Posted by
The Interface on Thursday, May 22, 2008 12:22:42 AM
A key component of critical thinking is asking questions, and having the wisdom, insight, and knowledge to ask the right questions. This is a skill largely untaught in any institute of public education and depends upon either experience or specific training. Training in science, where one is supposed to ask questions as part of the scientific method, does not necessarily guarantee one’s ability to ask the right questions. Scientists being human are subject to human faults and foibles just as the neighbor grocer or local car mechanic, and can be driven by nonscientific agendas just as any other individual. (Witness the globaloney™ warming junk science, for example.) This is not to say that scientists are all of the evil variety with hidden agendas, just that they are, indeed, human, and not infallible.
Which leads to one of the first areas in which questions should be asked, and that is the area of verifying the reliability of the data source in any given instance. Not all authorities are equally reliable, and the appeal to authority is actually “fallacious whenever the authority appealed to is not really an authority in this subject, when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth, when authorities disagree on this subject (except for the occasional lone wolf), when the reasoner misquotes the authority, and so forth.”
Authorities in their areas of expertise can speak with authority (um, that’s why they’re called “authorities” in the first place), but when they step outside their area of expertise, their arguments carry no more weight than that of a well educated layman. The methodology of their disciplines may have applicability to other areas, but it does not require a Ph.D. to master and use such methods, so they may still be challenged appropriately (cf. here). And true authorities will not mind if you ask questions of clarification or verification, in contrast to those who have a hidden agenda that might be revealed when the answers to the right questions come to light. For example, Paul the apostle commends the Bereans in Acts 17:11 because they did not take his word alone:
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Note that they “received the word,” but did not do so uncritically. This is not saying that the old rebellious motto of the 60’s and 70’s to “question authority” at every turn has validity. It is saying that a healthy skepticism is appropriate, but the adjective “healthy” includes the possibility of being convinced of the truth by sufficient data. A classic example that contrasts the right attitude and the wrong attitude in which to ask a question is found in the gospel of Luke when we compare the two responses to angelic visitation we have recorded there.
In Luke 1:5-25 we have the story of John the Baptist’s parents, and specifically his father Zacharias. He gets an angelic announcement of the imminent birth of a son, and his response is to ask a question: “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.” (ESV) The angel responds with a rebuke and a punishment, recognizing that this question was a challenge of unbelief, not an honest request for clarification. Shortly thereafter, Mary receives the same kind of angelic visit (Luke 1:26-38) and she, too, asks a question: “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” At first glance, this appears to be the same kind of question, but the angel’s response, and Mary’s response to the angel’s answer, show that something different is going on here. Mary’s question is a question of belief asking how the miracle will be done, not a question of doubt saying she didn’t believe it could be done. Thus, she humbly accepts the message with “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.”
Another line of questioning truly requires some background knowledge and that is to determine details of data collection and integrity, and of the data analysis. Is the logic used to assemble the data into a model appropriate? Was all available data used to formulate the model, or was a subset excluded, and if so, why? Asking questions of methodology is a skill that can readily be taught. Having the knowledge to process the answers to such questions requires training and experience as well, but can be done by anyone given the time and effort to do so. One just has to put down the video game, turn off the TV, and go educate yourself with some substantial input. It also helps here to learn to recognize logical fallacies and rhetorical methodologies.
Finally (for this post at least), there are questions particularly useful in breaking through rhetoric to reveal underlying assumptions. Such questions do not form an argument so much as to reveal what is going on by way of underlying false/inaccurate assumptions.
As an excellent example of a question of this nature, I will turn to an eminent authority on argumentation found in this past Sunday’s Dilbert cartoon (18 May 2008) where we find a very interesting exchange between the PHB (that’s Pointy Haired Boss for those of you not a part of Dogbert’s New Ruling Class) and Alice, the engineer (famous for her Fist of Death). In it, Alice responds to the PHB’s criticism with an interesting series of questions that turns typical liberal arguments on their head, while illustrating an important question that has a general utility in this election season relevant to thinking critically about the candidates (I’ve added the emphasis on the critical question):
PHB (first frame): “Alice, I can’t give you the maximum raise because you don’t respect other people’s differences.”
Alice (delivered over the course of 6 frames): “Why are you discriminating against me for my intolerance? If I am intolerant for some genetic reason, then I can’t help it. And if I’m intolerant because I can’t learn to be otherwise, then obviously I have a learning problem. Why is it acceptable for you to be an idiot but not acceptable for me to notice it? You need to start appreciating me for my intolerance! And while I’m at it, allow me to mention that a monkey’s seat cushion has better views than what I’m looking at right now.”
PHB (last frame): “I’m not quite sure where to go with this.”
Alice: “Ooh! Ooh! I have a suggestion.”
For humor’s sake, the question in the cartoon is a veiled DH0 level disagreement, and thus not an argument of merit. But it is refreshingly blunt enough to rise above the ordinary and get your attention. It reveals the underlying assumptions of the PHB, that PC tolerance means all differences are equally valid. Now let’s raise the level of argumentation and phrase the question with data in a specific example like this:
Mr. Obama, why is it acceptable for your wife to trash this country and spout Marxist drivel [these are objective facts clearly shown by simply playing back recordings of her speaking], but not acceptable for us to notice it?
Or perhaps
Mr. Obama, why is it acceptable for you to clearly say you will talk with murderous thugs of terrorist regimes who threaten our very lives, but not acceptable for us to notice it and call it what it is?
Thus the generic form of this question becomes
Why is it acceptable for you [whomever that “you” might be] to [insert objectionable/fallacious policy, behavior or words here], but not acceptable for me to notice it/address it?
The art and science of asking the right questions will become increasingly important as this election cycle draws to a close and decisions must be made at all levels of government. Let’s commit ourselves to mastering it, and then teach your children the skill as well. Now, why is it acceptable for you to remain in a state of ignorance, but not acceptable for me to notice it?