Good Book...

I think it should be called something else like: “Learn how to set your biased opinion aside and be more empathetic (or apathetic depending on the subject at hand) to draw conclusions and generate opinions”... for dummies.
The book is packed with witty remarks and written very elegantly. However, the author gives a lot of tips on learning and information processing, at no point it really describes how to be quick, and or more clever in a debate/argument. I truly enjoyed it, this book was an awesome refresher for learning and teaching techniques.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.

The art of saying one thing and doing another

Where to start? First, critical thinking is not about using skepticism to invalidate views you don't happen to agree with. Or, put another way, it should be about being skeptic of any views, including your own. Here's a summary of one of the examples of "critical thinking" put forth by the author: 1) There's a fairly large scientific consensus around man-made global warming (i.e. as a consequence of the increasing emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere - my precision); 2) Oh, but "critical thinking" demands that you double-check the evidence (thousands of studies - my precision); 3) There was a seminar/discussion held in Exeter which did not give man-made climate change deniers a chance to debate the issue; 4) This "breach of ethics" (which can be attributed, among other things, to the fact that deniers have yet to present credible counter-evidence - my precision) was discovered by some Italian guy; 5) It "could" follow (the author leads you to the river but carefully refrains from drinking the water - my precision, but what else?) that man-made global warming is some sort of conspiracy to kill the coal industry. And that, my friends, is how you use "critical thinking", at least, as a one-way street. It's one of the crassest examples of confirmation bias I've ever stumbled upon. Would have been forgivable for anyone else but one who pretends to teach others about "critical thinking". And that's just one example.

There's also the cholesterol thing: essentially, every scientist interested in heart disease over the past 50 years has simply "sheepishly" followed the general consensus over the impact of a fatty diet on the body's production of cholesterol. It's all a big conspiracy - what else can it be, Mr. Cohen? This "counter-evidence" I checked to the best of my abilities, following a documentary I watched on the topic. The "counter-evidence" is not convincing. AND other scientists have studied the impact of a fatty diet on cholesterol production (hence, the two types of cholesterol, HDL and LDL).

So if I take the author's train of though to the station, to be fair, we should always invite "intelligent design" proponents and creationists to discussions and debates about the theory of evolution? Or flat-earthers to the next NASA convention? No, I don't think so (and I know it's a mean rhetorical "degrading" of the position). Challengers to the consensus have the burden of demonstrating the pertinence of their views.

And besides, if I might add: scientists are people too. They like their cars, their industrial agriculture and their coal-generated electricity as much as the next person. If most of them didn't love science as well, everything would be comfy and cozy for everybody (and maybe quite dangerous).

On the plus side, this book has some interesting - and daring - contents about propaganda and its history. But aside from the ongoing injunction to be "skeptical" about everything (with the exception of one's own views I guess), it fires all over the place - no systematic approach to critical thinking.

Oh, and by the way: sometimes, the "herd" gets it right. Shared views are not necessarily incorrect. Prior to "thinking critically" about majority viewpoints, maybe one has to ask oneself "are there any good reasons why things are the way they are, or why people think the way they do"? Just a critical thought.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.

1 personne a trouvé cela utile