![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I recently got pointed to this post that's really worth reading. It's about the political advantage of encouraging the current anti-intellectualism wave in the US today, with specific examples taken from the response to Katrina.
In her post![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
hedrahelix says:
This doesn't even just hold true for politicians, but anyone. Probably the biggest thing that compels me to jump into Internet arguments I'm not in to start with isn't the emotional connection to the subject but bad logic in arguments--not in terms of me wanting to instruct people, but in terms of my seeing somebody say something that seems untrue. I don't consider myself particularly good at spotting this lack of logic--or at least, I'm not an expert. But honestly, I feel that getting into discussions on the Usenet, mbs and lj has helped me get better at it. There was one poster at TORC I will always consider one of the greatest teacher I ever had in this--Apostasy was the name he went by. He had a gift for taking apart an argument and explaining exactly why it didn't work logically, using the name of the logical fallacy and explaining it, in a way that made it clear (I think he was a teacher IRL). It really did make me more able to articulate things I saw wrong with arguments, times when it just didn't seem right but I didn't know how to pull apart the logic.
Once you're aware of this you just see it all over the place. Herehedrahelix is using it to talk about, for instance, Chertoff's attempt to create a false binary about the hurricane: you can either help the people who need help or you can assign blame and talk about what should have been done. You can't do both, so if you choose the latter, you are a bad person. It's just so damn sneaky yet it works appealing to the emotion--nobody is going to choose to assign blame rather than help. The lie is in the idea that you can only do one or the other. But if you put off the questioning until people have calmed down and the facts are no longer fresh chance are you'll get off.
I know it sounds silly to compare an important situation like that to questions of HP canon or other lj drama, but the fact is it usually works the same way. And it works because I think less and less do people feel confident in demanding a logical argument or articulating what is illogical about an argument. How often do people fall back on "you're taking away my right to speak" when all anyone has done is disagree, or "you're insulting my opinion" when you've pointed out logical holes in their theory? Or claim that it's up to you to prove that their theory couldn't be true when in fact the burden of proof is upon them as the person making the claim (and that means coming up with why we should even be considering the claim, not just assuming the claim is true and then tossing out simpler explanation to make it fit). Or they switch from arguing about a characters' actions to why they don't like the character, or how another character is a nicer guy, seemingly without realizing the difference? I know it's easy to get caught up--like I said, I'm not holding myself up as the model for everyone by a longshot. But I like learning how not to do that.
I think that's why it drives me crazy when this gets lumped into the "everybody should be nice argument." It's been argued many times that a fic writer or artist will not improve if shielded from all criticism. Just so a person will never learn to make a good argument or spot a bad one if all arguments are considered equally worldly because we are all special snowflakes. Only when it comes to argument it seems even more important to make sure people are made to understand logic. With a fic writer or artist the alternative is just bad fics and bad art. With logic you're talking about the ability to recognize truth itself. It's not that everybody has to come to the same conclusion or the same personal opinions, particularly with regards to fandom (there's no logical reason for liking one ship over another, for instance), but that people should be able to tell fact from opinion and know what is canon evidence and what isn't, and be able to distinguish what a character thinks from what the author thinks from what they think, if not for the sake of figuring out what's going to happen in the next book or episode but so that maybe they can do this in life. They're not going to get that in an atmosphere willing to, for instance, teach Intelligent Design alongside Evolutionary Theory as if they're just ideas of equal worth, or where bias is given such focus people are encouraged to think that bias is the only truth there is.
Anyway, there is more to the linked post than that, including very good points about just what a sense of entitlement will get you. But I wanted to say how I think that even if one's education has failed one, the Internet is very valuable for getting this type of education--just as the Internet is currently making it possible to get more educated on the world, and proper sentence construction, and other languages and cultures. I certainly don't think that every discussion must turn into an exercise in logic--there's a place for just venting, etc., It's just that if you want to learn about this, the Internet is a good place to do it.
In her post
hedrahelix says:If you've been lucky enough to get a first rate education, when the politicians start their bullshit, you recognize it for the bullshit that it is, and the sooner you see it as bullshit, the faster you can see through it and get to the heart of the matter. The less willing you are to be put off by their stupid shit.
This doesn't even just hold true for politicians, but anyone. Probably the biggest thing that compels me to jump into Internet arguments I'm not in to start with isn't the emotional connection to the subject but bad logic in arguments--not in terms of me wanting to instruct people, but in terms of my seeing somebody say something that seems untrue. I don't consider myself particularly good at spotting this lack of logic--or at least, I'm not an expert. But honestly, I feel that getting into discussions on the Usenet, mbs and lj has helped me get better at it. There was one poster at TORC I will always consider one of the greatest teacher I ever had in this--Apostasy was the name he went by. He had a gift for taking apart an argument and explaining exactly why it didn't work logically, using the name of the logical fallacy and explaining it, in a way that made it clear (I think he was a teacher IRL). It really did make me more able to articulate things I saw wrong with arguments, times when it just didn't seem right but I didn't know how to pull apart the logic.
Once you're aware of this you just see it all over the place. Here
hedrahelix is using it to talk about, for instance, Chertoff's attempt to create a false binary about the hurricane: you can either help the people who need help or you can assign blame and talk about what should have been done. You can't do both, so if you choose the latter, you are a bad person. It's just so damn sneaky yet it works appealing to the emotion--nobody is going to choose to assign blame rather than help. The lie is in the idea that you can only do one or the other. But if you put off the questioning until people have calmed down and the facts are no longer fresh chance are you'll get off.I know it sounds silly to compare an important situation like that to questions of HP canon or other lj drama, but the fact is it usually works the same way. And it works because I think less and less do people feel confident in demanding a logical argument or articulating what is illogical about an argument. How often do people fall back on "you're taking away my right to speak" when all anyone has done is disagree, or "you're insulting my opinion" when you've pointed out logical holes in their theory? Or claim that it's up to you to prove that their theory couldn't be true when in fact the burden of proof is upon them as the person making the claim (and that means coming up with why we should even be considering the claim, not just assuming the claim is true and then tossing out simpler explanation to make it fit). Or they switch from arguing about a characters' actions to why they don't like the character, or how another character is a nicer guy, seemingly without realizing the difference? I know it's easy to get caught up--like I said, I'm not holding myself up as the model for everyone by a longshot. But I like learning how not to do that.
I think that's why it drives me crazy when this gets lumped into the "everybody should be nice argument." It's been argued many times that a fic writer or artist will not improve if shielded from all criticism. Just so a person will never learn to make a good argument or spot a bad one if all arguments are considered equally worldly because we are all special snowflakes. Only when it comes to argument it seems even more important to make sure people are made to understand logic. With a fic writer or artist the alternative is just bad fics and bad art. With logic you're talking about the ability to recognize truth itself. It's not that everybody has to come to the same conclusion or the same personal opinions, particularly with regards to fandom (there's no logical reason for liking one ship over another, for instance), but that people should be able to tell fact from opinion and know what is canon evidence and what isn't, and be able to distinguish what a character thinks from what the author thinks from what they think, if not for the sake of figuring out what's going to happen in the next book or episode but so that maybe they can do this in life. They're not going to get that in an atmosphere willing to, for instance, teach Intelligent Design alongside Evolutionary Theory as if they're just ideas of equal worth, or where bias is given such focus people are encouraged to think that bias is the only truth there is.
Anyway, there is more to the linked post than that, including very good points about just what a sense of entitlement will get you. But I wanted to say how I think that even if one's education has failed one, the Internet is very valuable for getting this type of education--just as the Internet is currently making it possible to get more educated on the world, and proper sentence construction, and other languages and cultures. I certainly don't think that every discussion must turn into an exercise in logic--there's a place for just venting, etc., It's just that if you want to learn about this, the Internet is a good place to do it.
From: (Anonymous)
no subject
Making critical thinking more difficult for me to teach is the fact that I am not a logical person. I studied logic. It didn't move me. I am by temperament or nature or whatever more of an intuitive, leap into the unknown, connect the dots scattered far apart in space kind of thinker. To me, thinking is as much play as determination. Yes, I am Luna Lovegood, a Ravenclaw, but not what you'd expect from the brochure.
I just want to submit that logic isn't everything. There are many learning styles and approaches to so-called truth, for example, parables and painting and music. And speaking as a legal professional who lives with a librarian, the Internet can lead you astray as often as it can set you free, especially as Big Media takes over (shades of Luna).