Learning How to Think Again- The Pathway to Effective Citizenship

Learn Which Tools are Used Most Often in the Public Square to Manipulate Your Thinking

Jan 26, 2024

We are in 2024, an election year, a year I call “the Year of the Precipice” for our democracy. To better equip Americans to exercise their civic duty this year, we have begun a series in Democraticus examining important ways of thinking and belief systems that can have a major impact on our democracy’s future. Critical thinking is one of the most essential of those skills.

Our Thinking Skills Affect What We Do as Citizens

“…a religion is when your savior dies for you, a cult is being asked to die for your savior…”[1] Joy Reid, Journalist and Political Commentator

We began the last Democraticus diving into what many believe is the most important skill Americans must have to properly perform their democratic civic duty- critical thinking. And lest you wish to minimize the importance of critical thinking in a democracy, keep in mind journalist Joy Reid’s words above as we enter the world of how we think and its impact on our behavior as citizens in a democracy.

We Have Become Vulnerable as a Nation

Without critical thinking, we citizens become highly vulnerable to manipulation. However, as Concordia University’s website observes:

“…Unfortunately, critical thinking is not held in high esteem in our society. It is not a skill that is valued, supported, encouraged, taught or reinforced.”[2] (emphasis mine)

We have examined what critical thinking actually is, what it is not, and its historical roots. We also have examined the state of Americans’ critical thinking today, the cost of citizens’ decreased thinking in a democracy, and the mode, impact, and limitations of the mode of thinking we tend to use most- binary thinking.

Now it is time to delve into other modes of thinking, learning how to identify them, the methods and techniques used to impede our critical thinking, and how they can used to our detriment as citizens.

Different Ways of Thinking and Self-Deception

Oz Chen advocates for the “antithesis of binary thinking”, what he calls “spectrum thinking”. This kind of thinking involves considering multiple options, alternatives, and possibilities in the “gray zone”[3]. Spectrum thinking helps keep us from falling into the “either-or, black or white” of binary thinking. But, there are also ways we deceive ourselves into thinking a particular way that are often to our own detriment. Concordia University, using the work of philosopher Richard Paul and educational psychologist Linda Elder[4] to cite some of the most common self-deceptive thinking in use today:

“Egocentric thinking: What I believe is true, even though I have never examined the basis of my belief.

Socio-centric thinking: I take on the beliefs of the dominant group, even though I have never examined the basis of these beliefs.

Wishful thinking: I believe what I want to believe because it makes me feel good, it fits with my other beliefs, it is easier to believe this, it makes me look better, etc.

Self-validated thinking: I believe what I have always believed, even though I have never examined the basis of these beliefs.

Selfish thinking: I believe that which gets me what I want, such as power, money, privilege, fame etc.”[5]

Introducing a Chief Enemy of Critical Thinking

While we must learn to recognize the limitations of our binary thinking, as well as learn to recognize the varieties of our own self-deceptive thinking, perhaps a more important critical thinking skill is learning to identify “logical fallacies. According to MindTools:

“A logical fallacy is a statement that seems to be true until you apply the rules of logic. Then you realize that it’s not. Logical fallacies can often be used to mislead people- to trick them into believing something they otherwise wouldn’t. The ability to discern a valid argument from a false one is an important skill. It’s a key aspect of critical thinking, and it can help you to avoid falling prey to fake news…”[6] (emphasis mine)

The Many Varieties of the Logical Fallacy

The logical fallacy is used frequently today in American politics. The late astronomer-scientist Carl Sagan (1936-1994), in his book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, gave us his list with descriptions of the various types of logical fallacies people use to prove up their arguments or attempt to make them more persuasive:

1. “Argument from authority. Someone expects another to immediately believe that a person of authority or higher knowledge is correct.

Argument from adverse consequences. Someone says that something must be done a certain way or else there will be adverse consequences.
Appeal to ignorance. One argues a claim in that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa.
Special pleading. An arguer responds to a deeply complex or rhetorical question or statement by, usually, saying "oh you don't understand how so and so works".
Begging the question. An arguer assumes the answer and makes a claim such as, this happened because of that, or, this needs to happen in order for that to happen.
Observational selection. Someone talks about how great something is by explaining all of the positive aspects of it while purposely not mentioning any of the negative aspects.
Statistics of small numbers. Someone argues something by giving the statistics in small numbers, which isn't very reliable.
Misunderstanding of the nature of statistics. Someone misinterprets statistics given to them.
Fallacy of inconsistency. An arguer is very inconsistent in their claims.
Non sequitur. This is Latin for "it doesn't follow". A claim is made that doesn't make much sense, such as "Our nation will prevail because God is great".
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Latin for "it happened after, so it was caused by." An arguer claims that something happened because of a past event when really it probably didn't.
Meaningless question. Someone asks a question that has no real meaning or doesn't add to the argument at all.
The excluded middle. An arguer only considers or mentions the two opposite extremes of the conversation and excludes the aspects in between the two extremes.”[7]

Three Most Frequently Used Logical Fallacies

Perhaps the three most used logical fallacies in the civic square are questionable cause, false equivalence, and proving non-existence. Since they are used so frequently, they merit a brief explanation of them so they can be easily spotted:

· Questionable cause is concluding one thing caused another simply because they are regularly associated.[8] In logical form, the argument would be stated: A is regularly associated with B, so A causes B. Said in a ridiculous example, “Every time I go to sleep, the sun goes down. Therefore, my going to sleep causes the sun to set.” As silly as this argument sounds, the questionable cause fallacy is used frequently today.

Possibly the reader remembers former President Trump blaming increased testing for rising corona virus infections. While certainly testing and confirmation of infection are related because one follows the other in function, testing in and of itself does not increase infection. It did reveal more infection, something that President Trump viewed as a bad thing for him politically. Determining actual causality requires three things- 1.) that X came before Y, 2.) that the observed relationship between X and Y did not happen by chance alone, and 3.) that there is nothing else that accounts for the X and Y relationship.[9]

· False equivalence is when an attempt is made to compare and draw equivalence between two things based on the presence of a few shared features when, in fact, the two things are not alike on the relevant aspects.[10] For purposes of illustration, an absurd example of a false equivalence argument would be: “Dogs have tails and feet, and so do cats. Therefore, dogs are equivalent to cats.” Obviously, use of this logically fallacy argument is usually a bit more sophisticated than this.

One false equivalence argument in the public square one hears from gun control opponents is: “guns cannot be banned just because they hurt and kill people because cars do that too. If we ban guns, we must ban cars”. Note how the argument on guns is exaggerating how similar guns and cars are in order to compare them. Also, note the similar features in this argument that are focused upon which are not relevant to the conclusion drawn. “Apples and oranges” are being compared in this argument, but a common rhetorical trick is being used to present both as reasonable comparison when one is clearly deficient.[11]

· Proving Non-Existence is a logical fallacy technique that demands that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that thing. In logic form, it works like this: I cannot prove that X exists, so you must prove that it does not exist. If you cannot prove that X does not exist, then X exists.

The Trump campaign and the Republican Party have extensively used this argument post-2020 election. The Arizona Senate President engaged CCN with this exact logical fallacy insisting that because “we” do not know if there was election fraud, it is up to “us” to find it and prove whether it exists”.[12] By the way, in their effort to “prove non-existence”, both Arizona’s and Texas’ election audits failed to turn up substantive election fraud.[13]

Logical Fallacies May Seem Ridiculous, But They are Often Persuasive

British philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) is famous for his quote about who is responsible for proving non-existence in a logical fallacy:

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by the most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense…”[14]

How well is the average American equipped to deal with these logical fallacies that lead to our tendency to binary thinking instead of spectrum thinking? Americans’ responses to events in the public square for the last several years answer that question. We are not well equipped at all. Now more than ever, we need the ability to identify and understand logical fallacies, which, in turn, greatly enhances our critical thinking.

Yet, even acknowledging that we need to be more aware of logical fallacies and “how” we think, as well as how others try to shape our thinking, we cannot escape the fact that critical thinking begins with the “what”.

The Importance of the “What” to Critical Thinking

The “what” involves us taking facts and information, processing it, distilling it, so as to discern truth from falsehood and fabrication, and then arriving at an accurate understanding of events and reality based which creates a context of objective, shared reality. Critical thinking requires accurate and complete content so that there is something to think critically about- knowledge to reflect on, consider, and evaluate. As education author Jonathan Haber puts it: “…one cannot think critically about a subject one knows nothing about.”[15]

Stated somewhat differently, according to Jill Barshay writing for the Hechinger Institute, “…scientists are united in their belief that content knowledge is crucial to effective critical thinking…the best approach is to explicitly teach very specific small skills of analysis for each subject.”[16] As Helen Lee Bouygues of the education focused Reboot Foundation puts it: “…we don’t advocate stand-alone critical thinking courses. Research shows that, while critical thinking can be taught, it can’t be taught on its own- at least not effectively.”[17] Critical thinking becomes not a stand-alone course, but instead is fostered with the teaching of different types of academic subjects while at the same time encouraging the use of critical thinking skills to learn those subjects.

Critical Thinking Requires a Most Important Freedom

Being aware of our lack of content knowledge, our willingness to reject facts and data for making decisions, our own self-deceptive thinking, as well as not being able to identify logical fallacy arguments, we gain clarity. That is, it becomes clearer to us how we can fall prey to misinformation campaigns, such as being told that it is dangerous to get a covid vaccination. Even with all these assaults on our ability to think clearly, critical thinking remains a cornerstone of civic literacy in a democracy.

As the French philosopher, Antoine de Saint-Exupery said: “I know but one freedom, and that is the freedom of the mind.”[18] The ability to critically think adds a third dimension to our concept of freedom, in addition to “freedom from” and “freedom to”- freedom of mind. As mental health professional Steven Hassan puts it:

“…Freedom of mind- which includes critical thinking, pursuing facts, listening to one’s conscience, and acting with integrity- is the foundation of all other freedoms, including freedom of religion.”[19] (emphasis mine)

Freedom of mind may be the most important reason that, before we start banning books, that we first examine the impact of book banning not only on this fundamental freedom, but on our critical thinking ability as well. Without freedom of mind, our critical thinking becomes ineffective.

The Next Step in Learning How to Think Again

This brings us to the next topic in this thought sequence of being strong critical thinkers in order to be civically aware and thus, civically literate. What information and understanding do we have (i.e., the facts) on which we base our critical thinking? What do we know factually about anything, really, especially as it pertains to historical events in our nation that have preceded us- events that shape and affect our nation’s politics, civic life, and governance today? In many cases, because of our lack of knowledge of these facts, these historical events impact us now more than ever, often to our own detriment, and often without even being aware of it. Stay tuned…

We will continue exploring topics like this gone that are not given near enough time and emphasis in our civic education efforts, if they are even taught at all. Democracy is so important. But it’s hard to keep, and it’s easy to lose. It’s up to us, and only us, to protect it. Support democracy, become a Democratist! Spread the word!

[1] Joy Reid Interview with Stephen Colbert, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, July 19, 2021, CBS

[2] What prevents us from thinking critically? - Concordia University, https://www.concordia.ca/cunews/offices/provost/health/topics/critical-thinking/

[3] “Binary vs Spectrum Thinking”, by Oz Chen, Mental Modes, https://ozchen.com/binary-vs-spectum-thinking

[4] Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal life, by Richard Paul and Linda Elder,

[5] What prevents us from thinking critically? - Concordia University

[6] “Logical Fallacies, Spot a Dishonest Argument and Avoid Misleading Others”, MindTools, https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/new/TMC_81.htm

[7] The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The _Demon-Haunted World

[8] “Questionable Cause”, Logically Fallacious, https: www.logicallyfallacious.com/cgi-bin-uy/webpages.cgi?/logicalfallacies/Questionable-Cause

[9] Questionable Cause, Logically Fallacious, Ibid

[10] “Five False Equivalence Examples to Know Before Your Next Argument”, Develop Good Habits, A Better Life One Habit at a Time, https://www.developgoodhabits.com/false-equivalence

[11] “Five False Equivalence Examples to Know Before Your Next Argument”, Develop Good Habits, Ibid

[12] “CNN Confronts Woman Behind Bogus Arizona Audit”, CNN Politics, https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/05/26/arizona-audit-kyung-lah-berman-keilar-intv-newday-sct-vpx.cnn

[13] “Don’t Mess with Texas (Election Results)”, by Joseph Marks, The Washington Post, January 5, 2022, 7:59 a.m. EST, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/05/dont-mess-with-texas-election-results

[14] Russell’s Teapot, Knowino, www.tau.ac.il/~tsirel/dump/static/knowino.org/wiki/Russel%27s_teapot.html

[15] “It’s Time to Get Serious About Teaching Critical Thinking”, by Jonathan Haber, March 2, 2020, Inside HigherEd, https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/03/02/teaching-students-think-critically-opinion

[16] “Scientific Research on How to Teach Critical Thinking Contradicts Education Trends, An Education Researcher Writes that Scientists are United in Their Belief that content Knowledge is Crucial to Effective Critical Thinking”, by Jill Barshay, September 9, 2019, https://www.hechingerreport.org/scientific-research-on-how-to-teach-critical-thinking-contradicts-education-trends/

[17] “How to Teach Critical Thinking in K-12”, by Helen lee Bouygues, November 20, 2020, 2:07pm EST, Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/helenleebouygues/2020/11/20/how-to-teach-critical-thinking-in-k-12/?sh=74be84194760

[19] The Cult of Trump, by Steven Hassan, Dedication Page, Ibid

Democraticus- The Democratist

Discussion about this post