Unit 3: The Value of Critical Thinking

The Value of Critical Thinking

Why Critical Thinking Needs Truth, and Vice Versa

Truth, Objectivity, and News

• Textbook quote re: news: “there’s a big difference between being objective and being perceived as centrist.”

• What does it mean to say a news org is objective or not, or biased or not?

• What does the word ‘objective’ even mean?

• Is it possible for a news org to be objective?

• What about a judge or an umpire/referee?

• Key words:

  • Partial vs. impartial

  • Interested vs. disinterested

    • Interested is akin to “conflict of interest.”

    • Disinterested is different from uninterested.

Objectivity: People or Things?

• A crucial distinction discussions on this topic often overlook: Objective as a descriptor of people vs. a fact or state of affairs.

• Hypothetical possibility:

  • Whether or not people can truly be impartial or unbiased, there may still be objective facts out there in the world.

  • One might be skeptical that people who say they’re being objective (impartial) really are.

Noam Chomsky

• “The indoctrination is so deep that educated people think they’re being objective.” - Noam Chomsky, 2005 interview.

• “Father of modern linguistics” (1950s)

• MIT Professor (1950s-)

• Famous critic of U.S. foreign policy, corporate influence in media, capitalism (since 1960s)

• Author, Manufacturing Consent (1988)

Uncritical Psychology Concept of the Day: Reaction Formation

• “The tendency of a repressed wish or feeling to be expressed at a conscious level in a contrasting form.”

• “A defense mechanism in which people express the opposite of their true feelings, sometimes to an exaggerated extent.” (from Psychology Today)

• Classic examples:

  • Boy makes fun of girl he likes (instead of being nice).

  • Man who feels insecure about masculinity acts extra-aggressive/macho.

  • Man who craves love but is rejected expresses extreme misogyny.

  • (Alternate: man who is secretly misogynistic expresses extreme feminism).

  • Politician who preaches anti-gay platform is secretly gay.

  • Woman with drug or pornography problem preaches abstinence/tee-totaling.

• Why it exists: protects self-esteem/ego (from unacceptable wishes/feelings/reality

• Fun fact: In Hamlet, Queen Gertrude marries shortly after her husband’s death. Commenting on a play wherein an actress says she won’t marry again if her husband dies, the Queen critiques: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

• Fun fact: This concept was developed by Sigmund Freud and his daughter Anna

Uncritical Psychology Concept of the Day: Reaction Formation (continued)

• Sometimes people who insist on the importance of being objective, or say things like ‘facts not feelings’, often do so by shrieking hysterically….

• Hypothesis in some cases:

  • The secret shame of having strong feelings/being ruled by strong feelings is covered up by the conscious attitude of being purely objective and emotionless

• All cases of RF:

  • The refusal to acknowledge the repressed/denied feelings prevents one from thinking critically about them, or handling them in healthier/more productive way

  • “Gives permission” to let unacknowledged feeling run wild, because it’s “not really there”

  • E.g., More boy insists he doesn’t like the girl, more “ok” it is to tease her

  • Note: this makes it appealing to trust the appealing conscious feeling (don’t like), because unconscious (true) feeling is unacceptable…

  • E.g., the more objective you insist you are, the more emotional you can (let yourself) be. But it’s ok, because I’m not being emotional, you’re the one who’s emotional. I’m totally objective…

Big Question: Objective Reality and Truth

• Is there such a thing as objective reality?

• Is there such a thing as objective truth?

• Clarification:

  • Is there a reality that exists independently of the human mind?

  • Is there such a thing as truth—or is anything true—independently of the human mind?

• What this question isn’t asking:

  • Do/can I know what reality is like, independently of the human mind?

  • Do/can I know any objective truths?

  • Are people who say/think they’re ‘objective’ right or wrong?

• Theoretical possibility:

  • Objective reality/truth exists, but we don’t/can’t know it as it is

  • Objective reality/truth exists, but we’re not great at recognizing when we’re being partial/biased

• Metaphysics vs. epistemology

• BUT: That doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as objective reality

Discussion on Objective Truth/Reality

• What reasons/arguments are there in favor of objective truth/reality?

• Do you think there’s objective truth/reality?

• Why/why not?

Michael Lynch: True to Life

• Michael P. Lynch on objective truth

Michael Lynch on Objective Truth

• “If I know anything, it is that I don’t know everything and neither does anyone else.” Lynch, True to Life, p. 10

Michael Lynch on Objective Truth

• “Just because we believe it doesn’t mean it’s true, and just because it is true doesn’t mean we’ll believe it.” Lynch, True to Life, p. 11

An Argument for Objective Truth, Reconstructed

• P1: If nobody knows everything, what is knowable exceeds what is known

• P2: If what is knowable exceeds what is known, what is knowable does not depend on being known.

• P3: If what is knowable does not depend on being known, what is knowable is objective

• P4: if what is knowable is objective, there is at least one objective truth

• C5: If nobody knows everything, there is at least one objective truth [from 1, 4]

• P6: Nobody knows everything

• C7: Therefore, there is at least one objective truth

• C8: There is objective truth

An Argument for Objective Truth, Reconstructed

• P1: If there are beliefs that aren’t true, and truths that aren’t believed, then truth is objective

• P2: There are beliefs that aren’t true, and truths that aren’t believed

• C: Therefore, truth is objective

Relativism

• Some people reject objective truth in favor of relativism

• What’s relativism?

  • Suppose someone said ‘Bob is tall’

  • Bob may be tall relative to people, but short relative to a giraffe

  • Imagine someone said: “yeah, but is Bob really tall?”

  • A relativist about height would say: “There’s no such thing as “really” tall. There’s just tall (or short) relative to some standard…”

Relativism (continued)

• Suppose someone said ‘p is true’

• But what if p is true relative to X, but false relative to Y?

• Imagine someone said: “yeah, but is P really true?”

• A relativist about truth would say: “There’s no such thing as “really” true. There’s just true (or false) relative to some standard…”

Relativism (continued)

• Relativists say things like:

  • “Truth is in the eye of the beholder”

  • “That may be true for you but it’s not true for me”

  • “That’s true relative to you/your culture, but not true relative to me/my culture”

  • “Nothing’s really true. Truth is just socially constructed”

• Implication:

  • Truth depends on someone’s perception or belief

  • Therefore, someone can’t possibly be wrong…

  • Why? b/c if the truth depends on someone’s belief, then that person having that belief (or their culture’s having it) makes that belief true

  • If all truths are relative (to a person/culture), then someone would know everything

  • Why?

    • b/c if there was some truth they didn’t know, that would mean there’s an objective truth..

    • Which would mean relativism is false

Relativism and “Speaking Truth to Power”

• What would it be like to live in a world where truth is (thought to be) relative?

• Imagine someone looks at their society and says

  • ‘This is not how things should be’

  • ‘What society says is wrong’

• Example:

  • Many societies had slavery. Imagine someone saying “society might be ok with slavery, but it’s not true that slavery is ok!”

• But if you’re a relativist about truth, you can’t (coherently) say this!

  • Why? Because if truth is relative to culture, then whatever culture says is true

Relativism and “Speaking Truth to Power” (Lynch)

• Relativism makes it conceptually impossible to “speak truth to power” (for by definition whoever has power speaks truth)

• This prevents the possibility of social progress: how can we say ‘society should change its beliefs’ if everything society says is already true (by definition)?

• Discussion:

  • Is this right?

Relativism Undermines Argument

• Related argument: Suppose taste is entirely subjective (e.g., it’s subjective whether x is delicious)

• There’s no point/ no real possibility of disagreement/argument/persuasion

• If each person right by definition, what is the dispute over?

• and how could you possibly prove your point?

• Plausibly:

  • Intellectual disagreement requires some independent fact about which two people disagree.

• Implication:

  • Relativism would make disagreement nonsensical;

  • How can we/what’s the point of arguing (presenting reasons, evidence…) if everyone is right from their own point of view?

Relativism Replaces Argument with Force

• Leading question:

  • If there’s no point to giving reasons/citing (objective) evidence, but you wanted to change someone’s mind (or perception), what could you do?

• Lynch:

  • Relativism collapses the distinction between “rational persuasion and ruthless manipulation.” (p. 40)

  • Why? because if disagreement makes no sense, and there are no objective facts to appeal to, there is only power and manipulation

  • Changing minds by force, not reason.

• Remember the fallacious appeals to force, the people, and authority??

Critical Thinking and Objective Truth?

• Critical thinking:

  • Trying to figure out if what I believe is actually true

  • Looking to evidence and arguments to figure out what’s true; not just believing something b/c someone w/ power says it…

  • (or because it’s what everyone else believes…)

  • Trying to convince people by appealing to reason, not emotion or desire…

• Discussion Question:

  • Fair to say critical thinking presupposes or requires objective truth? Why/why not?

Objection: Intolerance?

• Sometimes people worry that belief in objective truth entails intolerance or chauvinism

• E.g., I’m/we’re right and they’re wrong

• Lynch:

  • It’s dogmatism, not objectivity, that entails intolerance (p. 33)

  • Objectivity is not only compatible with but should encourage fallibilism

  • Infallible: can’t possibly be wrong…

  • Fallibilism: because one can be wrong, one should be open to new/other ideas

• Recall

  • Objectivity implies the possibility of being wrong

  • Why? Because if the truth is independent of me/my group, I might not know it

Michael Lynch on Objective Truth

• “If I know anything, it is that I don’t know everything and neither does anyone else.” Lynch, True to Life, p. 10

Michael Lynch on Objective Truth

• “Just because we believe it doesn’t mean it’s true, and just because it is true doesn’t mean we’ll believe it.” Lynch, True to Life, p. 11

Objection: Intolerance? (Lynch)

• It’s not objectivism but relativism that can’t avoid intolerance! [twist!]

• Why? because if I’m a relativist and you/your culture believes in intolerance, I have no grounds to say that you’re wrong!*

• So, it’s certainty and dogmatism that are bad, not objectivity.

• Fun fact: this is known as “the paradox of tolerance”, introduced by Karl Popper.

Four “Truisms” (Lynch)

• Lynch defends what he calls four “truisms” about truth [ch. 1 title]

  • What’s a “truism”?

    • An obvious, trivial, or trite claim

  • Huh? So why would one bother to defend “truisms”?

    • Lynch: because many people have actually denied them…

• The four truisms:

  1. Truth is objective

  2. Truth is good

  3. Truth is a worthy goal of inquiry

  4. Truth is worth caring about for its own sake

• We just looked at the defense of 1). We’ll come back to the others…

Addendum: Avoiding Possible Misconceptions

• Lynch thinks some people have rejected the truisms b/c of confusions about key ideas

  • i.e., some ideas/claims are wrongly associated with the truisms (p. 20)

• Examples: People sometimes think they mean…

  • objectivity entails intolerance [we just saw this one]

  • there is only One Truth

  • only pure reason can access truth

  • truth is mysterious or mystical

  • truth is esoteric, only accessible by a privileged few

  • we should pursue the truth at all costs Lynch’s response:

• There are many truths, many of which can be accessed by regular observation. It is not mysterious or mystical. It’s accessible to anyone, and it’s quite familiar….

• And while many truths (and truth itself) is important, other things matter too…

Addendum: Avoiding Possible Misconceptions

• An illustration of some of these confusions, from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

  • “Archeology is the search for fact, not truth. If it’s truth you’re interested in, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.”

• Fun fact: Harrison Ford was a philosophy major, and Dr. Tyree was not a character in the movie- he was Ford’s irl professor!