How do we know?

Many questions. Answers, not so much.

How do they know that? Did a bunch of behavioral scientists and nutritionists put an ad in the New York Times for people who might be willing to participate in a study about bananas? Did those who answered the ad wonder if the study was about the taste of bananas? Or maybe was it about the nutritional value?Would the scientists be sticking long needles in their arms to draw blood for testing? Were they relieved to find the scientists just wanted to know if bananas made them feel better? And how would the behavioral scientists and nutritionists know why they felt better? Maybe they feel better because they’re being paid for participating in the study and after they ate the requisite number of bananas, they could finally be able to buy some real food. Or maybe they could just say they felt better. I mean, wouldn’t everyone feel better after downing just one banana, sufficiently soft and squishy and relatively flavorless? Right?

Whether bananas make you feel happy or at least less irritable or less depressed is not a subject for critical thinking. Or perhaps it is, but if so, I think critical thinking would be better directed to something more purposeful.

critical thinking - Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.

You must have known there would be at least one definition! I warned you about my affinity for definitions some months ago. But it makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? If we don’t all speak the same language, how can we possibly communicate?

So, critical thinking. The definition above, is from the University of Louisville, in Kentucky.

Here’s another definition of critical thinking: Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

That extended definition is from The Foundation for Critical Thinking, in Santa Barbara, California.

Here’s the definition of critical thinking from Wikipedia, slightly less academically-inclined:

Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments in order to form a judgement by the application of rational, skeptical, and unbiased analyses and evaluation. The application of critical thinking includes self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective habits of the mind, thus a critical thinker is a person who practices the skills of critical thinking or has been trained and educated in its disciplines.

I’m going to consider the first two definitions, i.e. keep them in the back of my mind, but intend to use the Wikipedia definition, just because it sounds slightly more practical and slightly less esoteric.

The origins of critical thinking can be traced back to Socrates, as written by Plato. Socrates took it upon himself to have a discussion with others about the ethics of escaping from prison; i.e. whether it would be right or wrong.

Note: the prisoner pictured above is definitely NOT Socrates.

Plato wrote that Socrates concluded it would be wrong to escape prison, based on his belief in the general order.

And further, that to escape prison would violate everything he believes to be greater than himself: the laws of Athens. (Think: No one is above the law.)

I wonder if donald j. trump ever considered

#1. the ethics of wrongdoing:

#2. Whether a moral dilemma is created by wrongdoing,

and if he has ever contemplated such questions,

#3. if it affected his behavior.

I’m thinking No, No, and No.

We would do well at this point to remember the difference between morals and ethics. Having morals means knowing the difference between right and wrong. Having ethics means actually behaving in such a way as to demonstrate the moral difference. (We could probably find 17 different explanations of the difference between morals and ethics and they would get mixed up with religion and personal morals versus community morals — See? Let’s just use the simple explanation above and Plato’s writing regarding Socrates’ thoughts, ok?)

All of the definitions of critical thinking assume the ‘thinker’ is thoughtful and disciplined. You might have expected “educated” to be a part of the definition, and it could be a helpful part of the equation, but using that word indicates formal education as opposed to a level of intelligence, which incidentally are not necessarily the same thing. And since this was all Socrates’ idea, and he didn’t attend Harvard, I think we can rely on an individual being thoughtful and disciplined.

While I am a firm believer in critical thinking, there is this to consider: “The application of critical thinking includes self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective habits of the mind.”

That’s a lot of “self” required. And then the issue becomes this: If I have considered “available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments in order to form a judgement by the application of rational, skeptical, and unbiased analyses and evaluation” and if you did the same, it’s quite possible that the two of us could come to different judgments and conclusions. Rational, skeptical and unbiased - that’s a pretty tall order.

If you have listened to interviews of MAGA believers, or if you have had the misfortune to discuss current politics with one of more MAGAs (I’m so sorry, if you have), then you know how sincerely these people believe that they have listened to facts, evidence, observations and arguments (all directly from trump’s mouth; i.e. no disinterested parties provided information) and have formed a judgement that he is God’s messenger of hope for America, by having applied rational., skeptical and unbiased (well, maybe not that) evaluation to the question.

“Critical Thinkers” is not the first definition that would come to mind to describe these two.

And those Americans who are not MAGA believers, could say that they had done the same.

Now, we can’t have a country of 300,000,000+ people considering facts and forming judgements all on their own, right? With no instructions or boundaries or ground rules? So, it seems to me we all, Americans, obviously, need to agree on some basic facts, before any of us can be termed “critical thinkers.”

What happened to common decency, dedication to the truth? To hearing it, to speaking it, to learning it, and basically that most laws are there for good reason. (There are always a few whose reasons escape me.) And law enforcement and the legal systems will be most happy to explain such laws to you if you cross the line. Laws in this country apply to everyone.

And there we are. Right in the middle of today’s politics. I’m becoming quite weary of it and I imagine you are too. I don’t think there is a solution to today’s political scenario other than a free and fair election that everyone can agree on. I don’t know how things will turn out. You don’t either. No one knows. There is as much speculation as there are people with voices. And this year, a free and fair election, no matter how free and no matter how fair, is going to leave one side really beyond upset.

No one is above the law. Our civil society is built on that premise.

You might think we have strayed from critical thinking. And maybe we have. But it all comes back to those bananas. How do we know? How do we know it’s the bananas that calm us down? Maybe it was just sitting down and looking out the window at a red cardinal when we were sloshing that banana around that made us feel better.

No, the cardinal had nothing to do with feeling more calm. Truth be told, there was probably never a cardinal within 13 miles of the study. Likely, the study had strict parameters and the participants were carefully monitored. Blood pressure would be a good indicator of levels of relaxation. So would MRIs. Physicians can tell now which part of the brain is activated or relaxed by the colors in certain areas. And that, my friends, is the limit of my medical expertise. Let’s just agree that the study was handled in a scientific and careful manner. And it produced the results reported above— that bananas will help you feel less agitated, less angry and/or less depressed.

The results, then, can be relied upon as an example of behavior, a baseline, if you will, a basic set of facts, where eating bananas is concerned. We can rely on that study because the study had rules and guidelines and guard rails.

America has its own set of rules, guidelines and guard rails. We have a Constitution. The Constitution, in its various Articles and Amendments, sets out how our government is built; how power is distributed — in general, a set of blueprints for the structural framework of our government.

The Constitution is supported, and its authority has become more specific and far-reaching over the years, by a set of federal laws (U.S.C./United States Code) and rules which are implemented by regulations (Code of Federal Regulations.) As our country grew, and became more complex; and as new inventions in products, transportation, education and various issues etc. grew along with it, a need for expanded laws to control some activities became necessary.

So, we do have a baseline of behavior in this country. These are sets of rules that explain how the government works and citizens’ relationship to that government and citizens’ responsibilities within the structure of laws and rules.

These are the basic set of facts on which we should all agree.

Having said that, let’s take another look at the definition of critical thinking:

“Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments in order to form a judgement by the application of rational, skeptical, and unbiased analyses and evaluation. The application of critical thinking includes self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective habits of the mind; thus a critical thinker is a person who practices the skills of critical thinking or has been trained and educated in its disciplines.”

If we were to use critical thinking in determining who to vote for in primaries and in general elections, that’s the general process we should use. The various candidates present their evidence, the facts etc. Then we must look at the presentation of information from the various candidates and determine #1 who reveres and respects the Constitution and the “norms” created by centuries of behavior and #2 who abides by the laws of this country him/herself and demonstrate it by his/her own behavior and finally, #3 whose plan most clearly represents our own perception of the future path we would like the country to take. And it’s also imperative to support a candidate who speaks the truth — who doesn’t twist facts or manipulate information to make it sound like the truth.

So, that’s the plan. Are you in? You don’t have to agree with me on outcome. Just on process. Critical thinking. A basic set of facts upon which we all agree.

The hope is we could elect a president who loves America as much as we do. The one who will ensure these symbols — the American flag and Lady Liberty — will still mean something after November.

###

You know what to do! Click the “leave a comment” button and let me know if you plan to use critical thinking when choosing a candidate to support.