Here we are again talking about critical thinking. I would love for this to be a course taught at primary school, junior high, high school, and then tested before college or university admissions. Maybe then it would be widespread enough to do some good.
The latest is regarding the current pandemic (coronavirus, covid-19, or more precisely, Sars-CoV-2), and when and how to reopen the country’s economy.
There’s a letter that’s been delivered and is making the rounds instigating for the rapid reopening of the economy. What’s different about this letter is that it is signed by 600 doctors. Yes, these are 600 physicians advocating for abandoning the stay at home orders and getting going.
Of course when I first saw the headline I thought, ‘600 doctors? Perhaps I should read what they have to say?’
It didn’t take long before I figured out that these were 600 pro-Trump doctors who were responding to his call for medical people to get the word out to open up. Their message was tainted with politics, as if their medical credentials have any bearing on political thought, and full – no chock-full – of anecdotes and assertions. No real science behind their claims to begin with, and the two people cited in the news articles were both conservative bloggers, one of whom has a decidedly conspiratorial flavor to the posts on their blog.
This came to me on a Facebook post, and after reading the article and doing a bit of research (again, I didn’t need much), I responded with my critique of their claims, and pointed out their blatant political bias. I compared their insertion of political opinion (including references of losing freedom and becoming accustomed to “Government handouts”), to the CDC’s measured and science-based approach that is void of any political messaging. The response that I got from the original poster called attention to how I had advocated trusting experts, and questioned why I wasn’t doing so now. It also challenged that the government experts must have bias too.
The short of it is that I broke down how and why I came to my conclusion, and how and where I saw bias. I pointed out that while these were indeed doctors and had relevant knowledge, they weren’t experts at all. Maybe I should say, not the best experts. At least not compared to those who work at the CDC and spend their careers studying infectious disease and epidemic spread. Just asking the simple question of “which do you believe?” I will place my bet with the CDC over a group of doctors whose claim aligns with and seems to respond to the request of a narcissist looking for help in his November re-election bid.
The longer of it is that in her questions and response was this underlying assumption that since they were all doctors I should accept their claims and their expertise. There was also this certainty that the government (insert boogeyman music here) is lying and has their own hidden agenda. And further, though not stated directly in the relevant response, the belief that this is a matter of choosing who we trust based on whether or not they align with pro or anti government platforms.
It is in these dialogs that I hear non sequiturs, false equivalencies, and other logical fallacies. And of course heaping helpings of conspiratorial nonsense.
So I have to ask, why don’t people think critically?
I have often been accused of having a closed mind, of not doing my own research, of blindly believing the “official story.” But of course the opposite is mostly true. Both in my approach and in theirs. I do read and listen to government claims critically, as I do with most claims, especially if they line up with something I feel like I’ve always known to be true. The point with this last is that the more certain I am about some old belief, the more I wonder when was the last time I questioned that belief. This leads me to careful re-examination of the subject to ensure that I am not deceiving myself, or building an argument on a false premise. But like I said, the error in on their side too. It is most often they who do not critically examine the claims that inform their beliefs. They are too quick to assume anti-government means truth.
I’ve been there in the past myself. Someone blows your mind with a revelation about something that heretofore you had little of no knowledge, and you feel like a window of truth has been opened to you. Without critical thinking you may be in for a lifetime of using that old assertion to view the subject. It can indeed blind you to other views, and convince you, as evidence against becomes harder to refute, of a greater and greater conspiracy. Soon the “enemy” is seen as duped, then as corrupt, then as evil, and eventually shape-shifting reptilian overlords.
It bodes of a mindset that demands acceptance of a viewpoint without critical examination. The claims made against the government agencies, whether it be the FBI, the FED, the CDC, or others, are all accepted and those agencies actions must be scrutinized for small signals that reveal their guilt; but at no point do they ever critically examine the claims that inform their suspicions. Things that should be obvious with Occam’s Razor in mind are instead warped into increasing levels of hoop-jumping to believe. The simple question of “which is more likely to be true?” is answered so poorly it is clear that they cannot consider the question rationally. They are the blind followers. They are the close-minded. They are sheep that they so very much like calling others.
Which is more likely to be true?
The CDC, which has a mission of protecting people from disease, and is staffed with career scientists and doctors who specialize in this very field, and has consistently provided beneficial warnings, advice, and action in these goals; along with all of the other national and world bodies who are so created, are putting out the best advice available? Or are they actually intensionally misleading the public in complete coordination with those aforementioned other bodies to deceive the public for some as yet un-evidenced nefarious intent?
Sure it is important to be skeptical of any organization, especially one that has governing authority over you, but in lacking actual expertise in disease control, do you trust them, or 600 doctors (a tiny fraction of the medical community) who have a clear political agenda?
This isn’t hard.