is

expressed can suggest whether the people like and respect each other and

whether they consider each other equals. Few of these reactions, however

subtle, are missed by observant people. And, as might be obvious, aside

from its benefits to thinking, careful attention is a great aid in making

people more sensitive to and thoughtful of others.

A student in a writing class raises his hand and asks the teacher if he

can borrow a pen. (The class is in its ninth week, and the in-class writing

assignment was announced during the previous class.) The instructor

gives him a searching look, slowly reaches into her pocket and extracts a

pen, walks in a labored step to the student’s desk, and hands it to him. No

words have been spoken. No obvious gestures have signaled the instruc-

tor’s displeasure. But if the student is observant, he will have seen the

displeasure in the look and the resigned “What’s the use?” gait.

Good detectives are observant. They know that one small, easily

overlooked clue can mean the difference between a solved and an

unsolved case. Similarly, good trial lawyers are studious observers of peo-

ple. The nervous glance of a witness when a certain aspect of the case is

mentioned can suggest the most productive line of questioning. Likewise,

we can conduct our critical thinking more effectively if we observe other

people’s behavior carefully.

Observation in Science and Medicine

We owe today’s knowledge of the causes and treatments of heart attack in

part to the careful observation of one doctor. Dr. James B. Herrick was the

first physician to diagnose a heart attack in a living patient without bene-

fit of blood tests or electrocardiograms. In doing so, he opened the door

to the modern era in heart care. Until that time, a heart attack was not

recognized as a sign of heart disease. The symptoms that even lay per-

sons have learned to recognize today were, until Herrick’s discovery,

regarded as acute indigestion. Herrick established that most heart attacks

are due to a clot in a coronary artery and that such an attack need not be

fatal. (Interestingly, Herrick had earlier discovered the disease known as

sickle-cell anemia.)1

Another well-known, fortuitous occasion when the power of

observation paid handsome dividends for humanity took place in 1929.

rug38189_ch15_164-170.qxd 1/3/11 4:45 PM Page 165

166 PART THREE A Strategy

Sir Alexander Fleming accidentally contaminated a staphylococcus cul-

ture with a mold. He noticed that the staph colonies began to undergo

dissolution. Recognizing the great value of whatever substance in the

mold had caused the dissolution, he turned his attention to the mold.

Eventually, he isolated the substance that has since saved countless

millions of lives—penicillin. A few years earlier, in 1922, Fleming had

made another dramatic discovery. Suffering from a cold and a runny

nose, he was working with a glass plate on which bacteria were growing

when a drop from his nose fell onto the plate. In a short time he noticed

that the drop had destroyed some of the bacteria. Thus he discovered a

substance called lysozyme, a protein and enzyme also found in saliva

and tears. Some researchers now believe that lysozyme may play a part in

controlling cancer.2

French Nobel Prize–winning molecular biologist Jacques Monod

owes to his casual yet observant browsing through statistics his discovery

that manic depression is genetically linked. He explains how it happened

as follows:

One day I was getting bored at one of the committee meetings we are always

having to attend. I was leafing through some statistics from psychiatric hos-

pitals, and I noted with amazement, under manic depressives, that women

outnumbered men two to one. I said to myself, “That must have a genetic

origin, and can mean only one thing; it is traceable to a dominant gene

linked to sex.”3

Note that, although Monod’s insight initially occurred to him as a

conviction (it “can mean only one thing”), he did not treat it as such.

Rather, he made it a scientific hypothesis and set about to test it. That was

wise, because—his positive phrasing notwithstanding—the idea could

have turned out to be a post hoc fallacy (see Chapter 10).

The Range of Application

Countless examples of the benefits of close observation could be cited in

every field of study and work. Physicist Richard Feynman, for example,

had extraordinary curiosity—as he put it, a “puzzle drive.” From early

youth he was fascinated with all kinds of puzzles from math problems to

Mayan hieroglyphics, and when he ran out of prepared ones, he con-

structed his own. He observed paramecia through his microscope and

learned things that contradicted the prevailing wisdom. He laid out food

trails for ants and then studied their behavior.

Once, while sitting in the Cornell University cafeteria, Feynman

noticed a student tossing a plate in the air; the plate wobbled, and the

red Cornell medallion on it rotated. But one particular detail intrigued

him—the medallion on the plate was rotating significantly faster than

rug38189_ch15_164-170.qxd 1/3/11 4:45 PM Page 166

167CHAPTER 15 Being Observant

the plate was wobbling. Why the difference? he wondered. Fascinated,

he wrestled with the problem; constructed an equation that expressed

the relationship of angle, rotation, and wobble; and worked out “the

motion of the mass particles.” When he told an associate about his find-

ings, the associate dismissed them as unimportant. But Feynman

explored the wobble phenomenon more deeply, and what had begun as

a playful exercise in curiosity eventually won him the Nobel Prize for

physics!4

Other examples of the value of observation include the following:

While teaching a Sunday School class in a prison in 1841, Dorothea Dix

noticed that a group of mentally ill women were shivering in the cold.

She asked why their room was unheated, and was told not to worry

because they couldn’t feel the cold. Outraged, Dix proceeded to visit

other institutions in Massachusetts and in many other states, exposed

similar inhumane treatment of people with mental problems, and

helped to initiate reforms.

As a young apprentice bricklayer, Frank Gilbreth observed that some

master bricklayers were more productive than others and that the rea-

son lay in their economy of movement. When the habits of the more

productive workers became standard, there were significant savings in

effort, time, and payroll. Later, Gilbreth and his wife, Lillian, an indus-

trial psychologist, did pioneering work in time and motion studies.

(They also had twelve children; the movie Cheaper by the Dozen was based on their lives.)

Viktor Frankl, an Austrian psychiatrist, spent most of World War II in

Nazi concentration camps. (His wife and parents perished there.)

During his ordeal, he observed and pondered the effects of the dire

experience on himself and his fellow inmates. These observations led

him to the belief that the main drive in human beings is not the sex

drive, as Freud had claimed, or the drive for power, as Adler had

claimed, but instead the drive for meaning. (Frankl’s book Man’s Search for Meaning details his experience and observations.)

Even as a child, Stephanie Kwolek was curious about nature and was

fond of walking through the woods and observing flora and fauna.

That interest led her to earn a college degree in chemistry and to

become a laboratory researcher. Her special area of research was high-

strength fibers and she is credited with the development of the prod-

uct known as Kevlar, which today is used not only in bulletproof

garments but in many other products, from automobile tires and

bridge cables to spacecraft. Kwolek has received seventeen U.S.

patents for her inventions.

For most of us, being observant may not have the dramatic results it

did for these individuals. Nevertheless, it can help us relate more mean-

ingfully to people and learn more about the things around us. Most

important, it can aid our critical thinking.

rug38189_ch15_164-170.qxd 1/3/11 4:45 PM Page 167

168 PART THREE A Strategy

Becoming More Observant

The way to be observant is to use all five of your senses to keep your mind

from wandering aimlessly. All too often, people are unobservant because

they are too absorbed in themselves—their own thoughts and feelings.

When they speak, they are so busy forming their words and enjoying the

sound of their own voice that they forget their listeners. Observant people,

on the other hand, have learned how to get outside themselves, to be con-

stantly in touch with what is happening around them.

A good way to start becoming more observant is to practice receiving

sense impressions more attentively. At the next meeting of an organiza-

tion you belong to or any other gathering, try to notice things you would

normally miss: objects in the room, the arrangement of the furniture, the

positions of the people in relation to one another, the subtle reactions of

people during the discussion. The next time you are walking around your

neighborhood or in the mall, try to see how many things you’ve been

missing. Which houses are best cared for? How many people smile and

nod or otherwise greet you? What activities are people you pass engaged

in? Do they seem to be enjoying what they are doing? How many differ-

ent sounds do you hear? Which sounds dominate? Are they pleasant or

harsh? How many different styles of walking can you detect among the

people you pass? How many stores have closed? Which stores are most

crowded?

When you are reading a magazine or newspaper or watching TV,

look for the significance of things. Consider the connections among ideas,

even apparently unrelated ones. An article about an astronomer’s loca-

tion of a new galaxy may reveal something about concentration and men-

tal discipline. A TV show about the effects of negligence and abuse on

children may suggest a new perspective on marriage or divorce or the

Hollywood image of romance.

Reflecting on Your Observations

Observation will sometimes, by itself, bring valuable insights. But you

can increase the number and quality of your insights by developing the

habit of reflecting on your observations. The best way to do this is to set aside a special time every day—early in the morning, perhaps, or late in

the evening (but not when you are exhausted). It needn’t be long; ten or

fifteen minutes may be enough. But be sure you are free of distractions.

Review what you have seen and heard during the past twenty-four

hours. Ask yourself what they mean, how they relate to other important

matters, and how you can use them to improve yourself or to spur

achievement.

rug38189_ch15_164-170.qxd 1/3/11 4:45 PM Page 168

169CHAPTER 15 Being Observant

Let’s say that you heard this proverb earlier today: “To be content

with little is difficult; to be content with much, impossible.” Reflecting on

it might lead you to the conclusion that popular culture’s emphasis on

possessing things—new cars, stylish clothes, and so on—is a false value,

that material wealth can never guarantee happiness.

Or you may have read about the Michigan court ruling that a fetus

can be considered a person in a wrongful death lawsuit. After a man’s

wife and sixteen-week-old fetus were killed when the wife swerved her

car to avoid hitting an unleashed dog, the man sued the dog’s owners.

(This decision departed from previous court rulings in Michigan that a

fetus is not a person until it can survive outside the uterus.)5 Here your

reflection might lead you to consider the implications of this ruling for

the issue of abortion.

Applications

1. Select a place where you can observe other people as suggested in this

chapter—the campus snack bar, for example, or a student lounge. Go there and

stay at least half an hour. Try to notice more than the obvious. Look for subtleties,

things you’d normally miss. Take notes on what you observe.

2. Ask your instructor in this course or one of your other courses for per-

mission to visit another of his or her sections. Go to that class and observe care-

fully the reactions of individual students—for example, the subtle indications

they give of attention or inattention. Take notes.

3. Make yourself look as sloppy and scruffy as you can. Put on old, wrinkled

clothes. Mess up your hair. Rub dirt on your face and arms. Then go into a store

and ask a clerk for assistance. Speak to other customers. Check the clerk’s reaction

and the reactions of other customers. A day or so later, return to the same store

looking your very neatest and cleanest. Speak and act in the same manner. Note

people’s reactions. Compare them with those you got the first time.

4. Think about how mannerly the students, faculty, and staff at your college

are. Observe their behavior in various campus situations, noting examples of

courtesy and rudeness.

5. Many people have become so accustomed to advertisements that they no

longer examine them carefully and critically. Pay close attention to the advertis-

ing you encounter in a typical day in newspapers and magazines, on television

and radio, and elsewhere. Determine what appeals are used to elicit a favorable

response from you and how much specific information about the products or

services is presented in the advertisements. Record your observations.

6. Practice reflecting, as explained in this chapter, on the following quotations:

If I am not for myself, who will be? But if I am only for myself, what am I?

(Rabbi Hillel)

Travel makes a wise man better but a fool worse. (Thomas Fuller)

It is not easy to find happiness in ourselves, and it is not possible to find it

elsewhere. (Agnes Repplier)

rug38189_ch15_164-170.qxd 1/3/11 4:45 PM Page 169

170 PART THREE A Strategy

You cannot really love God unless you love your neighbor. (Anonymous)

The covetous man is ever in want. (Horace)

The absent are always at fault. (Spanish proverb)

The girl who can’t dance says the band can’t play. (Yiddish proverb)

7. Evaluate the following arguments, following the approach you learned in

Chapter 7. Take care to avoid the errors in thinking summarized in Chapter 13.

a. Background note: Concern over the possibly damaging effects of pornography on children has led many people to lobby for laws banning the sale of pornography to anyone under eighteen. Others object to this, sometimes offering the following argument: Argument: Young people today are more sophisticated than in any gener- ation in this century. They are able to decide better than anyone else, in-

cluding their parents, what books and magazines they should read. The

ban on the sale of pornography to anyone under eighteen is a denial of

young people’s right to think for themselves and therefore should be

opposed.

b. Background note: The practice of infertile couples contracting with surrogate mothers to bear a child for them for a fee has given rise to thorny issues. For example, what should happen when the surrogate signs a contract, accepts a fee, is artificially inseminated, carries the baby to term, and then decides she will return the money and keep the child? Should she be held to the contract and be made to surrender the baby? Those who say no usually argue as follows: Argument: Although contracts should be honored in the vast majority of cases, this kind of case is an exception. The act of nurturing a new life

within one’s own body can establish the strongest of human bonds. No

contract or legal ruling should ever be allowed to break that bond.

8. Apply your critical thinking to each of the following issues. Make a spe-

cial effort to recall situations you have observed that are related to the issue, and

ask yourself, “What conclusion do these observations point to?” (If your observa-

tions have been too limited, solicit the observations of other people.)

a. In recent years, books and articles have warned people of the dangers

of “workaholism.” During the same period there have been few, if any,

warnings about chronic laziness. Which is more prevalent in this country

today, workaholism or chronic laziness?

b. The view of winning attributed to Vince Lombardi is “Winning isn’t

everything—it’s the only thing.” Is this a healthy view to bring to athletic competition? To other forms of competition?

c. Many people believe parents should be held legally and financially re-

sponsible for children over the age of sixteen who live at home. Is this

a reasonable stance?

rug38189_ch15_164-170.qxd 1/3/11 4:45 PM Page 170

171

C H A P T E R 1 6

Selecting an Issue

The term issue, in the context of critical thinking, means any matter about which people tend to disagree; in other words, it is almost synonymous

with the word controversy.* The most prominent issues—the ones we see most often in the news—are moral, legal, and political: Is abortion mur-

der? Should teenagers who commit serious crimes be tried as adults? Has

soft money corrupted the financing of political campaigns? But controver-

sies exist in other fields as well: Agriculturalists are divided over the

effects of pesticides on the environment. Investment analysts disagree

over what percentage, if any, of the average person’s portfolio should be in

technology stocks. Educators are at odds over the merits of tenure. Legal

scholars differ on whether judicial activism is a danger to the Republic.

Speaking and writing about issues are so common and so natural that

they are often done too casually. (We noted earlier how the belief that

everyone is entitled to his or her opinion has emboldened many people to

express views for which they have no evidence.) Critical thinkers, how-

ever, understand that care in selecting issues for analysis is an important

part of the thinking process.

The Basic Rule: Less Is More

This rule may sound strange, particularly if you are in the habit of choos-

ing the broadest possible topics for your compositions. Fear of the blank

page leads many students to this behavior. They reason as follows: “If I

choose a limited subject, such as the Tampa Bay Buccaneers’ chances of

getting to the Super Bowl this year, the latest research on high blood pres-

sure, or the Battle of Saratoga during the Revolutionary War, I may run

out of things to say before I reach the required number of words. So I’ll

play it safe and pick a general topic such as sports, disease, or war.”

*The expression controversial issue, though commonly used, is redundant.

rug38189_ch16_171-177.qxd 1/3/11 4:46 PM Page 171

172 PART THREE A Strategy

Any feeling of security this approach may generate is purely imagi-

nary. Trying to do justice to a broad topic in a composition of 500 words,

or for that matter in several thousand words, is as futile as trying to pour

a gallon of water into a pint container. It just won’t work, even in the case

of a simple informative composition. And it has much less chance of

working when you are analyzing issues, which are at least two-sided and

often multisided. This means that many, perhaps most, of the people who

will judge your analysis of an issue not only know its complexities but

also have half a dozen reasons to disagree with you. A superficial, once-

over-lightly, treatment is sure to fail.

The only sensible solution to this dilemma is to limit the scope of your

analysis. For example, if the issue has five or ten important aspects, exam-

ine only one or two. You will then have sufficient space to address com-

plexities, make important distinctions, and deal with subtleties. This is the

meaning of “less is more”—aiming for depth rather than breadth.

How to Limit an Issue

The following approach will help you identify the significant aspects of

any issue and decide which one(s) you are most interested in and can

explore within your time and space limitations:

1. List as many aspects of the issue as you can. In the case of an important, highly controversial, matter, your list may include more than a dozen aspects.

2. Decide exactly which aspects you will address. Seldom will you be able to do an adequate job of treating all aspects. The one or ones you choose should not only meet your interest but also fit the occasion and purpose of your analysis and the amount of time and space you have available.

3. Probe the aspects you are concerned with in one or more clear, carefully focused, questions. Doing this helps keep the subsequent inquiry focused and prevents you from drifting from the issue. Write the questions out; then, if your thoughts move in a certain direction, you can quickly glance at the questions and decide whether that direc- tion is likely to be productive.

Let’s apply this approach to some actual issues.

Sample Issue: Pornography

The word pornography is from a Greek word meaning “writing about prostitutes.” Its modern definition, however, has no direct connection to

prostitution. Pornography is any written, visual, or auditory material that is

sexually explicit, although power and violence are frequently recurring

subthemes. The opponents of pornography are diverse and include political

rug38189_ch16_171-177.qxd 1/3/11 4:46 PM Page 172

173CHAPTER 16 Selecting an Issue

conservatives, religious groups, and feminists. The controversy that has

always surrounded pornography has intensified in recent years. Among

the reasons are the increase in sex and violence in movies and television

and the appearance of pornographic materials on the Internet. The cen-

tral question in the current debate over pornography is the same as it has

been in decades, indeed centuries, past: Is pornography harmful?

Aspect

The audience

Themes

Business arrangements

The actors

Alleged harmful effects

Role of pornography in sexually transmitted disease

Free speech

Questions

Are the users of pornography male or female? Adults or children?

What categories of sex are included in books, magazines, films, and tapes? Premarital? Marital? Heterosexual? Homo- sexual? Voluntary? Forced? Adult–adult? Adult–child? Bestiality? What does the work say about the kinds of sex it treats? What messages does it convey?

In pornographic films, are the actors paid? If so, does this constitute prostitution?

Is genuine acting talent required for pornographic films? Do many actors find a career in such films, or only temporary employment? Do they look back on this employment, years later, with pride or with shame?

What attitudes does pornogra- phy cultivate toward love, mar- riage, and commitment? Does it, as some claim, eroticize children, celebrate the brutaliza- tion of women, and glamorize rape? Does it make men see women as persons or as objects? Does it elevate or degrade those who read/view it?

Does pornography play a posi- tive or negative role in the effort to combat sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS?

Does the guarantee of free speech extend to pornography?

rug38189_ch16_171-177.qxd 1/3/11 4:46 PM Page 173

174 PART THREE A Strategy

Sample Issue: Boxing

The Ring Record Book lists 337 professional boxers who have died from injuries sustained in prizefights since World War II. In the United States

alone, 120 boxers have died from such injuries.1 With the death of a Korean

fighter, Duk Doo Kim, following a barrage of punches by Ray “Boom

Boom” Mancini, an issue that had received the public’s attention many

times previously raged once again: Should boxing be outlawed? Like most other issues, this one has a number of aspects, notably the following ones:

Aspect

Boxer’s right to earn a living

Boxing and mental health

The popularity of boxing

The classification of boxing as a sport

Overcoming the dangers

Effects of being punched

Questions

Would the outlawing of boxing be an unfair denial of the boxer’s right to earn a living?

Is the expression of violence that takes place in a boxing match an emotionally healthy experience for the fighters themselves? For the spectators?

How valid is the argument that boxing should be allowed to continue because it has histori- cally been, and continues to be, very popular?

Is boxing properly classified as a sport? That is, does the fact that the contestants aim to strike potentially harmful blows dis- qualify it from that classification?

Is it possible, perhaps by modi- fying the rules or the equipment, to eliminate or at least reduce the physical danger to fighters?

Exactly what effect does a punch have on the human body, partic- ularly the brain? What is the cumulative effect of the punches received during ten or fifteen rounds of boxing? During a career?

Sample Issue: Juvenile Crime

For much of this century, juvenile criminals have been accorded special treat-

ment in the courts. Because the emphasis was on rehabilitating rather than

punishing them, the charges were different (“juvenile delinquency” rather

rug38189_ch16_171-177.qxd 1/3/11 4:46 PM Page 174

175CHAPTER 16 Selecting an Issue

than assault or murder), as were the proceedings and disposition of the cases

(“hearings” rather than trials, sealed records rather than publicity, and lec-

tures rather than imprisonment). In recent years, however, the public has

become dissatisfied with that system. Many people are demanding that juve-

niles who have committed criminal acts be treated as criminals, regardless of

their age. The broad issue is usually expressed in these terms: Should juvenile criminals be treated the same as adult criminals? However, like the other issues we have examined in this chapter, this broad issue has a number of aspects:

Aspect

Causes of juvenile crime

The age of responsibility

Similarities or differences between juveniles and adults

Effects of publicity on juvenile crime

Effects of imprisonment on juveniles

Differences in crimes

Repeat offenders

Prisons

Questions

Are juvenile delinquents alone responsible for their criminality? Are parents and others in society (makers of violent films, for exam- ple) also responsible? If others are responsible, should the law get tough with them? How?

Is it reasonable or fair to hold peo- ple responsible for their actions before they are old enough to understand the moral and legal quality of those actions? At what age does a person reach such understanding?

Is it reasonable to hold a fourteen- year-old (or a sixteen- or eighteen- year-old) as accountable as a twenty-one- or thirty-year-old?

Will publicizing young people’s crimes deter juvenile crime? Will it assist in the process of rehabilitation?

What effects will imprisonment have on teenagers? On preteens?

Should all juvenile crimes be han- dled alike? That is, should the crim- inal’s age be considered in certain crimes (vandalism and shoplifting, for example) but not in others (rape and murder, for example)?

Should chronic juvenile offenders be treated differently from first- time offenders? If so, in what way?

If juvenile offenders are sent to prison (say, for crimes of violence), should they be housed in the same institutions as adult criminals?

rug38189_ch16_171-177.qxd 1/3/11 4:46 PM Page 175

176 PART THREE A Strategy

Narrowing the Issue Further

If you follow the above approach and find that even the individual

aspects are too broad to treat adequately in the time and space at your

disposal, look for an aspect that can be divided and focus on one part of

it. (Not all aspects lend themselves to such division, but in most cases you

will find some that do.) Here are some examples from the issue of

pornography discussed above.

By limiting the scope of your treatment, you not only ensure a

clearer focus and increase the odds of staying within your competency,

you also make the task of analysis more manageable. The fewer matters

that are competing for your attention, the less the danger of becoming

distracted or confused. Even on those rare occasions when you are able

to address more than a single subissue, careful identification of all of

them will make your inquiry more orderly and purposeful. Finally, lim-

iting your treatment will lessen the chance of your oversimplifying com-

plex matters.

Aspect

Themes

Alleged harmful effects

Questions

What categories of sex are included in books, magazines, films, and tapes? Premarital? Marital? Heterosexual? Homosexual? Voluntary? Forced? Adult–adult? Adult–child? Bestiality? What does the work say about the kind of sex it treats? What messages does it convey?

What attitudes does pornography cultivate toward love, marriage, and commitment? Does it, as some claim, eroti- cize children, celebrate the brutalization of women, and glamorize rape? Does it make men see women as persons or as objects? Does it ele- vate or degrade those who read/view it?

Way to Limit Focus

One way to limit your treatment would be to examine only forced adult–adult sex in a sin- gle medium, magazines. Or you could limit your treatment further by focusing on a single magazine.

You might focus on one of the four questions rather than all four. If you choose the first question regarding attitudes, you might focus on love, mar- riage, or commitment rather than all three. Similarly, if you choose the second question, you might select one of the three aspects rather than all three.

rug38189_ch16_171-177.qxd 1/3/11 4:46 PM Page 176

177CHAPTER 16 Selecting an Issue

Applications

1. Apply the approach explained in this chapter to two of the following issues. Be sure to select issues that interest you, because applications in subse-

quent chapters will build on this one.

a. Is the U.S. federal income tax system in need of reform?

b. Is the teaching of sex education in elementary schools desirable?

c. Should divorce laws be tightened so that obtaining a divorce is more

difficult?

d. Is it possible for a sane person to commit suicide?

e. Are students’ attention spans shrinking?

f. Should prostitution be legalized?

g. Should the lobbying of legislators by special interest groups be outlawed?

h. Should all advertising be banned from children’s TV (for example, from

Saturday morning cartoon shows)?

i. Is devil worship a threat to society?

j. Is it reasonable to believe that some UFOs are extraterrestrial?

k. Are male athletes superior to female athletes?

l. Is political correctness a problem on your campus?

2. The following issues were included in the applications for earlier chapters.

Apply the approach discussed in this chapter to one of them. (Disregard your ear- lier analysis of the issue.)

a. Should all students be required to complete at least one composition

course?

b. Should creationism be taught in high school biology classes?

c. Should polygamy be legalized?

d. Should the voting age be lowered to sixteen?

e. Should extremist groups like the Ku Klux Klan be allowed to hold rallies

on public property?

f. Should prisons give greater emphasis to punishment than to rehabilitation?

g. Is the college degree a meaningful job requirement?

h. When doctors and clinics prescribe birth control devices or facilitate abor-

tions for minors, should they be required to notify the parents of the

minors?

3. Select an issue that is currently in the international, national, or local

news. State it in question form, and then apply the approach explained in the

chapter.

rug38189_ch16_171-177.qxd 1/3/11 4:46 PM Page 177

178

C H A P T E R 1 7

Conducting Inquiry

Inquiry is seeking answers to questions, investigating issues, and gather-

ing information to help us draw conclusions. It enables us to get beyond

our first impressions, feelings, preconceived notions, and personal

preferences.

There are two basic kinds of inquiry: inquiry into facts and inquiry

into opinions. Opinions, remember, can be informed or uninformed.

Except in cases where the purpose of our inquiry demands that both vari-

eties of opinion be gathered, we should be more interested in informed opinion.

Often we will need to inquire into both facts and opinions. How

much inquiry into each is needed will, of course, vary from situation

to situation. If the specific issue were Which U.S. income group is

most inequitably treated by the present federal tax laws? we would

have to examine the tax laws to determine what they specify ( fact) and consult the tax experts for their interpretations of the more com-

plicated aspects of the laws (informed opinion). But to determine the degree of inequity, we would have to know the amount of income nec-

essary to provide living essentials (food, shelter, and clothing). So we

would also have to examine cost-of-living statistics ( fact) and consult economists about subtler factors affecting the various income groups

(informed opinion).

Working with Inconclusive Results

Because the state of human knowledge is imperfect, not every question

is answerable when it is asked. Some issues remain unresolved for

years, even centuries. Before we traveled into outer space, no one knew

exactly what the effects of weightlessness on the human body would

be. Many respected doctors argued that the rapid acceleration at

rug38189_ch17_178-191.qxd 1/3/11 4:49 PM Page 178

179CHAPTER 17 Conducting Inquiry

blast-off would increase an astronaut’s heartbeat to a fatal level. (There

was strong medical evidence to support this view.) Others believed

that weightlessness would cause vital organs to malfunction and atro-

phy.1 Both dire predictions proved mistaken, but any inquiry into the

issue undertaken before the first successful launch would necessarily

have been incomplete.

Which mountain in the Sinai desert did Moses really climb? The Bible

gives it a name (actually two names), but scholars differ on where it is located. Strong claims are advanced for three different mountains in three

countries. No conclusive answer has been reached despite more than

three thousand years of inquiry.2

Some questions are even more resistant to inquiry—for example, the

question, Are there intelligent life-forms in our solar system or other

planetary systems? Scientists estimate that the universe is 156 billion

light-years wide and still expanding. Our sun is one of billions of stars,

many of which could harbor intelligent life-forms, so it’s conceivable that

any inquiry into this question made in the next million years will be

inconclusive. Perhaps the answer will never be known.

However resistant to resolution a question may be, though, inquiry is

still useful. Even if it yields no more than the untestable opinions of experts, those opinions are more valuable than the casual speculations of

the uninformed. So we shouldn’t be intimidated by difficult issues. We

should merely be realistic about how complete and final our answers are

likely to be.

Where to Look for Information

Whenever possible, we should consult our own experience and obser-

vation. Even if what has happened to us or what we have seen happen

to others pertains only indirectly to the issue or touches on just one

aspect of it, it should not be overlooked. Our observation of how peo-

ple use stereotypes or face-saving maneuvers in everyday situations

can help us evaluate a political candidate’s speech or a party’s plat-

form. Our experience with conformity in ourselves and our friends can

provide us with an insight into the effects of TV programming on the

public. Being alert to the relevance of our experience to the issue we

are investigating not only can give us valuable ideas but also can sug-

gest important questions. Thus it can provide our inquiry with better

direction.

Of course, our own experience and observation will seldom be ade-

quate by itself, especially on complex and controversial matters. We will

need to consult other sources. What follows is a brief guide to what to

look for and where to find it.

rug38189_ch17_178-191.qxd 1/3/11 4:49 PM Page 179

180 PART THREE A Strategy

BACKGROUND ON THE ISSUE

Think of several general headings under which the issue might be clas-

sified. For example, if the issue concerns criminal investigation, the

headings might be “crime,” “criminology,” “police,” and one or more

specific kinds of crime, such as “burglary.” Then look up those headings

in the index volume of a good general encyclopedia, such as Encyclopedia Americana or Encyclopaedia Britannica. (Americana has a separate index volume. Britannica is divided into two sets of books: the macropaedia set, which contains detailed articles on a limited number of subjects,

and the micropaedia set, which contains brief articles and cross-refer- ences on a large number of subjects.) The articles you will find there

have been written by authorities in the various fields. At the end of each

article is a list of books and other articles you can consult for a fuller or

more specialized treatment of the issue.

In addition to the general encyclopedias, there are numerous specific

encyclopedias of art, business, history, literature, philosophy, music, sci-

ence, education, social science, and many other areas. Most of these con-

tain not only historical background but also titles of other books and

articles you might find helpful.*

FACTS AND STATISTICS

Almanacs, published yearly, are treasuries of information on myriad sub-

jects. World Almanac is available from the 1868 edition. Information Please Almanac, The New York Times Encyclopedic Almanac, and Reader’s Digest Al- manac are more recent publications. Because any almanac is arranged very compactly for efficient use, it is important to study the index before using it.

INFORMATION ABOUT PEOPLE

A number of biographical dictionaries and encyclopedias are available.

Two of the most helpful ones are Current Biography: Who’s News and Why and Webster’s Biographical Dictionary.

INFORMATION ABOUT THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Many reference books are available, including the Oxford English Dictio- nary (OED), Webster’s New Dictionary of Synonyms, and Eric Partridge’s Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English.

*Remember that background reading, though a helpful start toward analyzing an issue, is

never an acceptable substitute for analysis. Your instructor will expect more from you than

simply background information.

rug38189_ch17_178-191.qxd 1/3/11 4:49 PM Page 180

181CHAPTER 17 Conducting Inquiry

ARTICLES IN NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES, AND JOURNALS

The most basic index to articles is the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature. This guide lists articles from more than one hundred magazines by sub-

ject and author. As with an encyclopedia, you should begin by thinking of

the various headings under which the issue might be classified. Then

select the volumes for the appropriate years (more current years are listed

in unbound pamphlet form) and look up those headings. The entries will

list the title and author of the article and the name and issue of the maga-

zine it appeared in.

Many other indexes are available, even in moderate-size libraries.

Following is a partial list. (For a complete list, consult Eugene O. Sheehy’s

Guide to Reference Books.)

*Social Science Index

*Humanities Index

New York Times Index

Essay and General Literature Index

General Science Index

Education Index

United States Government Publications: Monthly Catalog

Index to Legal Periodicals

MLA International Bibliography

Magazine Index

Applied Science and Technology Index

Art Index

Biography Index

Business Periodicals Index

Biological and Agricultural Index

Book Review Index

Business Periodicals Index

Engineering Index

Music Index

Philosopher’s Index

Religion Index One: Periodicals

After you locate the article and read it, be sure to check the reader

response in the letters-to-the-editor section of subsequent issues. Most

newspapers and magazines have a letters section, and it will often pro-

vide reaction by informed readers supporting or challenging the ideas in

the article. In weekly magazines, responses usually appear two issues

after the article; in fortnightlies and monthlies, one issue later.

BOOKS

In addition to the lists of books provided in encyclopedias and those

you find mentioned in the articles you read, you can consult your

library’s card or computer catalog, the key to the books available on its

shelves.† Occasionally, if your library is small or if the issue you are

investigating is obscure, the library holdings may be limited. In such

*Before 1965 these indexes were combined under the title International Index. †One valuable source of information is college textbooks in fields related to the issue you are

investigating.

rug38189_ch17_178-191.qxd 1/3/11 4:49 PM Page 181

182 PART THREE A Strategy

cases, as in any situation in which you are having difficulty finding

information or using the reference books, ask your librarian for help.

(Remember that librarians are professionals trained to solve the kinds

of research problems you may encounter.)

COMPUTER DATABASES AND ABSTRACTING SERVICES

Modern information retrieval technology has made it easier than ever to

conduct a data search. The technology continues to evolve rapidly, but

the cost of conversion from old systems to new can be considerable.

Therefore, what is available in the marketplace will not necessarily be

available on a particular campus. Your campus librarian can tell you

whether your campus library has the research tools mentioned here and,

if not, what comparable tools are available.

The principal change that is taking place in library technology is the

conversion of the print index to an electronic index. The kind of information traditionally found in the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature is now acces- sible in, for example, InfoTrak, a system available in one of three forms: (a) as an electronic bibliographic guide without text, (b) as a bibliographic guide

with some text available on CDs, and (c) as a complete online service. Where

the first and second forms of this system are used, researchers still make

extensive use of bound copies of periodicals and microfiche records. InfoTrak is generally available in public libraries and in small academic libraries.

A number of scholarly electronic indexes are in use, particularly in

academic libraries. A popular one is the General Academic Index, which covers 960 scholarly titles in the arts and humanities as well as in the

sciences and social sciences. This source indexes many of the same gen-

eral periodicals as InfoTrak, but it also includes many scholarly journals not indexed there. Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw are the most widely used legal indexes. Other technical indexes include PsycINFO, Health and Psychosocial Instruments (HAPI), and two specialized indexes from Medline: PubMed and Internet Grateful Med. The World Wide Web offers many other sources of information.

Ask your librarian about the computer databases available to you,

such as PsycINFO and PsycLIT. Also check the abstracting services available in your library. Among the best known are Psychological Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, America: History and Life, and Dissertation Abstracts International.

INTERNET RESOURCES

In the 1970s the Defense Department began coordinating research net-

works. Then in the 1980s the personal computer began to gain popularity,

rug38189_ch17_178-191.qxd 1/3/11 4:49 PM Page 182

183CHAPTER 17 Conducting Inquiry

and the research network system evolved into the Internet, also called the

World Wide Web (WWW, or Web). Over the years it has become a major

medium of communications and learning. All you need to access the

Internet is a computer with a modem and an institutional or commercial

Internet service provider (ISP).

Millions of Web sites are available, but you must know the address

of a site before you can access it. Also—and this is especially

important—you must enter the address exactly. (An added space or

period or letter will prevent you from reaching the site.) Most Web

addresses begin as follows: http://www. (If you see a Web address

beginning with www, understand that this is an abbreviation and you

may have to add the first part of the address to access the site.) If you

don’t know what site is appropriate or have forgotten a Web address,

you can consult one of the many available search engines, such as

www.askjeeves.com.

The ending of a Web address will tell you whether you are visiting

a government site (.gov), an education site (.edu), a nonprofit organi-

zation site (.org), or a commercial site (.com). Web sites reflect the

biases and/or agendas of the people who created them. Generally

speaking, government and education sites and many nonprofit organi-

zation sites are designed to provide the public with useful informa-

tion, whereas commercial sites are designed to sell products and

services. Knowing whose site you are visiting will help you evaluate

the reliability of the information you find there. Such evaluation is at

least as necessary with the Internet as it is with books and other media,

perhaps more so.

Here is a comprehensive but easy-to-use strategy for conducting

inquiry on the Internet.

1. Use a search engine. A search engine is a tool for using the Internet efficiently. All you need to do is enter the search term (topic) you wish to find information about and wait a second or so for the search to be com- pleted. The broader your search term, the more information you will receive. “Education” could produce 60 million items; “U.S. education,” perhaps 6 million items; “U.S. education corporal punishment,” fewer than 50,000 items. So it is prudent to be precise in your choice of terms and to modify them as necessary.

There are many search engines and even meta-search engines, which search other search engines. The following Web site, sponsored by the University of California at Berkeley, offers a clear and compre- hensive explanation of the choices and some recommendations: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/ MetaSearch.html. This Web site recommends www.google.com and also makes favorable mention of www.alltheweb.com and www.altavista.com. (Another good choice would be www.bing.com.)

rug38189_ch17_178-191.qxd 1/3/11 4:49 PM Page 183

184 PART THREE A Strategy

Once you type in Google’s address, the first thing you should do is acquaint yourself with its features. Click, in turn, on each of the terms in blue and read the explanation that appears. Note that “News” enables you to “search and browse 4,000 continuously updated news sources.” Next, return to the main page and type each of these phrases in turn (without the quotation marks): “Google Glossary” and “Google Sets.” Read each and then return to the main page.

Next, type “U.S. education corporal punishment” in the search box and click on “Google Search.” Keep in mind that, since new information is constantly being added and deleted from Web sites, no two searches will receive exactly the same response.

Scroll down the page and scan the listings. (Note the page specifi- cation at the bottom. Clicking on another page number will produce additional listings.) When you see a listing that interests you, click on the blue title. When you are through reading that one, click the back arrow to return to the Google Search screen, and click another title. Any time you decide that an entry is just what you are looking for, click on the words “similar pages” that appear at the end of the entry and Google will narrow your search further.

A word of caution: When a listing proves to be helpful, be sure to copy its address before closing it. That way, if you want to revisit it, you can do so easily. Also record the date you visited it. (Any citation of a Web site in a footnote should include the phrase “accessed on [date].”)

2. Develop a list of resources. For Internet-wide research, Google is outstanding. Nevertheless, there will be times when your research will be narrower and more focused. On those occasions, it is helpful to know some specific Web sites associated with your subject. Here is a good starter list, arranged by general topic.

For a variety of opinions on controversial issues: http://www.townhall.com/columnists

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/columns

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/columns

http://www.jewishworldreview.com

http://www.blueagle.com

For a variety of research tools and helpful links: http://www.ask.com/?q=&qsrc=119#subject:ask|pg:1

For historical matters: http://www.besthistorysites.net/

For legal matters: http://www.law.com

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/

http://www.legalengine.com

For medical matters: http://www.merckhomeedition.com

http://www.webmd.com

rug38189_ch17_178-191.qxd 1/3/11 4:49 PM Page 184

185CHAPTER 17 Conducting Inquiry

http://www.cdc.gov

http://www.medlineplus.gov

For checking hoaxes, rumors, and general facts/fictions: http://www.snopes.com

http://www.hoax-slayer.com

http://www.casewatch.org/index.html

http://www.truthorfiction.com

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/internet/a/current_netlore.htm

http://www.scambursters.org/legends.html

http://urbanlegends.miningco.com/culture/urbanlegends/library/

blhoax.htm?pid=2733&cob=home

Whenever you find a helpful Web site, add it to this resource list.

3. Evaluate your information sources. The task of evaluating infor- mation sources, always important, has become increasingly so as use of

the Internet has grown. No information source should be presumed to be

error-free. Print and broadcast journalists can make honest mistakes in

reporting. Commentators can let their biases color their thought and

expression. Individuals with personal agendas can deliberately mislead

their audiences. It is up to the reader or listener to remain alert and,

where possible, to test the source’s reliability––especially that of Internet

sources because there are no editors checking what is “published” there.

Anyone can set up a Web site and say anything.

False information typically takes the form of an excited email from a

seemingly credible source, often a trusted but incautious friend. One such

message said that Bill Gates was giving away money and explained how

to get some. Another warned against eating bananas from Costa Rica

because they contain a flesh-eating virus. Yet another claimed that

asparagus cures cancer. Then there was the one that instructed recipients

to check their computers for a file with a teddy bear icon, and if they

found such a file to delete it at once before it destroyed their computer.

All these were hoaxes. The last one was especially harmful because it

caused people to delete an essential file.

To evaluate the reliability of your information sources, answer the

following questions. (Some apply to print or broadcast sources, some to

Internet sources, most to both.)

What is the purpose of the publication or Web site? Is it to entertain, inform, persuade, or sell products or services? In the case of a publi-

cation, the purpose will often be stated in the front matter (for exam-

ple, in the preface of a book). In the case of an Internet source, it will

be expressed in a “mission statement” on the home page. Identifying

a source’s purpose will help you decide the source’s potential for

bias.

What is the source’s point of view? Determine where the source stands on the subject under discussion; in other words, is he or she endorsing or

rug38189_ch17_178-191.qxd 1/3/11 4:49 PM Page 185

186 PART THREE A Strategy

opposing a particular viewpoint or policy? There is nothing necessarily

wrong with either perspective, but knowing where the source stands on

the subject will make you more aware of where the person might fall

short of fairness and objectivity.

Does the source engage in personal attacks? When a problem or controver- sial issue is being discussed, the focus should be on supporting or chal-

lenging particular solutions or points of view, not on the personal

characteristics of the person proposing them. The only exception to this

rule is if someone’s personal failings are directly relevant to the matter under discussion—in such cases, it is appropriate to mention them.

However, it is never appropriate to engage in personal attacks gratu-

itously, or as a substitute for addressing the problem or issue. Sources that behave this way should be considered unreliable.

Does the source make extravagant assertions? Consider the assertion that astronauts never really landed on the moon but, instead, the entire

story was manufactured by NASA. Also, the assertion that the people

responsible for the loss of several thousand lives on 9/11 were not

foreign terrorists, as reported, but instead George W. Bush and mem-

bers of his administration planned and executed the horrible events.

Both examples qualify as extravagant—that is, beyond credibility—

because they are inconsistent with voluminous photographic evi-

dence and analytical data. Although we cannot rule out the

possibility that these or other conspiracy theories are valid, that pos-

sibility is so remote that anyone who traffics in such theories should be considered unreliable.

Does the source present evidence for his or her assertions? Asserting is far easier than demonstrating or documenting: that’s is why many peo-

ple settle for asserting. Entire articles and even books have been con-

structed almost entirely of assertions, one piled on another. When

assembled by an articulate, engaging person, these works can give

the impression that a formidable case has been made when, in fact,

there is no case at all—only unsupported claims. That is why the

question of what evidence is offered for assertions is one of the most

important to ask of any source. Chapter 6 explained the most impor-

tant kinds of evidence to look for: personal experience, unpublished report, published report, eyewitness testimony, celebrity testimony, expert opinion, experiment, statistics, survey, formal observation, and research review. (The chapter also explained the value and limitations of each.) Be sure to check the amount and kind of evidence the source offers

for each important assertion.

What criticisms have been made, or could be made, of the source’s assertions and evidence? How worthy are those criticisms? Unless you happen to be well versed in the subject under discussion, you will have to consult

other sources to answer these questions. In some cases, you will find

criticisms that have sufficient merit to affect your judgment. Consider

the “Birthers” assertion that Barack Obama was born in a foreign coun-

try and is therefore not qualified to be president of the United States.

One particularly interesting fact offered by critics of this assertion and

rug38189_ch17_178-191.qxd 1/3/11 4:49 PM Page 186

187CHAPTER 17 Conducting Inquiry

supported by photographic evidence is that an announcement of

Obama’s birth appeared in a Hawaiian newspaper at that time. In order

for Obama’s parents to have faked the announcement, they would have

had to foresee the possibility of his candidacy forty-seven years later! Because that is impossible to imagine, the birth announcement poses a strong

argument against the “Birther” assertion.

As you review your answers to these questions and decide on the

reliability of your information sources, keep in mind that even honest,

conscientious people can make mistakes. Distinguish carefully between

sources that happen to be mistaken on an issue and those whose mis-

takes are so numerous or egregious that they suggest dishonesty or the

habit of carelessness.

For an excellent slide presentation on evaluating web sites, created by

Jane Alexander and Marsha Ann Tate, go to: http://muse.widener.edu/

~tltr/How_to_Evaluate_9.htm. (Also see “Bibliography on Evaluating

Web Information” at: http://eagle.lib.vt.edu/help/instruct/evaluate/

evalbiblio.html.

Keeping Focused

All of this may suggest long, monotonous, time- and energy-consuming

research little different from that required for a doctoral dissertation. But

that is a misconception. With a little practice, it is possible to use quickly

and efficiently all the reference sources mentioned. Even books needn’t

be waded through page by page to find something useful. In mere sec-

onds you can turn to the index (usually at the end) and look for the

several headings your issue might be found under; then turn to the

appropriate pages and read only those pages. If the book has no index, you can turn to the table of contents, read the chapter titles, decide which

chapters seem most relevant, and then scan them.

Efficiency can be more difficult to achieve in Internet searches because

distractions often are more frequent and tempting. Make a special effort to

discipline your Internet searches, focusing your attention on relevant

material only and resisting the temptation to wander.

How Much Inquiry Is Enough?

It would seem that deciding when an inquiry is complete should be

easy. More often than not, however, it is not easy at all. One insight can

make a great difference. A single new fact can upset a mountain of evi-

dence. For example, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, most social psy-

chologists probably would have agreed that crowded living conditions

rug38189_ch17_178-191.qxd 1/3/11 4:49 PM Page 187

188 PART THREE A Strategy

are harmful to humans. Numerous experiments seemed to have settled

the matter. Then anthropologist Patricia Draper studied a southwest

African tribe of hunter-gatherers, the !Kung bushmen. Though their

land offers ample space to spread out their settlements and huts, they

crowd their dwellings together and often sit in tight groups, literally

brushing against one another. Yet they have none of the medical condi-

tions (such as high blood pressure) usually associated with crowding.3

This one fact has caused reexamination of a scientific truism.

Because the aim of inquiry is to produce evidence, it will be helpful to

recall the guidelines presented in Chapter 6 for determining when evi-

dence is sufficient:

1. Evidence is sufficient when it permits a judgment to be made with cer- tainty. Wishing, assuming, or pretending that a judgment is correct does not constitute certainty. Certainty exists when there is no good reason for doubt, no basis for dispute. The standard for con- viction in a criminal trial, for example, is “guilt beyond a reason- able doubt.” Certainty is a very difficult standard to meet, especially in controversial issues, so you will generally be forced to settle for a more modest standard.

2. If certainty is unattainable, evidence is sufficient if one view of the issue has been shown to have the force of probability. This means that the view in question is demonstrably more reasonable than any com- peting view. In civil court cases, this standard is expressed as “a preponderance of the evidence.” Demonstrating reasonableness is, of course, very different from merely asserting it, and all possible views must be identified and evaluated before any one view can be established as most reasonable.

3. In all other cases, the evidence must be considered insufficient. In other words, if the evidence does not show one view to be more reason- able than competing views, the only prudent course of action is to withhold judgment until sufficient evidence is available. Such re- straint can be difficult, especially when you want a particular view to be proved superior, but restraint is an important characteristic of the critical thinker.

Exactly how much inquiry is enough depends entirely on the issue. In

some cases, a brief inquiry will be more than adequate. In others, an exhaus-

tive inquiry will be incomplete. However, although no absolute statement

can be made about the amount of inquiry required, you can be reasonably

sure your inquiries are complete when you have made a thorough and care-

ful effort to learn the relevant facts and to consult informed opinion in all

fields of study that have a direct bearing on the specific issue you are ana-

lyzing. The number of fields to be researched will, of course, vary with the

nature of the issue. Here, for example, is a list of the fields that have a direct

bearing on three specific issues we identified in Chapter 16:

rug38189_ch17_178-191.qxd 1/3/11 4:49 PM Page 188

189CHAPTER 17 Conducting Inquiry

One of the greatest challenges to critical thinking is the temptation to

stop inquiring when you find a knowledgeable person who supports

your bias. The temptation will be especially strong when that person is

the first one you encounter. You will want to say, “This is the definitive

answer. Case closed!” If you follow this inclination, you will trivialize the

issue and cheat yourself of genuine understanding. An issue is, by defini-

tion, a matter about which informed, careful thinkers may disagree.

A caution is in order here: To say that it is important to examine both

sides of an issue does not mean that both sides are equal in merit. Often there will be enough merit on each side to make judgment difficult, but

that never justifies the avoidance of judgment.

Issue

Pornography’s

influence

Effects of being

punched

The age of

responsibility

Questions

What attitudes does

pornography cultivate

toward love, marriage,

and commitment?

Does it, as some claim,

celebrate the brutaliza-

tion of women and

glamorize rape? Does

it make men see

women as persons or

as objects? Does it ele-

vate or degrade those

who read/view it?

Exactly what effect

does a punch have on

the human body, par-

ticularly the brain?

What is the cumula-

tive effect of the

punches received

during ten or fifteen

rounds of boxing?

During a career?

Is it reasonable or fair

to hold people respon-

sible for their actions

before they are old

enough to understand

the moral and legal

quality of those

actions? At what age

does a person reach

such understanding?

Fields with Direct Bearing Sociology

Psychology

Literary criticism

Ethics Religion

Anatomy and

physiology

Medicine (especially

neurology)

Psychology

Education

Psychology

Medicine

Ethics

Law

rug38189_ch17_178-191.qxd 1/3/11 4:49 PM Page 189

190 PART THREE A Strategy

Managing Lengthy Material

Often your inquiry will take you beyond editorials and brief essays to

full-length articles and books. These longer works are more difficult to

evaluate because the core arguments are seldom presented neatly and

compactly. The authors of these arguments do not intend to make analy-

sis difficult—it is simply the nature of the writing process. Responsible

authors of journal articles and books do not merely present lists of bald

assertions; they support their views with evidence. They also add suffi-

cient explanation to satisfy the demands of clarity and define the path

their reasoning has taken. Sometimes the path has numerous turns, so

secondary assertions must be added to complement and refine primary

ones. As anecdotes multiply, as experimental and statistical data are

reported and annotated, and as testimony is detailed, the essential argu-

ment can become almost as concealed as the hidden premises it some-

times contains. One premise may be stated on page 2, another on page 5,

and the conclusion on page 12. Before you can evaluate the argument in

these cases, you need to consolidate it. Here is a strategy for doing so:

1. After reading the article or book, go back and identify the key assertions. Most paragraphs contain one or more assertions (topic sentences). Scan these and determine which are central to the argument. Subheadings usually signal important assertions, as do capital letters, boldface, and italics. Look, too, for intensifying words such as moreover, indeed, more (most) important, and more (most) significant.

2. Identify the author’s conclusion. The conclusion may appear anywhere, but commonly it appears as follows: in an article—right after the intro- duction, in the conclusion, or in both places; in a book—in the first or second chapter, in the last chapter, or in both places. Expressions like for these reasons, thus, consequently, so, and therefore signal conclusions.

3. Notice any qualifying words used in the key assertions or the conclusion. Is the writer speaking of all people, places, or things? Or is she speaking of most, many, some, several, a few, or certain specified ones? Is she saying always, usually, sometimes, occasionally, seldom, never, or at certain speci- fied times? Often writers will make an assertion and then balance it in the next sentence. They often lead into the second sentence with words like but, however, nevertheless, on the other hand, still, or yet.

4. Note the amount, kinds, and sources of evidence used to support the asser- tions. Chapter 6 discussed numerous kinds of evidence. Review that chapter, if necessary.

5. Notice the conditions the author includes. Saying, for example, “Drug pushers should be given long jail terms if they are not themselves drug users and have been previously convicted of drug pushing” is very different from saying, “Drug pushers should be given long jail terms.” The “if” clause adds a special set of conditions. Similarly, say- ing, “The United States should never fire a nuclear missile at another

rug38189_ch17_178-191.qxd 1/3/11 4:49 PM Page 190

191CHAPTER 17 Conducting Inquiry

country unless first subjected to nuclear attack by that country” is quite different from saying, “The United States should never fire a nuclear missile at another country.” Expressions like if, unless, as long as, until, and before can significantly alter the meaning of an assertion.

6. Compose an accurate summary of the article or book from your analysis in steps 1–5. This enables you to focus your attention and analyze the argument. The summary needn’t be long; a paragraph or two is adequate in most cases. The summary should be a capsule version of the original work. (There is no room for carelessness in quoting or paraphrasing the origi- nal: If it says something may be a certain way, it is not saying that it is that way; similarly, is does not necessarily mean should be.) Here is a sample summary of an article recommending the abolition of grades. Although it extended to more than ten printed pages in the original, it is here condensed into a single paragraph without sacrificing accuracy.

One of the biggest obstacles to learning—in grade school, high

school, and college—is grades. The fear of bad grades hangs over the

heads of young people from the time they are six to the time they are

twenty or twenty-two. Their anxiety to do well, to succeed, to please

their parents so fills their minds that all the natural joy in learning

evaporates. As a result, conscientious students are driven to view

their schoolwork as oppressive drudgery, and marginal students are

tempted to cheat and bluff their way to a degree. For these reasons

I say grades should be abolished at all levels of education.

Applications

1. Choose one of the specific issues you clarified in application 1 or 2 of

Chapter 16. Conduct your inquiry into this issue in the manner explained in this

chapter. Take careful notes.

2. Choose one of the specific issues presented in Chapter 16 in the discus-

sion of pornography, boxing, and juvenile crime. Conduct your inquiry into this

issue in the manner explained in this chapter. Take careful notes.

3. Select an issue currently being debated on your campus, in your commu-

nity, or in the nation—for example, a controversial college policy or a proposal for

local, state, or national legislation. Then conduct an inquiry into the issue as follows.

a. Visit Google.com and do both a general search and a “News” search on

the topic.

b. Visit one or more of the following Web sites and search for opinion

columns on the issue. Read at least two columns on the pro side and two

on the anti side of the issue.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/columns

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/columns

http://www.jewishworldreview.com

http://www.blueagle.com

c. Take careful notes on your findings at Google and the other Web sites.

rug38189_ch17_178-191.qxd 1/3/11 4:49 PM Page 191

192

C H A P T E R 1 8

Forming a Judgment

Judgments are conclusions arrived at through examination of evidence

and careful reasoning. They are the products of thinking. Unlike feelings,

judgments are not spontaneous and unconscious. They may, of course,

contain elements of the spontaneous—such as intuition—but, like other

data, these elements have first been weighed and evaluated.

The fact that judgments are products of evaluation and reasoning

does not guarantee their worth. There are foolish as well as wise judg-

ments, superficial as well as penetrating ones. A judgment can easily

reflect misconceptions about truth, knowledge, and opinion. It can also

involve one or more of the errors in thinking detailed in Chapters 8–13.

The strategy we have discussed for thinking critically about issues is

designed to promote thoughtful judgments. By knowing ourselves and

being observant, we improve our perception and guard against error. By

systematically clarifying issues and conducting inquiry, we rescue our

thinking from preconceived notions and first impressions. By evaluating the

evidence we have obtained, we determine what it means and how signifi-

cant it is. One key aspect of this evaluation process concerns the resolution

of apparent conflicts in evidence. As we have seen in previous chapters,

experts do not always agree. Because people often view the same event

quite differently, even the eyewitness reports of honest people can conflict.

It is a popular view that the more scientific the procedure, the less

need for evaluation. But that view is mistaken. Scientific procedures gen-

erate or discover factual information that must be classified and inter-

preted in order to be meaningful. Consider, for example, this unusual

case. An ancient tomb was unearthed in central China containing the

body of a woman who died about 2100 years ago. Great care had been

taken in burying her. She was placed in an airtight coffin filled with a spe-

cial fluid. The coffin was encased in five larger boxes lined with five tons

of charcoal. That larger unit was buried in a sixty-foot hole and sur-

rounded by white clay.

rug38189_ch18_192-205.qxd 1/3/11 4:50 PM Page 192

193CHAPTER 18 Forming a Judgment

Because of this extraordinary burial, when the woman’s body was

found, the flesh was still moist, the hair still rooted in the scalp, the joints

still flexible, and most of the internal organs intact. Specialists conducted

a careful autopsy. They performed chemical analyses of the woman’s

hair, stomach, muscles, bones, lungs, gallbladder, and intestines. They

X-rayed her bones. To be useful, however, the mass of facts they obtained

had to be interpreted. Only by studying the data, raising questions about it, and deciding what judgments were most reasonable did they con-

clude, for example, that she had borne children, had eaten a melon

shortly before her death, and probably had died suddenly as the result of

an obstructed coronary artery.1

Evaluation plays an important role not only in science but also in

other fields. In fact, because in other areas the information may be less

clear or more fragmentary and opinions may be more sharply in conflict,

the quality of a judgment may depend even more heavily on evaluation.

Evaluating Evidence

Evaluating evidence consists of asking and answering appropriate ques-

tions. In Chapter 6 we discussed eleven kinds of evidence and the specific

questions that should be asked in evaluating each. Here is a summary of

that discussion.

The Kind of Evidence

Personal experience (yours or other people’s)

Unpublished report

Published report

Eyewitness testimony

Celebrity testimony

The Questions

Are the experiences typical or atypical? Are they sufficient in number and kind to support the conclusion?

Where did the story originate? How can I confirm that the version I heard is accurate?

Are the sources of important items of information cited? Does the author have a reputation for careful report- ing? Does the publisher or broadcaster have a reputation for reliability? Which statements might a thoughtful person challenge? How well does the author answer the challenges?

What circumstances could have dis- torted the eyewitness’s perception? What circumstances since the event could have affected his or her recol- lection?

For advertisements or infomercials, is the celebrity a paid spokesperson? For talk show comments, does the

rug38189_ch18_192-205.qxd 1/3/11 4:50 PM Page 193

194 PART THREE A Strategy

One additional question is applicable to all kinds of evidence: Is this

evidence relevant to the issue under consideration? If it is not relevant, it deserves no consideration, no matter how excellent it may be in other respects.

Evaluating Your Sources’ Arguments*

In addition to evaluating the evidence you have obtained, you must

examine the arguments others have advanced. Chapter 7 explained a

helpful way to deal with arguments that are longer than a paragraph:

Expert opinion

Experiment

Statistics

Survey

Formal observation

Research review

celebrity offer any support for his or her views—for example, citing re- search conducted by more qualified people? Also, does the host ask for such support?

Does the person have specific exper- tise in the particular issue under dis- cussion? Does the expert support his or her view with references to current research? Do other authorities agree or disagree with the expert’s view?

For a laboratory experiment, has it been replicated by other researchers? For a field experiment, have other researchers independently confirmed the findings?

Is the source of the statistics reliable?

Was the sample truly representative— that is, did all members of the total population surveyed have an equal chance of being selected? Were the questions clear, unambiguous, and objectively phrased? For a mailed sur- vey, did a significant number fail to respond? Also, do other surveys cor- roborate the survey’s findings?

Could the observer’s presence have dis- torted what occurred? Was the obser- vation of sufficient duration to permit the conclusions that were drawn? Do the conclusions overgeneralize?

Do the reviewer’s conclusions seem reasonable given the research cov- ered in the review? Has the reviewer omitted any relevant research?

*See Chapter 7, pages 89–94.

rug38189_ch18_192-205.qxd 1/3/11 4:50 PM Page 194

195CHAPTER 18 Forming a Judgment

condensing them to more manageable length by composing a summary. Chapter 17 offered detailed instructions for doing so effectively. Let us

now see how to use a summary to evaluate an argument. The first sum- mary we will examine is the one presented in Chapter 17.* For ease of ref-

erence, each sentence in the summary is numbered, and the questions

that apply to it are numbered correspondingly.

*See Chapter 17, pages 184–185.

The Summary

1. One of the biggest obstacles to learning—in grade school, high school, and college—is grades.

2. The fear of bad grades hangs over the heads of young people from the time they are six to the time they are twenty or twenty-two.

3. Their anxiety to do well, to succeed, to please their par- ents so fills their minds that all the natural joy in learn- ing evaporates.

4. As a result, conscientious students are driven to view their schoolwork as oppres- sive drudgery, and marginal students are tempted to cheat and bluff their way to a degree.

5. For these reasons I say grades should be abolished at all levels of education.

The Questions

1. Are grades an obstacle to learning? If so, are they an obstacle at all three levels?

2. Do any young people between these ages fear bad grades? Do all of them? Is the fear a seri- ous one (as “hangs over the head” implies)?

3. Is there any natural joy in learning to begin with? For all subjects? Do grades cause anxiety? If so, does the anxiety eliminate the joy? For all students?

4. Do any conscientious students view schoolwork as oppressive drudgery? Do all of them? Do many view it that way in certain circumstances but not in others? If they do view it as oppressive drudgery, is it grades that cause them to do so? Are any mar- ginal students tempted to cheat and bluff? Are all of them? If some are, is it grades that tempt them to do so?

5. Would abolishing grades solve all of these problems? Some of them? Would it create any additional prob- lems? If so, would the result- ing situation be more or less desirable? Would the effects differ at different levels of education?

rug38189_ch18_192-205.qxd 1/3/11 4:50 PM Page 195

196 PART THREE A Strategy

Here is another example—the response of popular psychologist and

author Joyce Brothers to a reader’s question.2 The reader’s question is

presented in a background note; the summary is a paraphrase of Dr.

Brothers’s response. Numbers have been assigned to the summary and to

the analysis.

Background note: The reader explained in her letter that she works with a homosexual man and has formed a close platonic relationship with him and that her husband disapproves of the man, calling him “sick,” and becomes angry when she and the man converse on the telephone. (No other details of the situa- tion were included in the published letter.)

The Summary (Brothers’s Response)

1. The woman’s husband is afraid of homosexuality.

2. As is characteristic of all people who suffer from homophobia, the basis of the husband’s fear is not concern that the man might proposition him but a per- ceived threat to his ego and apprehension about discov- ering that at some level he, too, has some “feminine” characteristics.

3. Homophobia can have harmful effects, including— in this woman’s case—a possible weakening of her marriage.

The Analysis

1. Is the husband a homophobe who is apprehensive about his own sexuality? Perhaps, but the letter is open to other inter- pretations. The most obvious one is that he is simply upset, even jealous, that his wife devotes more time to another man than to him.

2. Dr. Brothers’s reference to homophobes in general moves the discussion beyond the individual case. It dismisses the possibility that a person might fear a homosexual advance. But what of people who were molested by homo- sexuals as children? Wouldn’t it be normal for them to fear reliving that experience, just as people heterosexually molested would fear reliving their experience? It is possible that the husband’s ego is threatened and that he is apprehensive about his own feminine qualities, but given the lack of details in the letter, it is far from certain that this is the case.

3. No reasonable person would dispute this idea.

rug38189_ch18_192-205.qxd 1/3/11 4:50 PM Page 196

197CHAPTER 18 Forming a Judgment

4. The woman should discuss the situation fully with her husband and encourage him to examine his feelings rationally.

5. Such an approach could help the husband gain greater insight into the problem.

6. If for some reason this approach does not produce the effect the wife desires, she should consider seeking joint counseling, giving the husband an opportunity to change his viewpoint.

7. Regardless of the outcome of the counseling, whether the husband comes around to the wife’s way of think- ing or not, the wife should continue her relationship with her homosexual friend.

4. What does it mean for the wife to discuss the matter with her husband—to have her mind made up in advance about his feelings and thoughts, or to ask him to explain them and listen to his answer with the expectation of learning something?

5. Shouldn’t the wife be willing to explore her behavior as honestly as she expects her husband to explore his feelings? Shouldn’t she, too, be attempting to achieve a new and deeper understanding of the situation than she presently has?

6. Is counseling likely to be more successful if one partner be- gins with the conviction that he or she is entirely right and the other person is wrong?

7. Is maintaining a friendship necessarily more important than saving a marriage? Is more information than is pro- vided in the reader’s letter needed before concluding that the friendship in this case is worth more than the mar- riage? Wouldn’t it be helpful to know how long the couple has been married; whether they have children, and, if so, what ages; and whether their rela- tionship was harmonious before this situation arose? (If the husband cherished her companionship, is it not possi- ble that he is more motivated by feelings of neglect and loss than by homophobia?) Is it reasonable for Dr. Brothers to assume the woman is being fair to her husband and he is being unreasonable without

rug38189_ch18_192-205.qxd 1/3/11 4:50 PM Page 197

198 PART THREE A Strategy

As the examples demonstrate, taking time to ask appropriate ques-

tions has several benefits. First, it prevents you from judging hastily, on

the basis of first impressions. Second, it allows you to evaluate each part

of the argument individually (rather than settling for an overall evalua-

tion) and thus to identify both strengths and weaknesses. Finally, taking

the time to ask appropriate questions often provides a structure around

which to arrange your thoughts.

The answers you develop to your questions make up your response

to the argument. If you write out your response, you can either follow the

order of your questions or choose another organizational pattern. The

decision depends on what arrangement will both achieve coherence and

provide the emphasis you intend.

Making Important Distinctions

Still another important consideration in evaluating evidence and argu-

ments is making careful distinctions. The exact distinction needed, of

course, depends on the situation. Here are six kinds of distinctions that

frequently are necessary to avoid faulty evaluations:

1. Between the person and the idea. It’s easy to confuse the person with the idea. Just as we tend to overlook the faults of our friends and exaggerate those of our enemies, so do we tend to look favorably on the ideas of people we like or admire and unfavorably on those we dislike or do not admire. Similarly, we tend to disregard the ideas of people who we feel ought not to have ideas on certain sub- jects—for example, white scholars on African American history or men on women’s issues. Such reactions are irrational because ideas are not synonymous with the people who hold them. Ad- mirable people can be wrong, and despicable people can be right. Furthermore, a person’s gender, color, nationality, or religion is not a proper basis for accepting or rejecting his or her ideas. It is possible for a man to be an authority on feminism (or for that

knowing how often, at what times of the day, and for how long the woman talks on the phone to her gay friend? What if both husband and wife work and share responsibility for housework and parenting, but she now spends hours on the telephone every evening? Would not the best advice in that case be for her to get coun- seling and find out what’s wrong with her?

rug38189_ch18_192-205.qxd 1/3/11 4:50 PM Page 198

199CHAPTER 18 Forming a Judgment

matter to be a feminist), a white scholar to have insights about African American history, and a Chinese Buddhist to make a valuable contribution to the subject of American Protestantism. Therefore, we should make a conscious effort to keep our analyses of ideas separate from our feelings about the people who hold them.

2. Between what is said and how it is said. Style and substance are quite different matters. Unfortunately, the person with the clearest and most graceful expression does not always have the soundest idea. So, although it is natural for us to be impressed by eloquent writ- ers or speakers, it’s unwise to assume that their ideas are necessar- ily sound. As Saint Augustine said, “Our concern with a man is not with what eloquence he teaches, but with what evidence.”

3. Between why people think as they do and whether what they think is correct. It’s common to judge people’s motives for thinking and acting as they do. Although such judging is sometimes rash, at other times it is very helpful. Finding out that a senator has con- nections with the handgun manufacturing industry, for example, raises interesting questions about the senator’s opposition to gun control laws. But it is important for us to remember that unworthy motivations do not necessarily contaminate the position. The sound- ness of an idea doesn’t depend on the motivations of those who support it. It depends on how well the idea fits the realities of the situation.

4. Between the individual and the group or class. The individual person or thing may differ from the group or class in one or more signifi- cant respects. Therefore, the characteristics of the individual should not be carelessly attributed to the group, or vice versa.

5. Between matters of preference and matters of judgment. Matters of pref- erence concern taste, which it is pointless to debate. However, mat- ters of judgment concern interpretations of fact and theory, which are debatable. It is therefore appropriate to question matters of judgment.

6. Between familiarity and correctness. To respond less guardedly to the familiar than to the unfamiliar is natural. Yet familiar ideas are not necessarily correct. Accordingly, when judging correctness, we should disregard the familiarity or unfamiliarity of the idea. Then we will be open to insights from both sides of issues, not just from the side we favor.

Expressing Judgments

The act of expressing a judgment can alter it. Therefore, no matter how

clear your judgment of an issue might be in your mind, it is best to con-

sider it formless until you have expressed it accurately in words. The fol-

lowing approach will help you express all your judgments effectively:

rug38189_ch18_192-205.qxd 1/3/11 4:50 PM Page 199

200 PART THREE A Strategy

1. Strive for a balanced view.

2. Deal with probability.

3. Make your subject appropriately specific.

4. Make your predicate exact.

5. Include all appropriate qualifications.

6. Avoid exaggeration.

Let’s look more closely at each of these guidelines.

STRIVE FOR A BALANCED VIEW

A balanced view of an issue is one that reflects all the subtlety and com-

plexity of the issue. The dominant view exerts considerable force on most

people’s thinking, particularly when the issue is controversial and

emotion is running high. Without realizing it, people typically adopt

fashionable perspectives and use fashionable arguments and even fash-

ionable words. This happens even with people who normally are critical

thinkers.

At such times, hordes of liberal thinkers sound alike, as do hordes of

conservative thinkers. When someone finally exercises the mental disci-

pline to break the pattern and take a balanced look at the issue, the result

is a refreshingly original, and often insightful, view.

Consider the case of Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses. Many Muslims, convinced that the book ridiculed their religion and the prophet

Muhammad, reacted angrily. The Ayatollah Khomeini went so far as to put

out a contract on the author’s life and to threaten any individuals involved

in publishing or distributing the book. The literary, journalistic, and intel-

lectual communities’ response to this extreme reaction was to hold rallies

and publicly support Rushdie and his publisher. The theme of these rallies

and statements was that freedom of expression is an absolute right.

There is no question that freedom of expression is a worthy principle

and that the extreme reaction of Khomeini and his followers to Rushdie’s

novel was totally unjustifiable. And that is precisely why it was so tempt-

ing for sensitive people to support Rushdie and condemn Khomeini

without qualification. (Adding to that temptation was the fact that

Khomeini had previously earned the enmity of Westerners.) Yet achiev-

ing intellectual balance means making a conscious effort to moderate our

reactions even in the face of strong temptation to overstatement.

At least a few writers displayed intellectual balance on this issue by

reminding us that other principles are also important—notably, the

principle of respect for the religious beliefs of others. Columnist John Leo

spoke of “the fact that our [principle of tolerance] calls for a certain amount

of deference and self-restraint in discussing other people’s religious

rug38189_ch18_192-205.qxd 1/3/11 4:50 PM Page 200

201CHAPTER 18 Forming a Judgment

beliefs.”3 And Professor John Esposito observed that “the First Amend-ment

right doesn’t mean you should automatically say everything you want to.”4

What made these views balanced is that they were made without denying the impor- tance of freedom of speech and the outrageousness of Khomeini’s threat.

Consider another issue—the question of building self-esteem in peo-

ple. For more than twenty years, writers of self-improvement books have

emphasized the importance of self-esteem, particularly in young children.

So great has been this emphasis that many people assume that success or

failure in school and later life is largely a reflection of this factor. Almost

any effort to make people feel good about themselves is applauded.

But Barbara Lerner, a psychologist and attorney, was able to resist the

powerful lure of the prevailing view and examine self-esteem critically.

Her reward was the insight that self-esteem is not always good, that in

some cases it can be an obstacle to achievement. There is a difference, she notes, between “earned” self-esteem and “feel-good-now” self-esteem.

The former can lead to achievement and even excellence, whereas the lat-

ter promotes complacency and, ultimately, incompetence.5

To achieve a balanced view of the issues you address, you must be

willing to look for the neglected side of the issue and, when there is good reason to do so, to challenge the prevailing view.

DEAL WITH PROBABILITY

Despite our best efforts to investigate issues, sometimes we cannot accu-

mulate sufficient evidence to arrive at a judgment with certainty. This is

especially true with controversial issues. At such times, the irresponsible

often raise their voices, choose more forceful words, and pretend certainty. That is a grave mistake, first because the pretense seldom fools good

thinkers, but, more important, because it is intellectually dishonest.

As long as we have made a sincere effort to gain the evidence neces-

sary to achieve certainty and are not deliberately choosing to ride the

fence, there is no shame in admitting, “I cannot say for certain what the

correct judgment is in this situation.” On the contrary, there is virtue in

doing so. Yet such situations demand one further obligation of respon-

sible thinkers. It is to explain, if possible, what judgment probability

favors—that is, what judgment the evidence suggests, as opposed to proves, is correct.

The evidence, for example, may be insufficient to allow us say with

certainty that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer or that viewing televi- sion violence definitely harms people. Nevertheless, there is sufficient evi- dence on both issues to warrant a judgment about probable cause–effect relationships.

Whenever you cannot achieve certainty, focus on probability.

rug38189_ch18_192-205.qxd 1/3/11 4:50 PM Page 201

202 PART THREE A Strategy

MAKE YOUR SUBJECT APPROPRIATELY SPECIFIC

The subject in a careful judgment is appropriately specific. Consider

these sentences, in which the subject is italicized:

Today’s college students are less proficient in grammar and usage than their counterparts were ten years ago.

Today’s U.S. college students are less proficient in grammar and usage than their counterparts were ten years ago.

Today’s U.S. two-year college students are less proficient in grammar and usage than their counterparts were ten years ago.

Today’s students at this college are less proficient in grammar and usage than their counterparts were ten years ago.

If the evidence covers only students at a particular college, only the

last judgment can be sound. The other three are too generalized. To avoid

this kind of error in your writing and speaking, choose the subjects of

your judgments with care.

MAKE YOUR PREDICATE EXACT

The predicate in a careful judgment asserts exactly what you want to

assert. Compare these sentences, in which part of the predicate is italicized:

Peace has been achieved.

Peace can be achieved.

Peace must be achieved.

Peace should be achieved.

Peace could be achieved.

Peace will be achieved.

Although these sentences are very similar in construction, their

meanings are very different. Unless we deliberately embrace ambiguity (in

which case we should expect to cause confusion), we should choose our

predicates judiciously.

A good example of the kind of confusion that can result is shown in

the sentence that triggered theological debate in the 1960s: “God is dead.”

It made a nice slogan, but exactly what did it mean? Taking it by itself, a

person would have great difficulty answering. In addition to the obvious

possibility, “There is no supreme being,” there are at least seven others:

People no longer want to believe God exists.

People are no longer able to believe God exists.

People are no longer certain God exists.

People no longer act as if God exists.

rug38189_ch18_192-205.qxd 1/3/11 4:50 PM Page 202

203CHAPTER 18 Forming a Judgment

People no longer care whether God exists.

People no longer accept some particular conception of God.

People are no longer satisfied with the limitation of traditional human expressions of belief in God’s existence.

Unless the original writer or speaker made clear which of these

meanings he or she had in mind, the audience would have been neither

informed nor persuaded. To leave an audience guessing about your

meaning is irresponsible and self-defeating.

INCLUDE ALL APPROPRIATE QUALIFICATIONS

Saying that something usually happens is different from saying that it

frequently happens or that it happens every other Tuesday. The more care

you take to include the qualifications necessary to express your thoughts

precisely, the more defensible your judgment is likely to be. And that

includes not only qualifications of time but those of place and condition

as well. In the judgment “American men over forty who never attended

college tend to be opposed to the idea of women’s liberation advocated

by the National Organization for Women” (which may or may not be

true), almost every word is a qualification. It says (a) not all men but

American men, (b) not members of all age groups and educational levels but those over forty who never attended college, and (c) not the idea of women’s liberation in general but the idea advocated by the National Organi- zation for Women.

AVOID EXAGGERATION

Most of us know one or more people for whom every occasion is “memo-

rable,” every problem is a “crisis,” every enjoyable film is “worthy of an

Academy Award nomination,” and every attractive new car or fashion is

“incomparable.” To such people nothing is merely good or bad—it is the

best or worst. Their vocabulary is filled with superlatives. When someone

is late for an appointment with them, they wait an “eternity.” When they

go to the dentist, the pain is “unbearable.” Their debts are “titanic.”

When such people report something to us, we have to translate it by

scaling it down to realistic proportions. If they say, “He was the biggest

man I’ve ever seen, at least seven feet ten,” we conclude that he was

about six feet six. If they say, “You’ve got to hear Sidney Screech’s new

record—it’s the most fantastic performance he’s ever given,” we con-

clude that it was a bit better than usual.

We may, however grudgingly, make allowances for the verbal

excesses of friends, but we are seldom willing to extend that courtesy to

strangers. Instead, we regard them as lacking in balance and proportion

rug38189_ch18_192-205.qxd 1/3/11 4:50 PM Page 203

204 PART THREE A Strategy

and dismiss their reports as unreliable. Others, of course, will regard us

no differently. If you want your judgments to stand the test of scrutiny

by others, avoid all exaggeration. When you cannot be certain your

judgment is accurate, you should tend to err on the side of understate-

ment rather than overstatement. In other words, you should argue the

more modest interpretation, the less extreme conclusion. That way, if

you are wrong—as every human will sometimes be—you will at least

have the saving grace of having demonstrated a sense of control and

restraint.

The critical thinking strategy presented in this chapter and the four

preceding chapters may be summarized as follows:

1. Know yourself and remain mindful of the ways in which your habits of mind undermine your treatment of issues.

2. Be observant and reflect on what you see and hear.

3. When you identify an issue, clarify it by listing its aspects and rais- ing probing questions about each.

4. Conduct a thorough inquiry, obtaining all relevant facts and informed opinions.

5. Evaluate your findings, and then form and express your judgment.

This summary is a convenient checklist. Refer to it whenever you exam-

ine issues.

Applications

1. Analyze two of the following summaries in the manner demonstrated in the chapter. Be sure to get beyond your first impressions, and avoid the errors in

thinking summarized in Chapter 13. Answer all the questions you raise, deciding

exactly in what ways you agree with the idea and in what ways you disagree.

a. Feeling and intuition are better guides to behavior than is reasoning. We

need immediate answers to many of our problems today, and feeling and

intuition are almost instantaneous, while reasoning is painfully slow.

Moreover, feeling and intuition are natural, uncorrupted by artificial

values and codes imposed on us by society. Reasoning is a set of pro-

grammed responses—tight, mechanical, and unnatural. Thus, if we wish

to achieve individuality, to express our real inner self, the part of us that

is unconditioned by others, we should follow our feelings and intuitions

instead of our thoughts.

b. It is commonly accepted that the best way to improve the world and rela-

tions among its people is for everyone to curb his or her own self-interest

and think of others. This concern with others is the basic idea in the Golden

Rule and in most religions. It is, of course, questionable whether that goal

is realizable. But, more important, it is mistaken. It is not selfishness but

the pretense of altruism that sets person against person. If everyone looked

out for himself or herself, and pursued his or her own interests, there

would be not only less hypocrisy in the world but more understanding.

rug38189_ch18_192-205.qxd 1/3/11 4:50 PM Page 204

205CHAPTER 18 Forming a Judgment

Each person would be aware of where everyone else stood in relation to

him or her. And no one would be dependent on others.

c. The institution of marriage has outlived its usefulness. More and more

people today, particularly young people, are realizing that it makes more

sense to have informal relationships. A couple should live together only

as long as both individuals want to. Whenever one wants to end the rela-

tionship, he or she should be able to do so, neatly, without legal compli-

cations. This could be done if marriage were abolished. Everyone would

benefit. People would retain their individual freedom and be able to

fulfill their own need to develop as a person, responding to their own

changing values and interests.

d. College instructors should not be permitted to set restrictive attendance

policies; they should be made to treat students as responsible adults,

leaving each student free to decide his or her attendance behavior.

Students know their own strengths and weaknesses better than anyone

else does and are mature enough to decide which classes they need to

attend. Some courses will be new and challenging to them. Others will

merely duplicate prior learning. Some instructors will add to the stu-

dents’ store of information and challenge their intellect. Others will

merely read the textbook aloud. Left to exercise their own judgment, stu-

dents can use their time wisely, attending the classes of the good, interest-

ing, dedicated teachers and avoiding those of the dullards and deadbeats.

e. One of the reasons crime is so rampant in our society is that we put too

much emphasis on determining why the criminal committed the crime

and whether the police treated the criminal fairly. Those are important

matters, but other, equally important, ones seem to be neglected lately—

like protecting law-abiding people from dangerous, irresponsible people

and making punishments severe enough to deter crime. We cringe at

primitive societies’ handling of crime—for example, cutting off a thief’s

hands or a perjurer’s tongue. But at least such punishments reflect a

recognition that crime is an outrage against society that should not be tol-

erated. I am not suggesting that we return to such a standard of justice,

only that we get tough with criminals. Two steps that would provide

a good start would be setting determinate sentences for crimes instead of

giving judges the wide latitude they now enjoy and refusing to let legal

technicalities set aside a conviction when a person is clearly guilty.

2. Apply what you learned in this chapter to the inquiry you completed for

one of the applications in Chapter 17.

rug38189_ch18_192-205.qxd 1/3/11 4:50 PM Page 205

206

C H A P T E R 1 9

Persuading Others

When you read the previous chapter, it might have seemed an appropriate

place to conclude the book. That is an understandable impression. The

thinking process could reasonably be considered complete when a judg-

ment has been made and put into words. Why, then, has this chapter been

included? The simple answer is because thoughtful judgments deserve to

be shared, and the way they are presented can strongly influence the way

others react to them. By learning the principles of persuasion and apply-

ing them in your writing (and speaking), you will extend the benefits of

your critical thinking beyond the confines of your own mind.

Persuasion means presenting your view so effectively that people who have no position on the issue will be inclined to agree with you and

those who disagree with you will be motivated to reconsider their own

view. This task is more difficult than it may seem. Those who are neutral

will be open to suggestion, but only if you demonstrate the reasonable-

ness of your view. Those who disagree with you will be disposed to reject your view for the obvious reason that it disputes theirs. To accept your

view entails discarding their own, which they may have formed after

considerable thought and with which their egos are intertwined.

To appreciate how difficult it can be to persuade others, you need

only reflect on your own resistance to ideas that oppose yours. If you still

have trouble giving such ideas a fair hearing even after a semester’s study of critical thinking, it is unreasonable to expect individuals who lack your training to respond more generously.

Guidelines for Persuasion

Here are eleven guidelines for persuasion. Each is designed to help you

overcome a specific challenge. The more faithfully you follow these guide-

lines, the more effective you will be in demonstrating the merit of your

ideas.

rug38189_ch19_206-223.qxd 1/3/11 4:51 PM Page 206

207CHAPTER 19 Persuading Others

GUIDELINE 1: RESPECT YOUR AUDIENCE

This guideline may sound idealistic, but it is eminently practical. If

you believe the people you are trying to persuade are doltish or intellec-

tually dishonest, you are bound to betray that belief, if not directly then

indirectly in your tone or choice of words. Moreover, they will generally

sense your disparaging view of them and feel hurt or resentful, hardly

the kind of reaction that will make them open to persuasion.

But aren’t some people doltish or intellectually dishonest? Of course.

The point is, you have no business thinking them so without clear and

convincing evidence. If you have such evidence, don’t write for that audi-

ence. If you lack such evidence, as is usually the case, you should give

your audience the benefit of the doubt. Ask yourself what might account

for their disagreement with your view. Consider all the factors that can

influence a person’s perspective, including age, gender, race, ethnicity,

family background, religion, income level, political affiliation, degree of

education, and personal experience. If one or more of these could account

for the difference in viewpoint, you will have good reason for regarding

their disagreement as thoughtful and honest.

A caution is in order here: Don’t feel you need to state your respect

for your audience. Such statements have a way of sounding insincere.

Work on acting respectfully; if you can accomplish that, there will be no

need to state it. It will show.

GUIDELINE 2: UNDERSTAND YOUR AUDIENCE’S VIEWPOINT

Many people make the mistake of thinking that knowing their own view-

point is all that is necessary to be persuasive. “What my readers think about

the issue is really irrelevant,” they reason. “All that matters is what I’m

going to get them to think.” In addition to being pompous, this attitude

ignores two crucial points. First, people’s views matter very much to them,

and when others refuse to acknowledge this fact they feel offended. Second,

we must know where people stand before we can hope to reach them.

How can you determine what your readers think about the issue you

are writing about? The answer depends on the particular circumstances.

Here are the most common situations:

Situation 1: You are writing for a single reader who has presented his or her ideas in an article, book, speech, or conversation. Review what your reader said, noting not only the person’s position but also the rea- soning that supports it. Determine both the strengths and the weak- nesses of the person’s position.

Situation 2: You are writing for a single reader who has not, to your knowl- edge, expressed a view on the issue in question. Suppose, for example, you are writing a letter to the president of a company objecting to

rug38189_ch19_206-223.qxd 1/3/11 4:51 PM Page 207

208 PART THREE A Strategy

the company’s sponsorship of a controversial television series. You may not be sure the president disagrees with what you plan to say, but prudence suggests that you anticipate the worst case scenario—that he or she vigorously supports the sponsorship decision. Use your imagination to produce relevant questions: What might the presi- dent think about outsiders criticizing the company? That they have no right to criticize? That the company is answerable only to its stockholders? What might he or she think about the series in question— that is, about the characters, typical plot situations, and themes? (The more closely you have studied the series, the more meaningful your answer will be.) Might the president view outside criticism as a form of censorship? Why or why not?

Situation 3: You are writing not for a specific individual, but for all the peo- ple who hold an opposing view on the issue. This is the most commonly encountered situation in persuasive writing. Study what has been expressed by people who hold the opposing view. Look for fre- quently repeated arguments and themes. The more often a line of thought is expressed and the greater the number of people who express it, the more influential it is likely to have been in shaping people’s views. The most influential errors in thinking represent the greatest challenge to persuasion.

GUIDELINE 3: BEGIN FROM A POSITION YOU HAVE IN COMMON WITH YOUR READERS

Beginning from a position of agreement with your reader is not an arbi-

trary requirement or a matter of courtesy or good form. It is a simple mat- ter of psychology. If you begin by saying—in effect, if not directly—”Look here, you are wrong, and I’m going to show you,” you push your readers

to defensive if not outright hostile reactions. They are likely to read the

rest of your paper thinking not of what you are saying but of ways to

refute it, concerned with measuring only the weaknesses of your argu-

ment. And if they are unreasonable and unbalanced in their reading, the

fault will be more yours than theirs.

It is always difficult to find any points of agreement with someone

whose views you strongly disagree with. This was the case with the stu-

dent who wrote his composition supporting the view that students who

fail out of his college should be allowed to apply for readmission. His

readers were administrators who had expressed the view that the stu-

dents should not be allowed to do so. He began as follows:

I think students who fail out of this college should be allowed to apply for

readmission because every student deserves a second chance. You have said

that most readmits lack seriousness of purpose. But . . .

This student was probably quite sure that he and his readers could

agree on nothing. So he began with a head-on collision that wrecked his

rug38189_ch19_206-223.qxd 1/3/11 4:51 PM Page 208

209CHAPTER 19 Persuading Others

chances to be persuasive. The readers’ reaction, conscious or unconscious,

undoubtedly was “This student sees only his own biased position. He

doesn’t understand the complexity of the problem, doesn’t consider the

welfare of the total student body, apparently doesn’t appreciate that a col-

lege education is not a right at all, but a privilege.” Their reaction could be

mistaken. The student might have been fully aware of all these considera-

tions. But he failed to show his readers that he was. How much better an

impression he would have made if he had begun like this:

No one benefits—neither teachers nor other students—from the presence

on campus of students for whom college means merely fun, or a rest, or a

chance to make social contacts. Such students take up precious time and

space, and usually serve only to distract more serious students. They fail in

most cases to realize that a college education is a privilege that they must

continue to earn, not an inviolable right. I agree that this college has its share

of such students.

The “but” would still appear. The student would still argue his point,

but only after he had impressed his readers with the scope of his under-

standing of the issue and with his desire to be reasonable.

GUIDELINE 4: TAKE A POSITIVE APPROACH

Whenever possible, build your case rather than tearing down the oppos-

ing case. To say you should never expose the weaknesses of the opposing

side of the issue would be an oversimplification, and a foolish one at that.

There are times when examining such weaknesses is the only responsible

course of action. Keep in mind, however, that direct criticism of the

opposing view will always seem harsher than it is to people who share that view, a brief criticism will seem protracted, and the mere perception that you are being negative will make your readers defensive. The solu-

tion is not to be so timid that you don’t say anything meaningful but to be

sensitive to your readers’ reactions.

Consider, for example, this situation. Someone writes an article attack-

ing gun control legislation. Two responses are printed in the next issue of

the magazine. In summary the article and responses read as follows:

Article

Gun control legislation (a) penalizes the law-abiding more than the lawless, (b) denies citizens the most effective means of protecting self and property at a time when assaults on both are commonplace, (c) violates the U.S. Constitution.

Responses to Article

1. Gun control legislation does not penalize the law-abiding more than the lawless. It does not deny citizens the most effective means of protection. It does not really violate the U.S. Constitution.

rug38189_ch19_206-223.qxd 1/3/11 4:51 PM Page 209

210 PART THREE A Strategy

Both responses disagree with the article on each of the three points it

raised. But the first merely tears down the article’s position; the second

builds another position. In effect, the first says to the writer, “You are

wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong”; the second says, “Here is another

view.” Whenever you can avoid direct refutation—that is, whenever you

can effectively present and support your own views without direct refer-

ence to your reader’s opposing views—do so.

GUIDELINE 5: UNDERSTATE YOUR ARGUMENT WHENEVER POSSIBLE

The sharpest points of disagreement between you and your readers

should always be approached most carefully. These points represent the

greatest obstacle to persuasion. If you overstate your position, you are

bound to reinforce your readers’ conviction about their position rather

than dispose them to question their conviction. The student who wrote

the following passage made this blunder:

Most colleges have a “cut system”—that is, they permit a student a few

unexcused absences from class without penalty. This college permits no

unexcused absences. Its system is harsh and uncompromising and may well

cause students to develop inferiority complexes.

Here the readers, who in this case support the college’s “no-cut sys-

tem,” are not only reinforced in their position by the “inferiority com-

plex” overstatement but also provided with an excellent opportunity for a damaging rebuttal, such as this:

That this college’s “no-cut system” is demanding, I grant. But the suggestion

that it causes students to “develop inferiority complexes” strains credibility.

However, even if it were established that it does in fact cause such com-

plexes, would we not be driven to the conclusion that students in such

psychologically fragile condition need not fewer but more restrictions to

prevent their breakdown?

The student who wrote the following passage made a similar mistake:

If others treat us with respect and admiration we will become more respectable

and admirable.

2. Gun control legislation dis- courages crime by making the mere possession of a gun an offense of some gravity. It stresses the role of the police, rather than the individual, in law enforcement. It follows the spirit, if not the letter, of the U.S. Constitution.

rug38189_ch19_206-223.qxd 1/3/11 4:51 PM Page 210

211CHAPTER 19 Persuading Others

This student overstated the effect. The respect and admiration of oth-

ers may encourage us to be respectable and admirable, but it will cer-

tainly not make us so automatically. The costliness of the mistake is

measured by the fact that the readers, who would have tended to agree

with understatement, are likely to reject the whole idea because of the

writer’s careless use of force.

Consider the following two passages, particularly the italicized words.

The first is the forceful statement the writer was tempted to make. The sec-

ond is the statement the writer actually made. It is an understatement. Note

that it does not compromise the writer’s position, but it does present the

idea more effectively to readers who would be inclined to disagree.

1. If college students are not given opportunities to exercise responsibil- ity and make their own choices while they are in college, they will have to adjust all at once when they leave college. And such adjust- ment will be extremely difficult.

2. If college students are not given some opportunities to exercise respon- sibility and make their own choices while they are in college, they will have to adjust rather quickly when they leave college. And such adjustment will usually be more difficult.

GUIDELINE 6: CONCEDE WHERE THE OPPOSING SIDE HAS A POINT

The natural tendency of all of us to value our own position too highly

makes it difficult for us to admit that opposing views may also have merit.

Overcoming this tendency can be accomplished only by remembering that

in most controversial issues no one side possesses the total truth. If you can approach controversial issues with this thought, you are likely to grasp

more of the total truth and to attract reasonable readers to your position.

Total commitment to the truth obliges us, moreover, to concede not

grudgingly, but gladly and without hesitation. This does not mean placing

a single short sentence at the beginning of the composition that says,

“Everyone is right in some degree; I suppose you are too,” and then launch-

ing into your own position. It means a specific and, if space permits, detailed

explanation of where, how, and why the opposing viewpoint is correct.

Let’s say, for example, that the issue is whether a comprehensive sex

education program from kindergarten through twelfth grade should be

initiated in your hometown. Your argument is that it should be. You rea-

son that, since a person’s whole life is affected by the quality of his under-

standing of sex, it is too important a subject to be learned in the street and

that, since many parents neglect their responsibility to teach their chil-

dren at home, the school must offer such a program. Your readers are

opposed to the program because they believe classroom sex instruction

does not meet two important requirements: individualized instruction at

each child’s level of understanding and a moral-religious context.

rug38189_ch19_206-223.qxd 1/3/11 4:51 PM Page 211

212 PART THREE A Strategy

Any reasonable person would admit that the readers’ points are well

taken. Therefore, you should concede that it is difficult to identify those

students whose level of maturity is significantly below the rest of the

class and that the presentation of material well beyond their grasp could

be disturbing to them. Further, you should concede that, ideally, the

home is the best place for the young to learn about sex and the school

cannot provide the moral-religious context that many parents consider

essential. These concessions will not undermine your position. You will

still be able to argue that the program is necessary, although you will

probably have to qualify your endorsement, acknowledging that the

details of the program must be worked out in light of your concessions

and that teachers should be selected with care. The concessions will actu-

ally enhance your argument by demonstrating your grasp of the larger

dimensions of the question.

Remember that the readers are likely to be no more generous to you

than you are to them. Only if you are open and honest in your conces-

sions can you expect them to be so in theirs.

GUIDELINE 7: DON’T IGNORE ANY RELEVANT FACTS

In studying an issue, we sometimes uncover facts that support the oppos-

ing position rather than our own. The temptation is strong to ignore

them, especially if the other person has apparently not discovered them.

Using them, it would seem, could only weaken our position.

However, the purpose of argument is not to defeat others but,

through the exchange of views, to discover the truth in all its complexity.

When that happens, everyone wins. When any part of the truth is hidden,

no one wins, even though it may appear that someone does. By present-

ing all the facts, even those that force you to modify your position, you

impress your readers with your objectivity and honesty and invite them

to show theirs.

Consider the following situation. You believe that the present feder-

ally directed antipoverty program is more beneficial to the poor than the

proposed state-directed program would be. You are researching the sub-

ject further, preparing to write an article supporting your position for an

audience of those who disagree with you. In researching the question you

discover a not widely publicized report documenting serious inefficiency

and waste in the present federal program. Moreover, it seems clear that

these inefficiencies would be less likely to occur in the proposed program.

You realize that your readers probably have not seen this report and that it

would be damaging to your original position to mention it in your article.

What should you do? If you have good reason to conclude that the report

is not really relevant to the issue, it would be foolish to mention it.

However, if you are convinced that it is relevant, honesty requires you to

rug38189_ch19_206-223.qxd 1/3/11 4:51 PM Page 212

213CHAPTER 19 Persuading Others

mention it, deal with the questions it raises, and modify your position

accordingly.

GUIDELINE 8: DON’T OVERWHELM YOUR READERS WITH ARGUMENTS

In controversial matters, no paper under, say, 3,000 words is likely to be

definitive. Moreover, no serious writer would attempt to convey the

impression that it is. Of necessity it contains selected evidence. On the sur- face it would seem that this would give more reason to fill the paper to

overflowing with evidence for one’s position, to make it as nearly defini-

tive as possible. But on reflection it is clear that the readers’ impression

must also be considered. What is the impression of those who read a com-

position that they know cannot possibly be definitive but is devoted to

arguing one side of an issue, piling detail on detail, example on example,

without even implying that there is another side to the issue? There is no

question that they will regard such a composition as one-sided and unbalanced! The way to avoid such an unfavorable reader reaction is to present only those arguments and that evidence that you feel are most

relevant and most persuasive.

There is one other related point. Even when you succeed in avoid-

ing an unbalanced argument, you may get so taken up with your pre-

sentation that you push the reader, possibly concluding your paper like

this:

I think I have proved in this paper that there is no alternative to the one suggested by Professor Jones.

or The evidence I have presented seems irrefutable. There can be no question that the proposal is harmful.

or No reasonable person will hesitate to endorse this view.

You cannot “prove” anything in a short paper. Although evidence

may “seem irrefutable” to you and you may see “no question,” remember

that it is wiser to permit readers to make their own judgment. And no

reader enjoys feeling that agreement with the writer is required in order

to be considered a “reasonable person.”

GUIDELINE 9: FOCUS ON THE ARGUMENT BEST CALCULATED TO PERSUADE YOUR AUDIENCE

Different arguments appeal to different readers. Just as it is important to

understand your readers’ viewpoints on the issue, it is important to use

arguments that will appeal to them. To ignore their frames of reference

and choose arguments that you yourself find persuasive is a mistake.

rug38189_ch19_206-223.qxd 1/3/11 4:51 PM Page 213

214 PART THREE A Strategy

Consider, for example, the issue of whether the United States should

become involved in conflicts in other parts of the world. The following

chart shows the various frames of reference and the arguments that are

often made under each.

Frame of Reference

Moral and/or religious

Political and/or practical

Philosophic

Arguments for U.S. Involvement

1. It is the moral obligation of the strong to protect the weak.

2. To stand by and do nothing while atrocities are com- mitted is unethical.

1. Because technol- ogy has shrunk our planet, no part of the world is outside our country’s interest.

2. To refuse to stop tyranny is the same as encourag- ing it.

A free nation has an obligation to stand up for freedom everywhere.

Arguments Against U.S. Involvement

1. The Judeo- Christian tradi- tion says to return good for evil, love for hate.

2. Modern warfare punishes the vic- tims as well as the perpetrators.

1. Precisely because the world has grown smaller, we need to resist the urge to join other nations’ battles.

2. When we deplete our resources in foreign wars, we increase our own vulnerability.

1. War corrupts all who engage in it.

Let’s say you are writing a persuasive paper on this issue and you

personally believe that the most telling arguments are moral and/or reli-

gious but you know your readers would be more impressed with the

political and/or practical or the philosophic arguments. Generally speak-

ing, it would be foolish to follow your personal preference—doing so

could defeat your purpose in writing.

GUIDELINE 10: NEVER USE AN ARGUMENT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IS SOUND OR RELEVANT

This guideline should be understood as a qualification of the previous

one. Sincerity and regard for the truth are among the most important

characteristics of a writer. Without them there is no real persuasion, only

rug38189_ch19_206-223.qxd 1/3/11 4:51 PM Page 214

215CHAPTER 19 Persuading Others

clever presentation. Therefore, if you truly believe that only one argu-

ment is worthy of consideration, then by all means use only that argu-

ment. This dilemma, however, is not likely to arise very often. In most

cases, you will be able to choose among a variety of arguments without

compromising your integrity.

GUIDELINE 11: ALLOW TIME FOR YOUR VIEW TO GAIN ACCEPTANCE

It may be tempting to believe that when you present your view, your

readers will immediately abandon their own and embrace yours. That

expectation is unrealistic. Except in rare cases, the best you should

hope for is that they will be moved to reconsider the issue in light of

what you said and that your insights eventually will cause them to modify their view. The fact that “eventually” may turn out to be next

week or next year rather than five minutes from now is not necessarily

a comment on your skill in persuading others. It may merely reflect the

reality that the bonds people form with their opinions are not easily

broken.

Use the following summary of the guidelines for persuasion as a

checklist whenever you wish to present your ideas persuasively:

1. Respect your audience.

2. Understand your audience’s viewpoint.

3. Begin from a position you have in common with your readers.

4. Take a positive approach.

5. Understate your argument whenever possible.

6. Concede where the opposing side has a point.

7. Don’t ignore any relevant facts.

8. Don’t overwhelm your readers with arguments.

9. Focus on the argument best calculated to persuade your audience.

10. Never use an argument you do not believe is sound or relevant.

11. Allow time for your view to gain acceptance.

Next we’ll compare a persuasive composition with an unpersuasive

one to see how these guidelines apply.

An Unpersuasive Presentation

A student chose to write a letter pointing out his complaints about the

quality of the campus dining hall food and service. His reader was the

dining hall manager, his task to impress the reader with his reasonable-

ness and dispose her to reevaluate the performance of her staff.

rug38189_ch19_206-223.qxd 1/3/11 4:51 PM Page 215

216 PART THREE A Strategy

How should the student have approached his subject and reader?

First, he should have realized that the dining hall manager must be either

a dishonest person, caring little whether she runs the dining hall well or

poorly, or a conscientious person, anxious to make the operation efficient

and excellent. If the student is convinced that the manager is dishonest,

he would be wise not to write the composition for that reader at all but per- haps for the administrator to whom the manager reports.

If, on the other hand, he is sure the manager is conscientious and

experienced, he would have to acknowledge that (1) she is familiar with

the frequency and exaggeration of student complaints that are almost a

Violates Guideline 3 Doesn’t begin on common ground

Violates Guideline 5

Sarcasm offends reader

No examples offered to support charge

Violates Guideline 1 Actually suggests bad inten- tion (How can writer pre- sume to know the intentions of staff when even the facts are in question?)

Sarcasm offends reader

Creates unfavorable impression on reader (judges administrators rashly) Shows disrespect toward reader (no admission that students occasionally do embellish facts)

There is continuous discussion taking place on this

campus about the dining hall. The students are dis-

gusted with the poor quality of the food and service,

and the dirty dishes and silverware. As a student,

I would like to point out the reasons for complaining.

First, let us consider the quality of the food. The

meat is either undercooked or overcooked. It is of

such low quality that one wonders how it ever got on

the market to be sold. The vegetables are completely

tasteless, but this is all right because few students

bother to eat them. Some students receive bonuses in

their meals—such as hair in their soup or dead flies in

their potatoes. These are only a few examples of how

poor the food is.

Another complaint of students is the inefficient

service. Because of the slow service, students often

sit down to a cold meal. Many students have to skip

their meals because they don’t have time to wait.

Some are driven to eat in local restaurants at extra

expense.

Perhaps the most common complaint is the dirty

dishes and silverware the students are forced to use.

I suppose everything goes through a dishwasher, but

by some strange coincidence few things come out

clean. However, the work staff don’t worry about it—

they just close their eyes to the dirt and pass the

dishes and silverware on to the servers. Egg caked to

the forks and pieces of meat stuck to the plate—it cer-

tainly raises a student’s spirits when he’s eating two

meals for the price of one!

The question is, what can be done to correct these

problems? Students have already issued their com-

plaints to administrative officials, but this has done no

good. These people appear to have turned their heads

from the problem. It is clear that something must be

done. A lot of revising is needed. But will there be

any? You know as well as I do. NO!

rug38189_ch19_206-223.qxd 1/3/11 4:51 PM Page 216

217CHAPTER 19 Persuading Others

tradition on college campuses and (2) despite her efforts to find all the

flaws in her operations, she is apparently unaware of several. If the stu-

dent had examined carefully the complaints he thought were justified—

the poor quality of the food, the dirt in the food, the slow service, and the

dirty dishes and silverware—he would have realized that they embrace

the entire operation. Mentioning all of them was saying that nothing

about the dining hall is acceptable—and such a comprehensive statement

would surely dispose the reader to reject the entire statement. Her natural

(human) reluctance to see the faults in her operation would not be over-

come but reinforced. She would think, “It’s not possible that I’ve failed to

see all these problems. This student must just be a complainer.”

A Persuasive Presentation

A student skilled in persuasive writing would have anticipated all these

reactions from his reader and written his letter in this manner:

What type of student constantly complains about the quality of food in

the dining hall? Usually the one who’s been catered to by his mother

and finds it difficult to adjust to anything but dotingly personal service.

During the first term in college my roommate was just such a person. He

moaned for an hour after every meal he ate here (and he went without

more than a few meals). Hamburger steak was “unfit for human con-

sumption” in his view. Chicken à la king was “slop.” And so on—there

was an appropriately derogatory comment for every meal he forced

himself to eat.

John stayed here for about a month. He enjoyed his courses and did

well in them. He made quite a few friends. But he came to speak constantly

of his mother’s cooking—two-inch steaks three times a week, lasagna,

spaghetti with pork chops and meatballs and hot Italian sausage. So he left

college to return to Utopia. Few students go as far as John did, of course, but

judging by the frequency of the complaints I hear students make about the

dining hall, he was not the only student hopelessly spoiled by his mother’s

cooking.

The service and quality of the food in our dining hall are usually good.

Sure, the meat is occasionally overcooked and the vegetables sometimes

soggy, but that happened at home too (and my mother only cooked for five,

not fifteen hundred). There are, in fact, only two things that I think might be

improved.

The first is waiting in line. I usually have to wait at least fifteen minutes

to be served in our dining hall, and I arrive quite early. I know from friends

in other colleges that a fast-moving line is the exception rather than the rule,

so perhaps nothing can be done about it. But if the management found some

way to “stagger” the serving or speed up the line, at least one student would

appreciate it. The second is dirty dishes and silverware. At most meals I find

that I have to wipe dirt from at least one plate or piece of silverware. It may

be that in the interests of efficiency the dishwashers are reluctant to wash

dirty pieces a second time. Or they may be too busy to notice. But spotless

dishes and silverware do help to make the food more appetizing.

rug38189_ch19_206-223.qxd 1/3/11 4:51 PM Page 217

218 PART THREE A Strategy

Neither improvement would satisfy students who, like John, are spoiled

or who enjoy complaining. But they would help to make our dining hall an

even better place to eat.

The difference between these two presentations should be obvious.

The most conscientious, eager-to-please, dining hall manager could not

help discounting the first as an exaggerated blast written by a chronic

complainer or as a release of hostilities by a student angry not only with

the dining hall staff but also with his girlfriend, his professors, his par-

ents, and the world. But any reasonably conscientious dining hall man-

ager could not help but regard the second letter as the work of a

reasonable, understanding, mature student. It would make her want to

improve the service. In other words, it would be persuasive.

Applications

This application section is somewhat different from earlier ones. It presents an

extended list of contemporary issues. Each has been the subject of considerable

public debate. Some have had long, complex histories. For most, a sizable amount

of written interpretation and argument is available.

Examine the list carefully to find an issue that interests you. Then analyze it,

applying what you have learned from this book, particularly the lessons of Part

Three, “A Strategy,” which begins with Chapter 14. Keep in mind that the issues

are identified here in a very general way. It is up to you not only to find and study

the available information but also to select the particular aspects you will focus

on. As you have seen, it is better to treat one or two aspects in depth than a larger

number superficially.

Finally, write a persuasive composition. (On a separate sheet, specify your

audience and explain the audience analysis that guided your composition.)

1. In February 1997 a landmark scientific achievement was announced. For

the first time in history, a mammal had been cloned. Scientists had used the DNA

from one sheep to produce another sheep, genetically identical to the first. Some

scientists had predicted the feat would never be accomplished. Now most agreed

that no real barriers exist to cloning human beings, though scientific difficulties

would have to be worked out.1 The procedure would offer possibilities previ-

ously dreamt of only by science fiction writers. Here are just a few: (a) a couple

who lost a beloved child in an accident could have another just like him or her;

(b) fans could buy celebrities’ DNA and enjoy the ultimate in memorabilia; (c)

dictators could ensure that their rule was passed on, not just through their chil-

dren but, in a sense, through themselves; (d) wealthy people could produce clones to be used for spare parts should they contract a disease. As these examples sug- gest, human cloning poses difficult legal and ethical questions, all of them arising

from a single awesome fact—the process would produce not robots but human

beings! What is the wisest position for society to take on the issue of human

cloning?

2. Handgun sales continue to rise, indicating that many people believe hav-

ing a weapon will ensure their safety. But many people argue that the easy avail-

ability of handguns is a major cause of violence. They argue that the United States

rug38189_ch19_206-223.qxd 1/3/11 4:51 PM Page 218

219CHAPTER 19 Persuading Others

should follow the example of other countries and ban handguns. Which view-

point is more reasonable?

3. Some people argue that we would have better government if members

of Congress were limited to a certain number of terms, say two or three. Dis-

agreement over this issue continues to be sharp and spirited. Do the advantages

of term limits outweigh the disadvantages?

4. Reportedly, many people are ignoring the dangers of unprotected sex.

How can this casual attitude toward disease be explained in light of the spread

of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases? What is the best approach

for public health officials and educators to take in solving this problem?

5. From the 1960s to the mid-1970s, the time allotted for serious television

news coverage dropped dramatically. A typical analysis segment ran twenty-five

minutes in 1960 but only seven minutes in 1976,2 and it has shrunk still further

since then. What caused the shrinking of analysis time? Was the time allotted for

analysis in the 1960s too long? Is the time now allotted too short? What, if any-

thing, should be done about this situation, and who should do it?

6. The TV rating system was designed to help parents distinguish shows

that are appropriate for their children from those that are not. Yet many parents

say that the system does not provide enough information about program content for them to make an informed judgment. Are these parents mistaken, or is a

change in the rating system necessary? If a change is needed, what should it

consist of ?

7. In 1982, in a 5–4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that current and

former presidents enjoy “absolute immunity” from lawsuits seeking monetary

damages for misconduct in office. Justice Byron White, one of the four justices

who opposed the decision, wrote this dissenting opinion: “[As a result of this

decision] a president acting within the outer boundaries of what presidents nor-

mally do may, without liability, deliberately cause injury to any number of citi-

zens even though he knows his conduct violates a statute or tramples on the

constitutional rights of those who are injured.” Do you share Justice White’s

opposition to the decision?

8. National Basketball Association rules forbid players from wagering on basketball games and discourage their wagering on other sports. Is this rule fair, or should it be revised? If you believe it should be revised, specify the revision

you have in mind.

9. Over the years, television information programs have sent undercover

reporters to apply for jobs or purchase automobiles and other products to deter-

mine whether women applicants/consumers are treated differently from men.

The general conclusion has been that many employers and salespeople harbor

negative stereotypes of women—for example, that they are less intelligent than

men, less able to understand complex matters, less interested in matters of sub-

stance, and less qualified to perform work assignments that are more demanding

than answering a telephone or carrying out simple tasks. Is the behavior

depicted in such reports typical of society’s treatment of women, or is it a dra-

matic exception to the rule?

10. In recent years debate has continued, sometimes heatedly, over “family

values.” The principal issues have been whether America has lost them, who has

been responsible for the loss (if, indeed, there has been one), and who can best

rug38189_ch19_206-223.qxd 1/3/11 4:51 PM Page 219

220 PART THREE A Strategy

restore them. Many debaters seem to have taken for granted that the term itself

has one meaning that everyone understands. Is their assumption warranted?

Investigate and determine the meanings of “family values.” If you find signifi-

cant differences in people’s definitions, build a reasonable composite, explain it

thoroughly, and answer the objections critics might raise about it.

11. “What people view on television or in films can’t affect their thinking and

actions,” argue many in the artistic community. Those who disagree point out

that the same artistic community creates public service messages aimed at chang-

ing people’s minds about drinking and driving, having sex without condoms,

and abusing the environment. These critics reason that if a medium has the power

to help, it also has the power to harm, and they urge artists and programmers to

take an honest look at the messages they put on the screen. Which point of view

is more insightful?

12. In Asian cultures marriages traditionally have been arranged for young

people. In our culture young people are free to choose their own spouses. Might

it be a good idea, with our divorce rate soaring and so many families in disarray,

for our culture to follow the Asian custom?

13. Since television became a major entertainment medium in the late 1940s

and early 1950s, the TV commercial has become as familiar as the newspaper. Yet

few people know very much about commercials. How much do they cost? Who

really pays for them? What effects do they have on our lives? Would commercial-

free, pay TV be more desirable?

14. Animal intelligence has been a matter of scientific interest since at least

the time of Darwin. Can animals “think” in any meaningful sense of the term?

Can they form categories (friend, master, my species, and so on)? Are they aware

of themselves and their activities? Do they have a sense of past and future, or do

they perceive only the present moment? What is the most reasonable view of

such issues?

15. Interscholastic and intercollegiate sports competition is as American as

apple pie. To many people the mere suggestion that these programs should be

abolished is the ultimate heresy. But should they be so sacred? Where did the

idea of varsity sports originate? Is it older than intramural competition? What are

its good and bad points?

16. Proponents of a guaranteed annual wage argue that by giving every

adult person an assured amount of money, we would not only eliminate poverty

and its terrible effects but also eliminate an entire bureaucracy—the giant welfare

system—and perhaps even save money. Opponents see more harmful effects.

What are some of those effects? Might they outweigh the benefits?

17. Historically in this country, high school and college athletic budgets have

been divided unevenly, with men’s teams getting a larger share than women’s.

Many object to this unequal treatment; others believe it is justified because men’s

teams traditionally have demonstrated a higher level of skill. Which view is

more reasonable? What changes, if any, should be made in the distribution of

funds?

18. Compulsory education is so common today that we tend to forget it is

a fairly recent historical development. However, some social critics are not only

aware of its recency but also convinced it is no longer a sound idea. In their view

children, even as young as six or eight, should be permitted a free choice of

rug38189_ch19_206-223.qxd 1/3/11 4:51 PM Page 220

221CHAPTER 19 Persuading Others

whether they will study or not and, if they decide to do so, of what and where

they will study. Among the important questions to be considered are these: Why

was compulsory education begun? Was it a good idea then? Have the social

conditions changed significantly since that time?

19. Yale University’s Dr. José Delgado dramatized the effectiveness of electri-

cal stimulation of the brain (ESB) as a means of controlling behavior. He demon-

strated that by “wiring” the brain of a fighting bull and merely pushing a button

that transmits an electrical charge to the animal’s brain, he can stop it in the mid-

dle of an enraged charge. He also established that repeated electrical stimulation

diminishes a bull’s natural aggressiveness. Similar experiments have shown that

chemical stimulation of the brain (CSB) by the strategic placement of tiny tubes

of time-released substances is similarly effective. Some people believe it would

be desirable to use these techniques on criminals or mental patients or students

with certain impediments to learning. Others see any such use as an Orwellian

nightmare. What might be the dangers of the use of such techniques on humans?

Might their use be regulated to minimize abuses?

20. Some argue that the parents of students who attend private and parochial

schools should be allowed to deduct tuition expenses on their federal income

tax forms. For several decades advocates of the idea have argued that fairness

demands it because such parents already support the public schools through

taxes and must at present bear an additional financial burden for exercising free

choice over their children’s education. Opponents argue that the proposal vio-

lates the principle of separation of church and state (at least in the case of parochial

schools) and would harm the public school system. Which viewpoint is more

reasonable?

21. The 1990s witnessed the beginning of a new phenomenon—children

divorcing their parents. What possible effects could this phenomenon have on the relationship between children and parents? Between government and families?

Which of these effects are most likely to occur? Are they desirable or undesirable?

22. Top executives of large corporations often earn millions of dollars a year

in salaries, bonuses, and benefits while the vast majority of people who work for

them earn modest wages, sometimes no more than the minimum hourly amount

required by law. Some people believe that an economic system that permits such

disparity to exist is wrong and should be changed. Others argue that no change

is possible without stifling human initiative. How might the economic system be

changed? Should it be changed?

23. Because journalists serve the important function of collecting information

for public dissemination, they traditionally have claimed the right to keep their

sources of information confidential, even from the courts. That claim has been

challenged many times in the courts, and reporters have on occasion been held in

contempt of court and sent to jail for refusing to divulge their sources. In taking

such action, judges have not denied the basic principle of confidentiality; they

have merely asserted that it has definite limits. Do you agree with them?

24. Some people claim that video games are harmful to young minds. Others,

including some psychologists and educators, believe that, far from being harmful

to children, video games are in some ways helpful. What benefits and/or draw-

backs are there in video games?

25. One of the causes of the antisocial behavior so prevalent today, according

to some analysts, is the fact that the old-fashioned hero has been largely replaced

rug38189_ch19_206-223.qxd 1/3/11 4:51 PM Page 221

222 PART THREE A Strategy

by the antihero. If the media offered more wholesome, virtuous individuals for

young people to model their lives after, these analysts reason, crimes of violence

would decrease. Do you agree?

26. Some believe that adults should be held financially responsible for their

elderly parents when the parents are too poor or ill to care for themselves. Is this

a reasonable view?

27. In the past couple of decades, student evaluations of teachers have become

one common measure of teacher effectiveness. Typically, students are given an

opportunity, toward the end of the term, to fill out a questionnaire and rate their

teachers. The overall ratings are then compiled and become one criterion for

salary raises, promotion, and tenure. Not all teachers approve of students’ evalu-

ating them, however. Some argue that students are not trained evaluators and

can too easily confuse popularity with effective teaching and punish the very

teachers who are serving them best. What is your view?

28. Suppose that a single woman becomes pregnant, has the baby, and then

decides to give it up for adoption. Suppose, too, that the biological father learns

of her adoption decision. Under what circumstances, if any, should he be able to

block the adoption and claim the baby as his own?

29. Some people argue that wealthy people have an obligation to share their

riches with poor people. Do you agree? Does your answer depend on whether

their wealth was honestly or dishonestly obtained (by themselves or their ances-

tors)? If they do have such an obligation, how should it be enforced if they choose

not to honor it? Do rich countries have a similar obligation to poor countries?

30. Most computer software carries a warning against copying, yet many

people feel the warning is unreasonable. They believe that if they buy a program,

it is theirs to do with as they wish, and that includes giving or selling a copy to

someone else. Are they right?

31. The goal of embryonic stem cell (ESC) research is to develop techniques

for replacing damaged cells and thus provide hope for people with numerous

diseases, particularly neurological diseases. Stem cells can be harvested in three

ways: (1) from one’s own body—these cells are the most difficult to obtain but have zero chance of being rejected; (2) from umbilical cords—these cells are easier to obtain but are more likely to be rejected when used outside kinship lines; and

(3) from embryos—these cells are subject to the same likelihood of rejection as those from umbilical cords. Of the three sources of stem cells, only the third is contro-

versial. Those who oppose the use of ESCs for research argue that human life

begins at conception and that therefore, an embryo is a human being whose dig-

nity must be respected. Those who favor using ESCs in research believe that such

use serves humankind and should be not only permitted but encouraged. Should

the use of embryonic stem cells (ESCs) in research receive federal support?

32. Lawyers often defend clients who are guilty of the charges against them.

Is this practice morally right? Does your answer depend on the seriousness of the

offense? For example, would your answer be the same for driving while intoxi-

cated as it would be for murder?

33. Assisting a person to commit suicide is against the law in most states.

Should the law be changed? Why or why not?

34. Fear of contracting HIV/AIDS has caused people to behave in untypical

ways. For example, many refuse to have any social contact with a friend who has

rug38189_ch19_206-223.qxd 1/3/11 4:51 PM Page 222

223CHAPTER 19 Persuading Others

contracted the disease. Dentists and doctors have refused to work on patients

with the disease. Undertakers have refused to embalm victims. Is such behavior

justifiable?

35. To some people the Asian practice of acupuncture is pure superstition; to

others it produces a real anesthetic or curative effect. Which view is correct?

36. For many years it was believed that children who receive early formal

education have an advantage over those who start school at age 5 or 6. Today,

some educators challenge that view. They speculate that intellectual and emo-

tional harm can result from putting very young children into structured learning situations. Which view is the more reasonable one for parents to accept?

37. The increase in violence in this country (and a number of other Western

countries) in recent years has given new currency to an old issue. Are human

beings naturally, instinctively aggressive, or is aggression learned behavior?

38. Many people believe that parents should be held legally responsible for

the acts of their children. This would mean that whenever criminal charges are

filed against a child, the parents would be listed as co-defendants. Is this a fair

and reasonable approach to the problem of juvenile crime?

39. The term tenure means “permanent appointment.” Once teachers receive tenure, they can be fired only for serious cause. Tenure originally was designed

to ensure that teachers would enjoy the right to teach their subject without fear of

punishment for having unpopular views or taking an unorthodox approach to

their subject. This right is known as “academic freedom.” Over the past few

decades, the tenure system has become controversial. Those who oppose it claim

that its principal feature today is no longer the guarantee of academic freedom

but, instead, protection of the mediocre and the incompetent. Those who support

tenure argue that the need for academic freedom has never been greater and that,

far from diminishing the quality of education, tenure increases it. Does the

tenure system help or hinder the process of education?

40. Some people believe that English should be declared the official language

of the United States. They believe that this would encourage assimilation, foster

understanding among citizens, increase citizens’ participation in democratic

processes, and save resources in education and in government. Opponents of the

idea argue that one’s native language is a defining characteristic of a person’s

individuality and therefore that linguistic diversity should be encouraged. In

their view, declaring English the official language of the United States would be

an insult to everyone who speaks another language and a source of disharmony

among U.S. citizens of different backgrounds. Should English be declared the

official language of the United States?

rug38189_ch19_206-223.qxd 1/3/11 4:51 PM Page 223

224

Notes

CHAPTER 1: WHO ARE YOU?

2. Peggy Rosenthal offers a slightly different explanation of the same phenomenon: “Even

when we think we are choosing our words with care and giving them precise meanings,

they can mean much more (or less) than we think; and when we use them carelessly,

without thinking, they can still carry thoughts. These thoughts we’re not aware of, these

meanings we don’t intend, can then carry us into certain beliefs and behavior—whether

or not we notice where we’re going.” Rosenthal, Words and Values: Some Leading Words and Where They Lead Us (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), viii.

3. One example of non sequitur is a child’s answer to his teacher’s question “Why do you get so dirty during playtime?” He responded, “Because I’m closer to the ground than

you are.” Another is the conclusion of a medical authority in 1622 about the treatment

of a wound: “If the wound is large, the weapon [emphasis added] with which the patient has been wounded should be anointed daily; otherwise, every two or three days.” The

medical quotation is from Christopher Cerf and Victor Navasky, The Experts Speak: The Definitive Compendium of Authoritative Misinformation (New York: Villard, 1998), p. 38.

4. See Buck v. Bell, 1927.

5. Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man (New York: W. W. Norton, 1981), p. 335.

6. Michael D’Antonio, The State Boys Rebellion (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004), pp. 5, 18.

7. James M. Henslin, Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach, 7th ed. (New York: Pearson, 2005), pp. 87, 302.

8. Henslin, Sociology, p. 401.

9. Daniel Goleman, Vital Lies, Simple Truths (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985), p. 209.

10. Henslin, Sociology, pp. 5, 56.

11. Quoted in David G. Myers, Social Psychology, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993), pp. 186–87.

12. Cited in James Fallows, Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy (New York: Pantheon Books, 1996), pp. 117–18.

13. Cole Campbell, editor of the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, quoted in Fallows, Breaking the News, p. 246.

14. Ellen Hume, commentator, on Reliable Sources, CNN, June 22, 1999.

15. Larry Sabato, appearing on 60 Minutes, CBS, July 4, 1999.

rug38189_Notes_224-232.qxd 1/3/11 5:05 PM Page 224

225NOTES

16. Diane F. DiClemente and Donald A. Hantula, “John Broadus Watson, I-O Psychologist,”

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, http://siop.org/tip/backissues/

TipApril00/Diclemente.htm.

17. Cited in Richard Nisbett and Lee Ross, First Impressions. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980), p. 173.

18. See, for example, Elizabeth F. Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979, 1996).

19. Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book, rev. ed. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972), p. 4.

20. Harry A. Overstreet, The Mature Mind (New York: Norton, 1949, 1959), p. 136.

21. Maxwell Maltz, Psycho-Cybernetics (New York: Pocket Books, 1969), pp. 49–53.

22. Martin E. A. Seligman, Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Life, 2d ed. New York: Free Press, 1990, 1998), p. 288.

23. Viktor Frankl, The Unheard Cry for Meaning (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978), pp. 35, 67, 83.

24. Viktor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning (New York: Washington Square Press, 1963), pp. 122–23.

25. Frankl, Unheard Cry, pp. 39, 90, 95.

CHAPTER 2: WHAT IS CRITICAL THINKING?

1. Chester I. Barnard, The Function of the Executive (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1938), p. 303.

2. James Harvey Robinson, in Charles P. Curtis Jr. and Ferris Greenslet, eds., The Practical Cogitator, or the Thinker’s Anthology (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1945), p. 6.

3. Leonard Woolf, quoted in Rowland W. Jepson, Clear Thinking, 5th ed. (New York: Longman, Green, 1967 [1936]), p. 10.

4. Percey W. Bridgman, The Intelligent Individual and Society (New York: Macmillan, 1938), p. 182.

5. For a remarkably clear discussion of this complex subject, see Mortimer J. Adler,

Intellect: Mind over Matter (New York: Macmillan, 1990).

6. William Barrett, Death of the Soul from Descartes to the Computer (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1986), pp. 10, 53, 75.

7. John Dewey, How We Think (New York: Heath, 1933), p. 4.

8. Dewey, How We Think, pp. 88–90.

9. R. W. Gerard, “The Biological Basis of Imagination,” Scientific Monthly, June 1946, p. 477.

10. Gerard, “Biological Basis,” p. 478.

CHAPTER 3: WHAT IS TRUTH?

1. Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1922), p. 90.

2. Gordon W. Allport and Leo Postman, The Psychology of Rumor (New York: Russell & Russell, 1965 [1947]), p. 100.

3. Quoted in Francis L. Wellman, The Art of Cross-Examination (New York: Collier Books, 1962), p. 175.

4. Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham, Witness for the Defense (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991), p. 137.

5. Time, August 14, 1972, p. 52.

6. “Chaplin Film Is Discovered,” Binghamton (New York) Press, September 8, 1982, p. 7A.

rug38189_Notes_224-232.qxd 1/3/11 5:05 PM Page 225

226 NOTES

7. “Town’s Terror Frozen in Time,” New York Times, November 21, 1982, sec. 4, p. 7.

8. “A Tenth Planet?” Time, May 8, 1972, p. 46.

9. Herrman L. Blumgart, “The Medical Framework for Viewing the Problem of Human

Experimentation,” Daedalus, Spring 1969, p. 254.

11. Cited in Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah (New York: ReganBooks, 1996), p. 144.

12. “Back to School,” New York Times, March 11, 1973, sec. 4, p. 4.

13. “The Murky Time,” Time, January 1, 1973, p. 57ff.

CHAPTER 4: WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO KNOW?

1. Barbara Risman, “Intimate Relationships from a Microstructural Perspective: Men Who

Mother,” Gender and Society 1(1), 1987, pp. 6–32.

2. S. Minerbrook, “The Forgotten Pioneers,” U.S. News & World Report, August 8, 1994, p. 53.

3. Carol Tavris, Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1982), p. 144.

4. Paul F. Boller Jr., Not So: Popular Myths About America from Columbus to Clinton (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), chap. 5.

5. Boller, Not So, chap. 2.

6. Judith A. Reisman and Edward W. Eichel, Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud (Lafayette, La.: Huntington House, 1990).

7. Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture: A World View (New York: Basic Books, 1994), pp. 92–93.

8. Sowell, Race and Culture, chap. 7.

9. A. E. Mander, Logic for the Millions (New York: Philosophical Library, 1947), pp. 40–41.

10. Rowland W. Jepson, Clear Thinking, 5th ed. (New York: Longman, Green, 1967), p. 123.

11. Karl-Erick Fichtelius and Sverre Sjolander, Smarter Than Man? Intelligence in Whales, Dolphins and Humans, trans. Thomas Teal (New York: Random House, 1972), p. 147.

12. Karl Menninger, Whatever Became of Sin? (New York: Hawthorne Books, 1973).

13. Thomas Fleming, “Who Really Discovered America?” Reader’s Digest, March 1973, p. 145ff.

14. “Scientists Say Chinese ‘Discovered’ America,” (Oneonta, New York) Star, October 31, 1981, p. 2.

15. “Shibboleth Bites Dust,” Intellectual Digest, July 1973, p. 68.

16. “Empty Nests,” Intellectual Digest, July 1973, p. 68.

17. “Psychic Senility,” Intellectual Digest, May 1973, p. 68.

18. Time, August 20, 1973, p. 67.

19. Nova, PBS-TV, September 21, 1993.

20. Mortimer J. Adler, “A Philosopher’s Religious Faith,” in Philosophers Who Believe: The Spiritual Journeys of Eleven Leading Thinkers, ed. Kelly James Clark (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), p. 215.

21. Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994), p. 238.

22. Herbert Kupferberg, “Why Scientists Prowl the Sea Floor,” Parade, July 29, 1973, p. 12ff.

23. “Beer Test,” Parade, May 13, 1973, p. 4.

24. Bernard Goldberg, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2002), p. 20.

25. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml,

accessed August 9, 2006.

26. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220, accessed July 11, 2006.

rug38189_Notes_224-232.qxd 1/3/11 5:05 PM Page 226

227NOTES

CHAPTER 5: HOW GOOD ARE YOUR OPINIONS?

1. Cited in Martin Gardner, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (New York: Dover, 1952, 1957), pp. 12–13.

2. “Couple Awaits Resurrection of Their Son,” Binghamton (New York) Press, August 27, 1973, p. 11A. Also “Two Arrested in Son’s ‘Faith Heal’ Death,” Binghamton (New York) Press, August 30, 1973, p. 8A.

3. 20/20, ABC News, July 22, 1982.

4. “Aid for Aching Heads,” Time, June 5, 1972, p. 51.

5. Francis D. Moore, “Therapeutic Innovation: Ethical Boundaries . . . ,” Daedalus, Spring 1969, pp. 504–5.

6. Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion, and Education, vols. 1 and 2 (New York: Appleton, 1904).

7. “Egyptian Artifacts Termed Fakes,” (Oneonta, New York) Star, June 16, 1982, p. 2.

8. “Venus Is Pockmarked,” Binghamton (New York) Press, August 5, 1973, p. 2A.

9. Cited in Carol Tavris, The Mismeasure of Woman (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), p. 199.

10. Nation/World section, Tampa Tribune, May 2, 1999, p. 24.

11. Consumer Reports on Health, August 1999, p. 1.

12. Stanton Samenow, Inside the Criminal Mind (New York: Times Books, 1984).

13. John Locke, The Conduct of the Understanding, part 3.

14. “Hashaholics,” Time, July 24, 1972, p. 53.

15. Walter Sullivan, “New Object Seen on Universe Edge,” New York Times, June 10, 1973, p. 76.

16. Karl-Erick Fichtelius and Sverre Sjolander, Smarter Than Man? Intelligence in Whales, Dolphins and Humans, trans. Thomas Teal (New York: Random House, 1972), pp. 135–36.

17. Ray Marshall and Marc Tucker, Thinking for a Living: Education and the Wealth of Nations (New York: Basic Books, 1992), pp. 17–20.

18. Bill Katz and Linda Sternberg Katz, Magazines for Libraries (New York: Bowker, 1992).

19. A Current Affair, Fox TV, April 28, 1989.

20. “Bars’ Ladies’ Nights Called Reverse Sexism,” Binghamton (New York) Press, January 12, 1983, p. 5B.

CHAPTER 6: WHAT IS EVIDENCE?

1. Joel Best, Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians and Activists (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001), pp. 27–28, 159, 161.

2. Best, Damned Lies and Statistics, pp. 46–48.

3. Victor C. Strasburger, Adolescents and the Media: Medical and Psychological Impact (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publishing, 1995), p. 30.

4. W. I. B. Beveridge, The Art of Scientific Investigation (New York: W. W. Norton, 1951), p. 54.

5. Best, Damned Lies and Statistics, p. 35.

6. Thomas Sowell, “Ignoring Economics,” http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Commentary/com-11_15_05_TS_pf.html, accessed July 8, 2006.

CHAPTER 7: WHAT IS ARGUMENT?

1. Margaret A. Hagen, Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice (New York: HarperCollins, 1997), p. 292.

rug38189_Notes_224-232.qxd 1/3/11 5:05 PM Page 227

228 NOTES

CHAPTER 8: THE BASIC PROBLEM: “MINE IS BETTER”

1. Edwin Arthur Burtt, Right Thinking: A Study of Its Principles and Methods, 3d ed. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1946), p. 63.

2. Ambrose Bierce, Devil’s Dictionary (New York: Dover, 1958), p. 66.

3. Cited in Thomas Gilovich, How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life (New York: Free Press, 1991), p. 77.

4. Edmond G. Addeo and Robert E. Burger, EgoSpeak: Why No One Listens to You (Radnor, Pa.: Chilton, 1973).

5. Gordon Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954), pp. 355–56.

6. G. K. Chesterton, Charles Dickens (New York: Press of the Readers Club, 1942), p. 15.

7. “Theologian: U.S. Too Tolerant,” (Oneonta, New York) Star, May 30, 1981, p. 15.

8. “Jailed Rabbi Seeks Kosher Diet,” Binghamton (New York) Press, May 23, 1982, p. 5A.

9. Reported on Good Morning, America, ABC News, November 4, 1982.

10. “Pregnant Teacher Stirs Town,” Binghamton (New York) Press, December 22, 1982, p. 1A.

CHAPTER 9: ERRORS OF PERSPECTIVE

1. H. L. Gee, Five Hundred Tales to Tell Again (New York: Roy Publishers/Epworth Press, 1955), p. 56.

2. David Hackett Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: HarperPerennial, 1970), pp. 9–10.

3. Solomon Asch, cited in Carole Wade and Carol Tavris, Psychology, 2d ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 1990), p. 669.

4. Nat Hentoff, Speaking Freely: A Memoir (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998).

5. Reported on Hannity & Colmes, Fox News Network, April 3, 2006.

6. Reported in George Will, Suddenly (New York: Free Press, 1992), p. 405.

7. Thomas A. Harris, I’m OK—You’re OK: A Practical Guide to Transactional Analysis (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), pp. 22–23.

8. “Anna Freud, Psychoanalyst, Dies at 86,” New York Times, October 10, 1982, p. 46.

9. Rona and Laurence Cherry, “The Horney Heresy,” New York Times Magazine, August 26, 1973, p. 12ff.

10. “Liberation Lawn,” New York Times, May 23, 1982, sec. 4, p. 11.

11. This approach was used in the 1982 California primary and reported in “Game Show

Prizes Entice CA Voters,” (Oneonta, New York) Star, June 4, 1982, p. 1.

12. This idea was tested by an education researcher, Eileen Bayer. It proved successful.

Fred M. Hechinger, “Grandpa Goes to Kindergarten,” New York Times, October 29, 1972, sec. 4, p. 11.

13. The Reagan administration discussed this plan and indicated it was not opposed to it.

“U.S. Considering National ID Cards,” (Oneonta, New York) Star, May 21, 1982, p. 1.

14. Harry Atkins, “Football, Hockey Are X-Rated,” Binghamton (New York) Press, December 19, 1982, p. 60.

CHAPTER 10: ERRORS OF PROCEDURE

1. Thomas Gilovich, How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of Reason in Everyday Life (New York: Free Press, 1991).

2. Larry Elder, The Ten Things You Can’t Say in America (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000), pp. 24, 44.

3. John McWhorter, Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America (New York: Free Press, 2000).

rug38189_Notes_224-232.qxd 1/3/11 5:05 PM Page 228

229NOTES

4. Jesse Lee Peterson, Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America (Nashville: WND Books, 2003), pp. 1–2.

5. Shelby Steele, White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era (New York: HarperCollins, 2006).

6. Juan Williams, Enough (Crown Publishing, 2006).

7. Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture: A World View (New York: Basic Books, 1992).

8. “FAA’s Regulations Ruffle Feathers of Hang Gliders,” Binghamton (New York) Press, September 3, 1982, p. 1A.

9. Ken Hamblin, Plain Talk and Common Sense from the Black Avenger (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999), p. 34.

10. “Long Sentences Sought for Repeat Offenders,” New York Times, April 25, 1982, p. 63.

11. “Possessed Teen Gets Long Prison Term,” (Oneonta, New York) Star, December 19, 1981, p. 2.

12. “Woman Convicted of Making Ethnic Slur,” (Oneonta, New York) Star, May 14, 1982, p. 2.

13. “High School Class Uses Human Cadavers in Lab,” Binghamton (New York) Press, December 15, 1982, p. 2C.

CHAPTER 11: ERRORS OF EXPRESSION

1. Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice (New York: Free Press, 1999), p. 18.

2. Quoted in Christopher Cerf and Victor Navasky, The Experts Speak: The Definitive Compendium of Authoritative Misinformation (New York: Villard, 1998).

3. Cerf and Navasky, The Experts Speak.

4. Henry B. Veatch, Rational Man: A Modern Interpretation of Aristotelian Ethics (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962), p. 43.

5. Karla Valance, “This Time, the Rebel’s on the Right,” Christian Science Monitor, January 27, 1983, p. 1B; George Basler, “Student Paper Urges Theft and Graffiti,” Binghamton (New York) Press, January 25, 1983, p. 1F.

6. “Witch’s Church Tax Free,” (Oneonta, New York) Star, April 8, 1982, p. 17.

CHAPTER 12: ERRORS OF REACTION

1. Rowland W. Jepson, Clear Thinking, 5th ed. (New York: Longman, Green, 1967 [1936]), p. 81.

2. Harold Kolansky, M.D., and William T. Moore, M.D., “Toxic Effects of Chronic

Marijuana Use,” Journal of the American Medical Association, October 2, 1972, pp. 35–41.

3. David G. Myers, Social Psychology, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993), p. 148.

4. “Bar License Church Veto Struck Down,” Binghamton (New York) Press, December 14, 1982, p. 4A.

CHAPTER 13: THE ERRORS IN COMBINATION

1. David G. Myers, Intuition: Its Powers and Perils (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2002), p. 101.

2. H. L. Gee, Five Hundred Tales to Tell Again (New York: Roy Publishers/Epworth Press, 1955).

3. Cited in Robyn M. Dawes, House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth (New York: Free Press, 1994), p. 209.

4. George Will, Suddenly (New York: Free Press, 1992), p. 89. Will cites Norman MacRae as his source.

rug38189_Notes_224-232.qxd 1/3/11 5:05 PM Page 229

230 NOTES

5. “An Exercise in Educational Flimflam,” Parade, May 12, 1974, p. 17.

6. “Court Order Blocks Big Inmate Release,” (Oneonta, New York) Star, December 22, 1981, p. 12.

7. “Ruling Strikes Down Exempt Status,” (Oneonta, New York) Star, March 27, 1982, p. 1.

8. “State Rules Let Gays and Crooks Adopt Children,” Binghamton (New York) Press, August 8, 1982, p. 1A.

9. “Ex-Policeman Says Sex Shift Cost His Job,” (Schenectady, New York) Gazette, August 28, 1982, p. 14.

CHAPTER 14: KNOWING YOURSELF

1. Albert Ellis and Robert A. Harper, A Guide to Rational Living (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975).

2. Reported in First Things, December 1996, p. 58.

3. Burden of Proof, CNN, February 24, 1997.

4. “Bill Limits Link Between Tobacco and Sports,” Nation/World section, Tampa Tribune, February 23, 1997, p. 14.

5. Reported on The Today Show, NBC TV, August 26, 1996.

6. “Questioning Campus Discipline,” Time, May 31, 1982, p. 68.

7. “Holiday Songs Haunt Schoolmen,” Binghamton (New York) Press, December 16, 1982, p. 3A.

8. “Elizabeth Taylor vs. Tailored Truth,” Time, November 8, 1982, p. 71.

9. Interview with Shirley MacLaine, USA Today, June 16, 1983, p. 11A.

CHAPTER 15: BEING OBSERVANT

1. Lawrence K. Altman, “Discovery 60 Years Ago Changed Doctors’ Minds on Heart

Attack Survival,” New York Times, December 10, 1972, pp. 56–57.

2. Earl Ubell, “Lysozyme: One of the Body’s Miracle Workers,” New York Times, November 12, 1972, sec. 4, p. 6.

3. “Attacking Disease,” dialogue between Jacques Monod and Jean Hamburger,

Intellectual Digest, May 1974, pp. 12–14.

4. Richard P. Feynman, “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman” (New York: Bantam Books, 1985), esp. pp. 157–58.

5. Binghamton (New York) Press, March 22, 1989, p. 1A.

CHAPTER 16: SELECTING AN ISSUE

1. “Tragedy May Haunt Mancini,” Binghamton (New York) Press, November 16, 1982, p. 4D.

CHAPTER 17: CONDUCTING INQUIRY

1. Lee Edson, “Will Man Ever Live in Space?” New York Times Magazine, December 31, 1972, p. 10ff.

2. Gordon Gaskill, “Which Mountain Did Moses Really Climb?” Reader’s Digest, June 1973, pp. 209–16.

3. Lucy Burchard, “The Snug Way,” Intellectual Digest, February 1974, p. 67.

rug38189_Notes_224-232.qxd 1/3/11 5:05 PM Page 230

231NOTES

CHAPTER 18: FORMING A JUDGMENT

1. “The 2000-Year-Old Woman,” Time, September 17, 1973, pp. 55–56.

2. Joyce Brothers, “Answers to Your Questions,” Good Housekeeping, November 1993, p. 100.

3. John Leo, “In Search of the Middle Ground,” U.S. News & World Report, March 6, 1989, p. 30.

4. Quoted in Leo, “In Search of the Middle Ground,” p. 30.

5. Barbara Lerner, “Self-Esteem and Excellence: The Choice and the Paradox,” American Educator, Winter 1985.

CHAPTER 19: PERSUADING OTHERS

1. “Scientist Clones Lamb from an Adult Sheep,” Nation/World section, Tampa Tribune, February 23, 1997, p. 14.

2. William F. Buckley Jr., Firing Line, PBS affiliate WEDU, Tampa, Fla., July 7, 1996.

rug38189_Notes_224-232.qxd 1/3/11 5:05 PM Page 231

rug38189_Notes_224-232.qxd 1/3/11 5:05 PM Page 232

233

abortion, 104, 138

absolutism, 108, 145

abstracting services, 182

Adams, Scott, 80–81

Addeo, Edmond, 95

Adler, Mortimer J., 29, 54, 161, 167

advertising, 7–8, 9–10, 75, 128–129

agreement, argument and, 208–209

Alexander, Jane, 187

Allport, Gordon, 96–97

almanacs, 180

Ambrose, Stephen, 28

arguing in a circle, 127–128, 148

argument(s), 83–92

consolidating, 190–191

defining, 83–84

evaluating, 85–90, 194–198

parts of, 84–85

persuasive, guidelines for, 209–215

articles, 181, 190–191

Asch, Solomon, 10

assertions, 186–187

assumptions, 55–56, 104–106, 145, 152

attacking the critic, 140–141, 150

authority, 129, 131, 148–149

automatic rejection, 137–138, 149

background information, 180

balanced view, 200–201

Barrett, William, 18

Beausay, Bill, 113

behaviorism, 9–10

belief(s), 6, 6n, 37, 132, 148–149

Best, Joel, 77

bias

ethnocentrists and, 96

evidence and, 79–80, 115–117, 146

for/against change, 109–111, 146

bibliographic guides, 182

Biden, Joseph, 27–28

Bierce, Ambrose, 11, 95

Billings, Josh, 57

biographical dictionaries, 180

Blair, Jason, 28

blame, 97

body language, 164–165

books, 181–182, 190–191

boxing, 174, 189

Boylston, Zabdiel, 63

Brady, Joseph L., 37

brain, 17–18, 52

Brigham, Carl, 118n

Brothers, Joyce, 196–198

Bruce, Robert, 28

Burger, Robert, 95

Burns, Robert, 158

Bush, George W., 87

Carville, James, 9

causation/cause-and-effect, 38–43

celebrity testimony, 75, 193–194

certainty, 80, 188, 201

Chabel, Marks, 27

change, bias for/against, 109–111, 146

changing the subject, 138–139, 149

Chesterton, G. K., 98

Clinton, William Jefferson, 72, 72n, 140

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 23

common belief, 132, 148–149

Comte, Auguste, 44

conceding points, 211–212

conclusions

of arguments, 84–85, 86–87, 88–90

hasty, 117–118, 146–147, 152

conformity, 107–108, 145

consequences, 62

consolidating arguments, 190–191

contradiction, 126–127, 147–148

Corell, Bob, 58

Cosby, Bill, 116

crime, juvenile, 174–175, 189

critical thinking, 16–31. See also thinking/thought

basic activities in, 24

characteristics, 20–22

defined, 19

discussion and, 25–27

intuition and, 22–23

Index

rug38189_Ind_233-244.qxd 1/3/11 5:06 PM Page 233

234 INDEX

mind and brain and, 17–18

plagiarism and, 27–29

self-inventory, 159–160

writing and, 24–25

critical thinking mode, 67

databases, 182

daydreaming, 19n

de Fort, Charles Silvester, 59

Dean Witter, 128

Delgado, José, 221

Deming, Edwards, 7

Dewey, John, 21, 22

dictionaries, 95, 180

discussion guidelines, 25–27

distinctions, 198–199

Dix, Dorothea, 167

double standard, 117, 146

Draper, Patricia, 188

Duncker, Karl, 102–103

egocentrists, 95–96

egospeak, 95

egothink, 96

egotism, 26

Eichel, Edward W., 49

either/or outlook, 106, 145, 151

Elder, Larry, 116

Elizaldo, Manuel, 53

Ellis, Albert, 161

emotion, appeals to, 130–131, 148–149

encyclopedias, 180

English language resources, 180

Epictetus, 56

errors, 36–37, 65. See also specific error in combination, 144, 150–152

of expression, 126–134, 147–149

of logic, 85

of perspective, 102–114, 144–146

of procedure, 115–125, 146–147

of reaction, 135–143, 149–150

Esposito, John, 201

ethnocentrists, 96–97

evaluating

arguments, 85–90, 194–198

bias and, 79–80

critical thinking and, 19

evidence, 73–80, 193–194

self, 48–50, 158–160

sources, 185–187, 194–198

evidence, 72–82

bias and, 79–80, 115–117, 146

evaluating, 79–80, 193–194

kinds of, 73–79

sufficiency of, determining, 80, 187–190

exaggeration, 203–204

experience, 73–74, 179, 193

experiments, 76, 194

experts, 36, 63–64, 76, 194

expressing judgments, 199–204

expression, errors of, 126–134

arguing in a circle, 127–128, 148

contradiction, 126–127, 147–148

false analogy, 129–130, 148

irrational appeals, 130–132, 148–149

meaningless statement, 128–129, 148

mistaken authority, 129, 148

recognizing and dealing with, 147–149

extravagant assertions, 186

eyewitness testimony, 74–75, 193

face-saving, 135–136, 150, 151, 152

facts, 68, 178, 180, 185, 212–213

faith, 54–55

false analogy, 129–130, 148

feeling(s), 18–19, 98, 130–131

Feynman, Richard, 166–167

field experiments, 76, 194

Fischer, David Hackett, 106

Fleming, Alexander, 166

formal observations, 78, 194

Frankl, Viktor, 12–13, 14, 167

Franklin, Benjamin, 63

free will, 40–41, 43

Freud, Anna, 161

Freud, Sigmund, 110–111, 161, 167

Frost, Robert, 110

Galileo, 36, 109

Gates, Bill, 185

generalizing, 118–119, 119n, 120

Gilbreth, Frank and Lillian, 167

Gilovich, Thomas, 115

Glover, Ian, 53

Goethe, Johann Wolfgang, 23

Goldberg, Bernard, 56

Goleman, Daniel, 5

Gomberg, Edith, 64

Gonzalez, Elián, 134

Goodwin, Doris Kearns, 28

Google, 183, 184

Gould, Steven J., 118n

groups, 36–37, 119, 199

guessing, 55–56

habits, 41, 110

Hall, G. Stanley, 63

Harris, Sidney J., 158

hasty conclusions, 117–118,

146–147, 152

Headland, Thomas, 54

Heiss, Jerold, 52

rug38189_Ind_233-244.qxd 1/3/11 5:06 PM Page 234

235INDEX

Henry, Carl F., 99–100

Henslin, James, 5

Hentoff, Nat, 107

Herrick, James B., 165

hidden premises, 89–90

hoaxes, 53–54, 185

Holmes, Oliver Wendell, 7

Horney, Karen, 111

Humphrey, Nyles, 53

ideals, 62

ideas, 6–7, 24–25, 27, 198–199

inconclusive results, 178–179

indexes, 181, 182

individuality, 4–15

acquiring/earning, 13

ideas and, 6–7

manipulation and, 8, 9–10

mass culture and, 7–9

psychology and, 11–13

time and place and, 4–5

information deficiency, 35–36

information sources, 179–187

consolidating arguments from,

190–191

evaluating, 194–198

experience and observation as, 179

plagiarism and, 27–29

types of, 180–182

Web-based. See Internet informed opinion, 65–67, 178

InfoTrak, 182 inquiry(ies), 178–191

efficiency in, 187

inconclusive results and, 178–179

information sources, 179–187

Internet strategies, 183–187

lengthy material in, managing, 190–191

sufficiency of evidence in, 80, 187–190

types of, 178

intellectual property, 27

intelligence tests, 6–7, 118, 118n

Internet, 182–187

accessing sites, 183

evaluating sources/sites, 185–187

plagiarism and, 28

search engines, 183–184

sites by topic, 184–185

interpretation, 24

intuition, 22–23

investigation, 24

irrational appeals, 130–132, 148–149

issues, 171–177

less is more rule and, 171–172

limiting focus of, 172, 176

sample issues, 173–175

James, William, 35

Jepson, Rowland W., 135

John Paul II (pope), 100

Johnson, Samuel, 6

Jones, Paula, 140

journal articles, 181, 190–191

judgment(s), 24, 192–205

distinctions and, 198–199

evidence and, 193–194

expressing, 199–204

sources’ arguments and, 194–198

truth and group judgment, 36–37

juvenile crime, 174–175, 189

Katz, Bill and Linda Sternberg, 68

Kekule, Friedrich August, 22–23

Kennedy, Robert, 27

Khomeini, Ayatollah, 200

Kim, Duk Doo, 174

Kinnock, Neil, 27

Kinsey, Alfred, 48, 49

knowing/knowledge, 47–58

achieving, 50–51

difficulty of knowing, 51–53

faith and, 54–55

obstacles to, 55–56

requirements for, 47–48

self-knowledge, 158–161

self-test, 48–50

Tasaday cautionary tale, 53–54

Koch, Robert, 63

Koo, Wellington, 153

!Kung bushmen, 188

Kwolek, Stephanie, 167

laboratory experiments, 76, 194

Lanegran, Kimberly, 27

Leibnitz, G. W., 18

lengthy material, 190–191

LensCrafters, 128

Leo, John, 200–201

Lerner, Barbara, 201

less is more rule, 171–172

Lewis, Sinclair, 105

Lindzen, Richard, 58

listening, 26, 164–165

Locke, John, 18, 65

Loftus, Elizabeth, 35

logic, 84–85

Lombardi, Vince, 170

Mackay, James A., 28

MacLaine, Shirley, 163

magazine articles, 181

Maltz, Maxwell, 11, 12

Mancini, Ray, 174

rug38189_Ind_233-244.qxd 1/3/11 5:06 PM Page 235

236 INDEX

manipulation, 8, 9–10

Marshall, Barry, 64

Marshall, Ray, 67

Marx, Karl, 44

Maslow, Abraham, 12, 14, 49

mass culture, 7–9

McDonagh, Sean, 53

McWhorter, John, 116

meaningless statement, 128–129, 148

media. See also advertising celebrity testimony, 75, 193–194

discussion and, 25

evaluating information from, 185

individuality and, 7–9

pornography in, 173

violence and sex in, 41

medicine, 63–64, 165–166, 182, 184–185

memory, 10, 35

Menninger, Karl, 52

mind, 17–18

mindless conformity, 107–108, 145

“mine-is-better” perspective, 94–101

change and, 110

controlling, 97–98

egocentrists and, 95–96

errors and, 150

ethnocentrists and, 96–97

mistaken authority, 129, 148

mistaken opinions, 61

moderation, appeals to, 131, 148–149

Molony, Carol, 53

Monod, Jacques, 166

moral judgments, 61–63

Morison, Samuel Eliot, 28

Morris, Dick, 140

Muhammad, 200

Myers, David, 141

New York Times, 28 newspaper articles, 181

Noll, Mark, 55

Obama, Barack, 186–187

obligations, 62

observation(s), 164–170

facilitating, 168

formal, 78, 194

as information source, 179

of people, 164–165

range of, 166–167

reflecting on, 168–169

in science and medicine, 165–166

opinion(s), 59–71

argument and, 83

errors in, 36, 63–65

as evidence, 76

expert, 194

forming responsibly, 67–68

informed vs. uninformed, 65–67

inquiry into, 178

mistaken, 61

on moral issues, 61–63

overgeneralizing, 119, 120, 147

oversimplification, 120–121, 147, 151, 152

Overstreet, Harry A., 10

Owens, Susan, 52

paraphrasing, 28, 29

Parrish, Michael, 64

Partridge, Eric, 180

passive learning, 50

Pavlov, Ivan, 9

perception, 34–35

personal agendas, 26

personal attacks, 186

personal experience, 73–74, 179, 193

perspective, errors of, 102–114

absolutism, 108, 145

bias for/against change, 109–111, 146

either/or outlook, 106, 145, 151

mindless conformity, 107–108, 145

poverty of aspect, 102–103, 144–145

recognizing and dealing with, 144–146

relativism, 108–109, 145–146

unwarranted assumptions, 104–106, 145

persuasion, 206–223

defined, 206

guidelines for, 206–215

sample presentations, 215–217

Peterson, Jesse Lee, 116

place, 4–5

plagiarism, 27–29

politicians, 9, 138

pornography, 172–173, 176, 189

positive approach to argument, 209–210

post hoc fallacy, 121–122, 147

poverty of aspect, 102–103, 144–145

predicate usage, 202–203

premises, 84, 85–87, 88–90

print journalism, 9

probability, 201

procedure, errors of, 115–125

biased consideration of evidence,

115–117, 146

double standard, 117, 146

hasty conclusion, 117–118, 146–147, 152

overgeneralizing and stereotyping,

119–120, 119n, 147, 152

oversimplification, 120–121,

147, 151, 152

post hoc fallacy, 121–122, 147

recognizing and dealing with, 146–147

rug38189_Ind_233-244.qxd 1/3/11 5:06 PM Page 236

237INDEX

psychology, 6–7, 11–13, 161

published reports, 74, 193

qualifications, judgments and, 203

questioning, 19–20

arguments, 86–87, 194–198

evidence, 193–194

self-knowledge, 158–160

source reliability, 185–186

quoting sources, 28, 29

rational appeals, 130, 131, 132

reaction, errors of, 135–143

attacking the critic, 140–141, 150

automatic rejection, 137–138, 149

changing the subject, 138–139, 149

recognizing and dealing with, 149–150

shifting the burden of proof, 139, 149

straw man, 139–140, 149

Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature, 181, 182 reasoning, argument and, 83, 85

reflecting on observations, 168–169

Regan, Thomas, 134

Reisman, Judith A., 49

relativism, 97–98, 108–109, 145–146

relevant evidence, 78–79

religion, 54–55, 104

reports, 74, 193

research reviews, 78–79, 194

respect for audience, 207

Risman, Barbara, 48

Robertson, Ian, 5

Roe v. Wade, 104 Roget’s Thesaurus, 17 Roosevelt, Franklin D., 127

rudeness, 27, 119, 119n

Ruhling, Robert, 53

rumors, 185

Rushdie, Salman, 200

Sabato, Larry, 9

Salazar, Zeus, 53

Samenow, Stanton E., 64

sampling techniques, 77

Satanic Verses, The (Rushdie), 200–201 saving face, 135–136, 150, 151, 152

Schweitzer, Albert, 134

science, 9–10, 165–166, 192–193

search engines, 183–184

self-actualization, 12

self-centeredness, 11, 95–96

self-esteem, 11–12, 52, 201

self-image, 11, 135–136

self-knowledge, 158–163

challenge and reward in, 161

critical thinking inventory, 159–160

as information source, 179

questions assessing, 158–160

self-transcendence, 12

Seligman, Martin, 12

Seneca, 141

sex, 41, 110, 172–173, 176, 189, 196–198

Sheehy, Eugene O., 181

Shepherd, Cybill, 129

shifting the burden of proof, 139, 149

simplification, 120

Simpson, O. J. and Nicole Brown, 127

Socrates, 158

Sowell, Thomas, 119–120

specificity, 202

speech mannerisms, 26

Spencer, Herbert, 44

Starr, Kenneth, 72, 72n

statistics, 76–77, 180, 194

Steele, Shelby, 116

stereotyping, 119–120, 147, 152

Strasburger, Victor, 78

straw man, 139–140, 149

subject (topic), 138–139, 149, 202

summarizing source arguments, 191

surveys, 77–78, 194

Tasaday people, 53–54

Tate, Marsha Ann, 187

Tavris, Carol, 48–49

Taylor, Elizabeth, 163

television, 7–8, 8n, 25, 41, 75

testimony, 74–75, 193–194

thinking/thought. See also critical thinking brain function and, 18, 52

errors in, 85, 126. See also errors feeling versus, 18–19

judgments and, 192

“mine-is-better” perspective, 97–98

poverty of aspect, 102–103, 144–145

synonyms for think, 17

time, 4–5, 215

tolerance, appeals to, 132, 148–149

tradition, appeals to, 131, 148–149

truth, 32–46

attitudes toward, 32–33

cause-and-effect and, 38–43

childhood and, 33–34

as discovery, 37–38

errors and, 36–37

information deficiencies and, 35–36

memory and, 35

perception and, 34–35 Tucker, Marc, 67

uncritical default mode, 67, 68

uncritical thinkers, 21–22

understatement, 210–211

rug38189_Ind_233-244.qxd 1/3/11 5:06 PM Page 237

238 INDEX

Watson, John, 9–10

Web. See Internet White, Byron, 104, 219

Will, George, 40

Williams, Juan, 116

writing, 24–25

Yen, Douglas, 53

Zidane, Zinedine, 19

uninformed opinion, 65–67

unpublished reports, 74, 193

unwarranted assumptions,

104–106, 145

values, 20

Van Buren, Abigail, 141

Veatch, Henry, 132

viewpoint, 185–186, 200–201, 207–208

Voltaire, 134

rug38189_Ind_233-244.qxd 1/3/11 5:06 PM Page 238

rug38189_Ind_233-244.qxd 1/3/11 5:06 PM Page 239

rug38189_Ind_233-244.qxd 1/3/11 5:06 PM Page 240

rug38189_Ind_233-244.qxd 1/3/11 5:06 PM Page 241

rug38189_Ind_233-244.qxd 1/3/11 5:06 PM Page 242

rug38189_Ind_233-244.qxd 1/3/11 5:06 PM Page 243

rug38189_Ind_233-244.qxd 1/3/11 5:06 PM Page 244

Cover Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication
Contents
Preface
Introduction
PART ONE The Context

Chapter 1 Who Are You?

The Influence of Time and Place
The Influence of Ideas
The Influence of Mass Culture
The “Science” of Manipulation
The Influence of Psychology
Becoming an Individual

Chapter 2 What Is Critical Thinking?

Mind, Brain, or Both?
Critical Thinking Defined
Characteristics of Critical Thinkers
The Role of Intuition
Basic Activities in Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking and Writing
Critical Thinking and Discussion
Avoiding Plagiarism

Chapter 3 What Is Truth?

Where Does It All Begin?
Imperfect Perception
Imperfect Memory
Deficient Information
Even the Wisest Can Err
Truth Is Discovered, Not Created
Understanding Cause and Effect

Chapter 4 What Does It Mean to Know?

Requirements of Knowing
Testing Your Own Knowledge
How We Come to Know
Why Knowing Is Difficult
A Cautionary Tale
Is Faith a Form of Knowledge?
Obstacles to Knowledge

Chapter 5 How Good Are Your Opinions?

Opinions Can Be Mistaken
Opinions on Moral Issues
Even Experts Can Be Wrong
Kinds of Errors
Informed Versus Uninformed Opinion
Forming Opinions Responsibly

Chapter 6 What Is Evidence?

Kinds of Evidence
Evaluating Evidence
What Constitutes Sufficient Evidence?

Chapter 7 What Is Argument?

The Parts of an Argument
Evaluating Arguments
More Difficult Arguments

PART TWO The Pitfalls

Chapter 8 The Basic Problem: “Mine Is Better”

Egocentric People
Ethnocentric People
Controlling “Mine-Is-Better” Thinking

Chapter 9 Errors of Perspective

Poverty of Aspect
Unwarranted Assumptions
The Either/Or Outlook
Mindless Conformity
Absolutism
Relativism
Bias for or Against Change

Chapter 10 Errors of Procedure

Biased Consideration of Evidence
Double Standard
Hasty Conclusion
Overgeneralization and Stereotyping
Oversimplification
The Post Hoc Fallacy

Chapter 11 Errors of Expression

Contradiction
Arguing in a Circle
Meaningless Statement
Mistaken Authority
False Analogy
Irrational Appeal

Chapter 12 Errors of Reaction

Automatic Rejection
Changing the Subject
Shifting the Burden of Proof
Straw Man
Attacking the Critic

Chapter 13 The Errors in Combination

Errors of Perspective
Errors of Procedure
Errors of Expression
Errors of Reaction
Sample Combinations of Errors
A Sensible View of Terminology

PART THREE A Strategy

Chapter 14 Knowing Yourself

Critical Thinking Inventory
Using Your Inventory
Challenge and Reward

Chapter 15 Being Observant

Observing People
Observation in Science and Medicine
The Range of Application
Becoming More Observant
Reflecting on Your Observations

Chapter 16 Selecting an Issue

The Basic Rule: Less Is More
How to Limit an Issue
Sample Issue: Pornography
Sample Issue: Boxing
Sample Issue: Juvenile Crime
Narrowing the Issue Further

Chapter 17 Conducting Inquiry

Working with Inconclusive Results
Where to Look for Information
Keeping Focused
How Much Inquiry Is Enough?
Managing Lengthy Material

Chapter 18 Forming a Judgment

Evaluating Evidence
Evaluating Your Sources’ Arguments
Making Important Distinctions
Expressing Judgments

Chapter 19 Persuading Others

Guidelines for Persuasion
An Unpersuasive Presentation
A Persuasive Presentation

Notes
Index