Old-fashioned Critical Thinking

Nowadays critical thinking seems all too frequently to refer to critical social justice theory, which seeks to liberate marginalised identity groups from oppression. Feminism, critical race theory, post-structuralism, queer theory and forms of postcolonialism are examples. I’ve discussed this on my blog (https://applingtesol.wordpress.com/2023/09/04/the-social-turn/), but here I’d like to say a bit about what critical thinking used to refer to, namely taking charge of your own mind.

Critical thinking is disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence. Critical thinkers are by nature skeptical; they approach texts with suspicion and are on guard against fallacies, i.e., common errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument. A few of the commonest fallacies are these:

1. Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim. Example:

Well-conceived (lexically-informed) coursebooks help learners learn better than badly-conceived (grammar-informed) coursebooks.

2. Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Example:

She’s good at communicating because she's great at talking to people.

3. Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments. Example:

UG is over-theorised speculation, not surprising when you consider Chomsky is a committed ?anarchist. ?

4. Ad populum: An emotional appeal that speaks to positive or negative concepts rather than the real issue at hand. Example:

If you were less interested in proving yourself right by giving obscure academic references, you would appreciate what I’m trying to say.

5. Red Herring: A diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. Example:

The figures may not be 100% accurate, but what you say is undermined by your resort to?gratuitous insults.

6. Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent’s viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.

Jan: “In CELTA, I think we should?look at alternatives to the current end of course exams, such as portfolios.”

Hilary: “If you abandon the?established and proven ways of objectively assessing?students’ knowledge and competencies, then you undermine the high standards we’ve set for the course.”???

Jan didn’t suggest abandoning all assessment.?

7. Moral Equivalence: This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major wrongs. Example

Your?suggestion that he writes badly and can’t put together a coherent argument?is a deplorable attack on his human rights.?

When studying for an MA or when walking through life, one of the very best things you can do is keep your antenna up and, to mix metaphors, sniff out baloney.

Thinking critically involves never believing what you’re told without question. Sniffing out?fallacies is one of the best mental exercises there is and you should make it a habit.?Whenever you read a text, particularly if it’s the?work of anybody in authority (academic, political, whatever), first check for logical fallacies.?Then, try to?detect the assumptions which inform the?argument:?what does the argument rest on??

Just for fun, here’s a logic quiz. Say if the following are valid or invalid arguments:?

1. Socrates is a philosopher.

All philosophers are poor.

So Socrates is poor.

?Valid Or Invalid

2. Whenever Anil is here, Kumar is also here.

Anil is not here.

So Kumar is not here.

??Valid Or Invalid

3. Most drug addicts are depressed people.

Most depressed people are lonely.

So most drug addicts are lonely.

??Valid Or Invalid

4. Nothing that is cheap is good.

So nothing that is good is cheap.

??Valid Or Invalid

5. If there is an earthquake, the detector will send a message.

No message has been sent.

So there was no earthquake.

??Valid Or Invalid

6. John said that everyone loves Mary.

Nothing that John has said is true.

So nobody loves Mary.

??Valid Or Invalid

7. If there is life on Mars, then Mars contains water.

If Mars has ice, it contains water.

There is ice on Mars.

So there is life on Mars.

??Valid Or Invalid

8. All roses are flowers.

Some flowers fade quickly.

So some roses fade quickly.

??Valid Or Invalid

9. Our government should either spend less or raise taxes.

Raising taxes is impossible.

So our government should spend less.

??Valid Or Invalid

10. If John is guilty, so is Peter.

If Peter is not guilty, Jeremy is guilty.

So if John is not guilty, Jeremy is.

??Valid Or Invalid

And, as a test of your understanding of probability, try the following rather famous puzzle.

Imagine that you are a contestant on a television game show. You are shown three large doors. Behind one of the doors is a new car, and behind each of the other two is a goat. To win the car, you simply have to choose which door it is behind. When you choose a door, the host of the show opens one of the doors you have not chosen, and shows you that there is a goat behind it. You are then given a choice; you may stick with your original choice, or you may switch to the remaining closed door.

What should you do to maximize your chances of winning the car? Think about it for a while, and when you have decided, read the two arguments below and decide which is right.

? Argument 1: Suppose you choose door number 1. The probability that the car is behind door 1 is initially 1/3 (since there are three doors, and the car has an equal chance of being behind each). Then suppose the host opens door number 3 and shows you that there is a goat behind it. We then need to calculate a conditional probability–the probability that the car is behind door 1, given that there is a goat behind door 3. Since there are only two doors left, and there is an equal chance that the car is behind each of them, this probability is 1/2. But similarly, the probability that the car is behind door 2, given that there is a goat behind door three, is also 1/2. So whether you stick with door 1 or switch to door 2, your chance of winning is 1/2. So it really makes no difference whether you switch or not.

? Argument 2: Suppose you choose door number 1. There are three possibilities; either the car is behind door 1, or door 2, or door 3. Each of these possibilities has the same probability (1/3). In each of the three cases, consider which door the host will open. If the car is behind door 1, the host could open either door 2 or door 3. In this case, if you stick with your original choice you win the car, but if you switch to the remaining door you lose. If the car is behind door 2, the host will open door 3. In this case, if you stick with your original choice you lose, but if you switch, you win. Finally, if the car is behind door 3, the host will open door 2. Again, if you stick with your original choice you lose, but if you switch, you win. Remember that each of the three possibilities has a probability of 1/3, and note that they are mutually exclusive (the car is only behind one door). If you switch, you will win in two cases out of three (probability 2/3), but if you stick you will only win in one case out of three (probability 1/3). So you should switch doors, since it doubles your chance of winning.

Which argument do you think is right, Argument 1 or Argument 2?

......................................................................................................................................................................

Here are the answers:

1. Socrates is a philosopher.

All philosophers are poor.

So Socrates is poor.

Valid

2. Whenever Anil is here, Kumar is also here.

Anil is not here.

So Kumar is not here.

Invalid? Kumar is not always with Anil.

3. Most drug addicts are depressed people.

Most depressed people are lonely.

So most drug addicts are lonely.

Invalid? Compare: Some men are doctors; Some doctors are women; Therefore, some men are women.

4. Nothing that is cheap is good.

So nothing that is good is cheap.

Valid

5. If there is an earthquake, the detector will send a message.

No message has been sent.

So there was no earthquake.

Valid?? There’s no time dimension here.

6. John said that everyone loves Mary.

Nothing that John has said is true.

So nobody loves Mary.

Invalid?? Even if it’s not true that everyone loves Mary, we can’t deduce that nobody does.

7. If there is life on Mars, then Mars contains water.

If Mars has ice, it contains water.

There is ice on Mars.

So there is life on Mars.

Invalid.? It would be valid if line 1 said "If there is water on Mars, then there is life on Mars".

8. All roses are flowers.

Some flowers fade quickly.

So some roses fade quickly.

Invalid? Roses might not be part of the set in line 2.

9. Our government should either spend less or raise taxes.

Raising taxes is impossible.

So our government should spend less.

Valid A necessary consequence of either / or.

10. If John is guilty, so is Peter.

If Peter is not guilty, Jeremy is.

So if John is not guilty, Jeremy is.

Invalid?? “Jeremy is” means Jeremy is guilty in line 2 and Jeremy is not guilty in line 3.??

In the puzzle, Argument 2 is correct. I refused to accept this when I did the puzzle! It's called the Monty Hall problem, and there's a good discussion of it in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

Such puzzles are interesting for MA students (they can help to prevent bad interpretation of data collected in their small studies) and essential for those who want to argue that one thing does or doesn’t logically imply another.

Logic is to do with valid argument, not truth. Thus, an argument can be valid but not true – i.e. it doesn’t correspond to the facts.? For example: All cats are black; Tibby is a cat; So Tibby is black.

When it comes to evidence, we should be clear that evidence can’t prove a hypothesis is true: you can’t go from the particular to the general. The famous example is “All swans are white” based on the fact that all the swans we’ve ever observed have been white: while the observations support the claim, they don’t prove it. This is Popper’s great contribution to scientific method, although he’s only following Hume’s devastating critique of inductive reasoning. There’s an asymmetry between truth and falsehood: you can prove a theory is false, but you can’t prove it’s true. That’s why Popper says that the role of empirical evidence is to test a theory (to try to falsify it), not to prove it. We don’t know if any of the theories we hold to be true are actually true, but we allow them (through a very interesting process called inference to the best explanation) for as long as they survive tests.

The worst examples of bad reasoning in discussions of SLA or ELT come from either using circular arguments (Krashen’s 5 hypotheses making up the Monitor Theory are the best-know examples) or non sequiturs ( a blanket term covering most fallacies). Circular arguments make it impossible to disprove them and the usual reason here is that the theoretical constructs used in them have no empirical content. As for non sequiturs, these abound in discussions of SLA and ELT, where conclusions drawn from observations simply don’t follow. In my opinion, those working in the area of sociolinguistics, particularly those adopting post-modernist, ethnographic approaches, are particularly prone to drawing sweeping conclusions from scant evidence and from the use of at times absurd theoretical constructs.?Blatant examples of non-sequiturs made by ELT gurus include Harmer’s claims that exams are good because knowing he had an exam helped his tuba playing, and that the Pearson test of Academic English is reliable because the research behind its voice recognition software is “massive”; Dellar’s claim that my not having read his coursebook shows that my arguments against coursebooks are baseless; Scrivener’s claim that coursebooks are good because they’re better than they were; and Mayne’s? suggestion that Chomsky’s theory is thrown into doubt by the "nasty" tone of Chomsky’s criticism of Skinner's theory.

By far the most important part of critical thinking is the attitude of suspicion. Suspicion sounds negative, but here it simply means don’t believe what you’re told. Constantly challenge not just the reasoning but also the so-called facts. There is, of course, a political dimension to all this. While I’m totally opposed to the relativist epistemology and “oppressed groups” analysis used in critical justice theory, I have more time for critical discourse analysis, as championed by Fairclough, which deliberately focuses on the ideologies and power relations involved in discourse, and tries to uncover these properties of texts. Without overdoing things, it’s surely a good idea to appreciate that when you read stuff published by the British Council, or Cambridge English Examination Assessment, or any of the major stakeholders in the current ELT industry you need to appreciate “where they’re coming from”. Particular care has to be given to uncovering the educational and language learning principles which support their approach to ELT practice. In my opinion, the principles on which CELTA and DELTA, and most coursebooks are based are wrong. You might well disagree, but I think it behoves all teachers to critically assess the arguments on both sides.

Critical thinking helps progress. To the extent that more and more teachers sharpen their critical thinking, the old regime will feel increasingly less comfortable in the roost they rule. So, if you’ll allow me to climb onto this flimsy soapbox: Teachers! If you’re inspired by Dogme, teacher cooperatives and other alternatives; if you’re angry at the tawdry treatment of NNESTs and at their own pay and work conditions; if you’re bored by the showcase events mounted by IATEFL and TESOL, where the same old luminaries trot out the same old stuff; and if you’re eager to explore new approaches to teaching and to participate more in decisions affecting your teaching; sharpen your critical thinking tools!