Chapters 9-13 for Quiz Generator PDF

CHAPTER 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-...

CHAPTER 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 *This section copyright © 2006 by MindPower, Inc. used with permission. 102  CHAPTER 9 Errors of Perspective 103 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. 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.  CHAPTER 9 Errors of Perspective 105 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. 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.  CHAPTER 9 Errors of Perspective 107 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 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  CHAPTER 9 Errors of Perspective 109 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. 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.  CHAPTER 9 Errors of Perspective 111 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? 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.  CHAPTER 9 Errors of Perspective 113 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. 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.”  CHAPTER 10 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 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,  CHAPTER 10 Errors of Procedure 117 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 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.  CHAPTER 10 Errors of Procedure 119 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.” 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 Analysis If the students haven’t learned, Students’ failure to learn is some- the teacher hasn’t taught. 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.  CHAPTER 10 Errors of Procedure 121 We know ourselves better than It is true that we know some others know us. 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. 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 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.  CHAPTER 10 Errors of Procedure 123 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? 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.  CHAPTER 10 Errors of Procedure 125 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.  CHAPTER 11 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: 126  CHAPTER 11 Errors of Expression 127 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 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  CHAPTER 11 Errors of Expression 129 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 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  CHAPTER 11 Errors of Expression 131 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. 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.  CHAPTER 11 Errors of Expression 133 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 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.”  CHAPTER 12 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.”) 135 136 PART TWO The Pitfalls A businessperson who makes a mistake a