Teaching Critical Thinking

It appears that most people have not been taught basic skills in thinking. They don't understand what constitutes "evidence" or "proof"; most have little idea as to what "logical errors" are, or the difference between "faith" and "knowledge". They are taught by television and radio ads to confuse feelings with thought. Many do not have any real idea as to how one goes about solving problems.

As a result, many grow into adults who are easily manipulated and led, who act on their impulses and feelings without thought, who are scarcely above the level of primitive primates in their thinking. Yet they are expected to deal with a very complex political and economic world. They are expected to know how to vote and on what to base their opinions, other than how they have been told to feel by others.

What if we taught a course in critical thinking in the schools? We could give them the tools to distinguish argument from demagoguery. We could teach them how to know when they are being sold snake oil or eternal youth pills and how to evaluate the evidence for a particular idea or set of ideas. They would learn the basics of the scientific method and how to apply those techniques to everyday problems.

We certainly have no hesitation in teaching children religious thinking, and expect them to accept as proof things they are told and for which there is no evidence. Why should we not teach them how to think critically? Critical thinking itself is not anti-religious, and it is not a "theory". It is a set of tools, like algebra, that have wide applications. Learning to question what we are told, how to look for the errors in arguments, learning how causality works and does not work, all these are important skills. Without them people are little wiser than herds, which may well be what the corporate world wants them to be.

Uncle Charley Discusses Prayer

Uncle Charley was over for dinner last week. "I just came from a prayer meeting", he began.

My wife gave me a look which clearly meant "Here we go again".

Trying not to provoke anything, I said "That's nice, Charley. Didn't know you were religious".

"I ain't," Charley said. "But I like to know what the opposition is talking about, in case I have to hang out with them."

"I'm guessing they were talking about prayer," I said as neutrally as possible. My wife gave a barely-audible sigh and reached for her wine glass.

"Well, they were asking God to save them from a calamity, like that tidal wave that hit Japan. And they were thanking God for the ones he saved."

"I know you have some kind of problem with that, or you wouldn't have brought it up. So what's your objection?"

"Let me ask you something," Charlie said. "You think those people in the meeting believe that God can intervene and save folks?"

"I'm sure they do believe that," I said. "They wouldn't be there if they didn't."

"So why didn't God save all those people in the first place? I mean, if they think God could save some of 'em, why didn't he save 'em all? Among them hunderd thousand or so people, there musta been at least some nice ones, kids and babies even, ... Didn't they deserve help?"

"Some of them did get saved," I answered. "I don't know why some and not others."

"You think the ones that died or got hurt deserved it?"

"No. I don't think that," I said.

"Seems to me you got a pretty basic contradiction in yer thinking. If God is responsible for saving people, which I guess is why you thank Him, then he has to be responsible for the ones who died or got hurt as well. They seem to be thanking God for not having been quite as bad as he could have been."

"Wait a minute..." I said.

"If God can save people, and he doesn't, then he should be held responsible. We sue people for not doing things they oughta do to save somebody."

"That's been a problem since people first started thinking about some kind of Supreme Being. The problem is how to account for evil or bad things that happen. Either just one boss is in charge of everything, including evil, or he isn't. So if you want a loving god, you gotta separate duties. Mostly people have decided that some other junior god must be in charge of evil."

"Well then," Charley said, "since there's a whole lot more bad stuff happening than good, the evil side must be mostly in charge. Because if God allows the Devil to do bad things, he's just as responsible as the Devil. It's called a 'criminal conspiracy' or somethin' like that. If God was here we'd have to arrest him."

I thought about it for a minute. "When the illogic of the whole thing is brought up, religious people usually give as an excuse that there are things we just aren't meant to understand, like God's reasons for things."

"That's just about as lame an argument as you could possibly come up with. We got brains that can think. We gotta judge what happens with the brains we were given, just simple old human brains. So in our human world, we got to judge things with the equipment we got. We'd never accept from some other mass murderer that we simply can't understand his reasons for killing a lot of people. To jail he'd go. So God is guilty by all the standards of reason I can think of."

I said, "The real problem, I think, is that we all need to think that the universe is governed by either God or logic or both. We don't want to think that things happen to us randomly, even though the evidence is overwhelming. When you try to force random things into a logical pattern, you get some weird explanations."

"On the idea that 'weird explanation' is better than none at all?" Charley asked?

"I guess so," I said.

Charley laughed, reached for his wine glass. He bumped the salt-shaker over and quickly set it upright."

"Oops," he said. He picked up a pinch of salt from the table and tossed it over his shoulder. "Fer good luck", he said with a grin.

Uncle Charley and High-School Dropouts

Charley and I were walking past the high school a few days ago. The young people were doing their usual horsing around like young people all over the world.

"Nice to see them having a good time," I said.

"See that little group over by the new Ford in the parking lot?"

"Sure," I said. "They're smoking, I think."

"Probably weed, if I ain't mistaken. Look again."

"I think you're right. Somebody needs to put a stop to that. How are they going to get an education if they're stoned?"

Charley laughed. "Yer just not thinking right. Why do you want for them to get an education?"

"How are they going to make something of themselves if they don't?"

"See, that's the point. They're making somethin' of themselves. Day labor! We need to be able to compete in the national day-laborer market. We need people who can stock groceries and wash cars and fix roofs, and right now people from other countries got the market on that."

"You're serious?" I asked.

"More serious than a brain tumor. Look, we need cheap labor. Those idiots over there in the parking lot signin' up for digging ditches. They're not gonna be running companies or even goin' to college. They're gonna be sacking groceries or working for Walmart or running for office. We need grocery sackers and garbage collectors! We need them to work real cheap! If they all go to college, whose gonna mow yer lawn?"

That stopped me. "Charley, that's... that's not...'"

"It's not liberal or somethin' like that. I know. You want everybody to be educated. You can lead students to books but you can't make 'em think. Some of 'em are too dumb to know they need it, and those are the ones I need to clean my septic tank. All they're doing in school is to hold the others back and wear out the teachers."

"I'll have to think about that one, Charley".

"I'm not talking about refusing to teach 'em. I'm just suggesting we let the ones that don't want an education go free. Maybe give them work to do in school, get 'em ready for the assembly line. I got a plan to keep 'em from voting too, but I'll tell you another time. When yer not so overcome."

"Thanks, Charley," I said weakly.

Why I Think Inheritance Taxes Are Good

The only way to prevent money (=power) from accumulating in the hands of a family, especially a family member who has neither motivation or brains to earn it him/herself, is to impose a confiscatory inheritance tax. The children of a brilliant entrepreneur should have no right to money they have not earned. Do we need more Paris Hiltons?

There are huge problems with doing so, of course. What to do with the money collected is important. It is also important to prevent a profitable company from being forced out of business. People think it is important to be able to provide for their offspring, though this issue is a cultural one rather than a real issue. There is no real reason why adult, competent and educated adults should be "provided for" by wealthy parents. Nonetheless, many parents are strongly (and wrongly) motivated to dd this and will undoubtedly attempt to find clever ways to circumvent any attempt to bring their children "down" to the normal level.

In an egalitarian society, every child shoud have the same opportunities. No society in which parents raise their own children can be truly egalitarian. Wealthy families have richer cultural opportunities. So, while it isn't really possible to start all children off with the same advantages, they can certainly be "evened out" to a great degree. For instance, money collected from taxing inheritances can be earmarked to provide nearly equal educational rights to all. Scholarships can be awarded to children who show intellectual promise and who are economically disadvantaged. Money can be spent to raise the standards of "ghetto" schools. Just because such a system can't be made trick-proof doesn't mean it can't be made to improve the educational system.

The intent is obviously two-fold. It is desirable to prevent families from accuring such wealth that they become oligarchs, potentates of small or large empires. It is desirable to assure that children have a more equal chance at higher levels of education. Such a system may not be perfect, but it can be "good enough" to be a benefit.