A short thread on critical thinking. To be critical is not to be contrarian, opposed, or anti--it's to be open for the possibility that you might have gotten it wrong. So, the more time/effort you've spend thinking critically about something, the more errors you'd have discarded.
That's where an 'expert' should be: they have, ideally, spent a lot of time studying some phenomenon and know a lot about it. So they would have already discarded plenty of false explanations. Unfortunately, getting an advanced degree doesn't automatically provide such expertise.
In other words: you should not accept someone's authority on a subject because of their titles/degrees. So, when I say something about the economy (my expertise), you should, if you disagree, push back, ask penetrating questions. It's likely that one of us got something wrong.
This happens to economists all the time, and it is great that people disagree and have opinions. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen nearly as much to physicists and other experts. They too should get critical questions and the opportunity to provide their rationale and reasoning.
But that is as far as critical thinking goes: the discussion on why certain beliefs or positions are chosen. You may choose to not believe the rationale. You can question the validity and continue to ask questions and debate the issue. That's fine and good if done productively.
What is not good is to then stick to your guns and dismiss the explanation as dogmatic because you disagree with the conclusion. That's not them being dogmatic--it is you. It's not critical thinking to dismiss all explanations and present none yourself. It's quite the opposite.
This happens all the time when discussing markets, which are simply voluntary exchanges in the abstract. You may not like or trust markets, but your inability to find a flaw in the argument for markets gives you a right to dismiss neither the argument nor the persons making it.
Core to critical thinking is to reconsider one's position in the face of better argument. It doesn't mean that argument is flawless, but it means you need to consider it on the same terms as your own. Which is the stronger one? Then form a new opinion. Anything else is dogmatic.
(If you don't like the new thread format, blame @saifedean--it's his fault. 😜)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
