The first thing to make clear is that the word “critical” in critical thinking doesn’t mean “negative”, as in “My wife says I’m a terrible singer--why is she so critical?” Rather, it means something more like “evaluative”. To think critically is to evaluate beliefs, claims and decisions carefully--not in order to bash them, but to make sure they’re supported by logic and evidence. And here's the hard part: it's not just about evaluating other people's beliefs and decisions. It’s even more crucial that we evaluate our own. As the physicist Richard Feynman said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool."
The education scholar Robert H. Ennis has a nice, short definition of critical thinking:
Critical thinking is reasonable and reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do.Let’s take a closer look at that definition. First of all, critical thinking is “reasonable”. Have you ever noticed that the word “reason” can mean “thinking logically or rationally” as well as “a statement given as justification for a claim”? That’s no accident. When we engage in reasoning, we try to make sure we have good reasons for what we believe. We don’t just say, “I believe it because it’s true!” Well, some people do, but not people who are being reasonable.
Not only is critical thinking reasonable, in Ennis’ definition, but it’s also reflective. Good critical thinking requires us to constantly reflect on our own reasoning, to make sure we aren’t jumping to conclusions based on insufficient reasons. We have to think about our own thinking.
Finally, the goal of critical thinking is “deciding what to believe or do”. Critical thinking can be devoted to deciding what’s reasonable to believe, but another important goal is deciding what’s reasonable to do. You might use critical thinking to decide whether to believe in God, but you might also use it to decide which house to buy, or who to vote for. None of these are trivial decisions. What we believe, and what we do, has important consequences--not just for us, but for other people, like our children or fellow citizens. That’s why critical thinking is so important.
What to Believe vs. What to Do
The distinction between decisions about beliefs and actions brings us to the word “rationality”. “Rationality” is often used as a synonym for “reasonableness”, but it can be used in different ways in different fields, and the differences are worth mentioning. Many scholars distinguish between epistemic rationality, or rationally deciding what to believe, and instrumental rationality, or rationally deciding what to do. When economists and political scientists talk about rationality, they’re usually talking about instrumental rationality. They tend to see rationality in terms of maximizing utility. Why did I choose to go on vacation instead of spending the money on a new car? To an economist, it’s because that decision maximizes my utility.
I could get into defining exactly what utility means, but I won’t, because this blog isn’t about that kind of rationality. Rationality in the sense that economists are talking about isn’t really about deciding what’s true, or what’s morally right, but what’s advantageous. Some people might maximize their utility by seeking truth and goodness, but others might maximize theirs by being a selfish liar. If you’re a little uncomfortable with this amoral idea of rationality, well, so am I. But most scholars of instrumental rationality are perfectly moral people, and fields like decision theory, behavioral economics, and game theory are full of deep insights that really can help you make better decisions.In this blog I'm more interested in what is true and right than what maximizes utility.
Notes on Rationality
What to Believe vs. What to Do
The distinction between decisions about beliefs and actions brings us to the word “rationality”. “Rationality” is often used as a synonym for “reasonableness”, but it can be used in different ways in different fields, and the differences are worth mentioning. Many scholars distinguish between epistemic rationality, or rationally deciding what to believe, and instrumental rationality, or rationally deciding what to do. When economists and political scientists talk about rationality, they’re usually talking about instrumental rationality. They tend to see rationality in terms of maximizing utility. Why did I choose to go on vacation instead of spending the money on a new car? To an economist, it’s because that decision maximizes my utility.
I could get into defining exactly what utility means, but I won’t, because this blog isn’t about that kind of rationality. Rationality in the sense that economists are talking about isn’t really about deciding what’s true, or what’s morally right, but what’s advantageous. Some people might maximize their utility by seeking truth and goodness, but others might maximize theirs by being a selfish liar. If you’re a little uncomfortable with this amoral idea of rationality, well, so am I. But most scholars of instrumental rationality are perfectly moral people, and fields like decision theory, behavioral economics, and game theory are full of deep insights that really can help you make better decisions.In this blog I'm more interested in what is true and right than what maximizes utility.
Rationality ≠ Rationalizing
It’s easy to confuse the word “rationality” with “rationalizing”, but those are two very different things. In fact, they’re in direct opposition to each other. Rationality--at least in the sense of epistemic rationality--is about choosing what to believe based on good reasons. It moves from reasons to a conclusion. Rationalization goes in the opposite direction--it starts with a claim about what’s true or right, and then seeks out reasons to justify that claim (to yourself or others). Rationalization is actually one of the great enemies of rationality.
It’s easy to confuse the word “rationality” with “rationalizing”, but those are two very different things. In fact, they’re in direct opposition to each other. Rationality--at least in the sense of epistemic rationality--is about choosing what to believe based on good reasons. It moves from reasons to a conclusion. Rationalization goes in the opposite direction--it starts with a claim about what’s true or right, and then seeks out reasons to justify that claim (to yourself or others). Rationalization is actually one of the great enemies of rationality.
Logic, Emotion, and Compassion
While a lot of people think of reason as the opposite of emotion, that’s not necessarily true. Strong emotions can get in the way of reasoning, of course, but emotions like fear and empathy can sometimes help us make better decisions. The neurosurgeon Antonio Damasio has found that people with brain injuries that keep them from experiencing emotions normally can be prone to very bad decisions. Fear, for example, can help us give the appropriate motivational weight to options we’re considering. If I come to a dark alley in a high-crime area and think, “I should go that way and get home faster”, a little bit of fear might help me make a better decision.
Another good thing to remember is that you can be an expert on logic or decision theory and still make awful decisions. Kurt Gödel, probably the greatest logician of the 20th century, was so paranoid about being poisoned that he starved himself to death. John Von Neumann, perhaps the single smartest person of the 20th century, was instrumental in designing modern computer architecture as well as game theory, which is essential to strategic decision-making. But Von Neumann’s game theory calculations made him certain that the Soviet Union would destroy the United States with nuclear weapons, so he advocated a first strike which would have killed tens of millions of people. This made him one of the models for Dr. Strangelove, the madly “rational” scientist in the movie of the same name. Genius though he was, von Neumann was wrong. The Soviet first strike never came, and if the US had struck first, we would have committed the greatest atrocity in history.
So, while logic and other methods of formal reasoning are great, they aren’t infallible. They can be wrong. When making decisions that might cause great harm, erring on the side of caution and compassion can be the rational thing to do. As I'll mention many times in this blog, being reasonable is about more than cold, formal logic
While a lot of people think of reason as the opposite of emotion, that’s not necessarily true. Strong emotions can get in the way of reasoning, of course, but emotions like fear and empathy can sometimes help us make better decisions. The neurosurgeon Antonio Damasio has found that people with brain injuries that keep them from experiencing emotions normally can be prone to very bad decisions. Fear, for example, can help us give the appropriate motivational weight to options we’re considering. If I come to a dark alley in a high-crime area and think, “I should go that way and get home faster”, a little bit of fear might help me make a better decision.
Another good thing to remember is that you can be an expert on logic or decision theory and still make awful decisions. Kurt Gödel, probably the greatest logician of the 20th century, was so paranoid about being poisoned that he starved himself to death. John Von Neumann, perhaps the single smartest person of the 20th century, was instrumental in designing modern computer architecture as well as game theory, which is essential to strategic decision-making. But Von Neumann’s game theory calculations made him certain that the Soviet Union would destroy the United States with nuclear weapons, so he advocated a first strike which would have killed tens of millions of people. This made him one of the models for Dr. Strangelove, the madly “rational” scientist in the movie of the same name. Genius though he was, von Neumann was wrong. The Soviet first strike never came, and if the US had struck first, we would have committed the greatest atrocity in history.
So, while logic and other methods of formal reasoning are great, they aren’t infallible. They can be wrong. When making decisions that might cause great harm, erring on the side of caution and compassion can be the rational thing to do. As I'll mention many times in this blog, being reasonable is about more than cold, formal logic
No comments:
Post a Comment