1/10 Ok this is a long one. Here's a new blog post about how to use critical thinking to deconstruct misinformation & identify reasoning fallacies (which can be used to inoculate the public). I apply it to climate change but method works with all topics. crankyuncle.com/using-critical…
2/10 This is based on my critical thinking research with @reasondisabled & @davekinkead. The full paper is at sks.to/criticalclimate but if you only have 3 minutes, I recommend watching Critical Thinking Cafe which introduces our methodology & is good fun
3/10 Here’s a simplified version of our method:
1. Construct argument structure: divide claim into starting assumptions (premises) & conclusion.
2. Check logical validity: does conclusion logically follow from premises?
3. Check premises: are premises true?
1. Construct argument structure: divide claim into starting assumptions (premises) & conclusion.
2. Check logical validity: does conclusion logically follow from premises?
3. Check premises: are premises true?
4/10 For example, let’s deconstruct the argument that there’s no scientific consensus on human-caused global warming because 31,000 science graduates signed the Global Warming Petition Project, a statement claiming humans aren't disrupting climate.
5/10 This claim contains 2 premises: first, a large proportion of scientists dissent against human-caused global warming, & second, people with a science degree are experts on climate change. The conclusion is that there’s no expert consensus on human-caused global warming.
6/10 Is this argument logically valid - does the conclusion logically follow from the premises? Yes, if two premises are true (large proportion of science graduates dissent & science graduates are climate experts), then conclusion (no expert consensus) logically follows.
7/10 Are premises valid? Premise #1 is that 31,000 science graduates = large proportion of science graduates. But there are 10 million+ U.S. science graduations. This premise commits fallacy of Magnified Minority, amplifying the significance of a small dissenting minority.
8/10 Premise #2 is that science graduates are experts in climate change. This premise commits fallacy of fake experts: people who convey impression of scientific expertise but don’t possess the relevant expertise. 99.9% of the signatories have no expertise in climate science.
9/10 By using a systematic critical thinking approach, we identified 2 ways that the Global Warming Petition Project misleads – through the denialist techniques of Magnified Minority and Fake Experts. We can use this info to inoculate people against this misinformation.
10/10 That’s just one example of deconstructing misinformation to identify denialist techniques. I’ll give another example later today but you can check out the whole blog post at crankyuncle.com/using-critical…
