Checking our Thoughts? What is a Careful Thinker?

In a discussion on another blog, a friend offered the following reflection:

“These days, it’s pretty rare that I hear a point of view that makes me want to rethink something I’ve believed (when it happens, it’s usually because I’ve gotten my facts wrong), because I’ve been examining my own thoughts pretty rigorously for a long time now.”

I suspect this comment is an accidental moment of "Simpson's" writing. The Simpsons show is terribly funny because its characters say things that are obviously true, but which no one would ever actually say. Recall Marge Simpson's explanation to Lisa as to why she couldn't make up with Homer - "Lisa, marriage is a wonderful thing, but its also a constant struggle for moral superiority!" Or, recall Ned Flander's Christmas delivery of aid to the skid roe homeless shelter - "Here comes sand witches, Here comes sand witches, right down boozy bum lane. Brother Ned's got cheese on bread and a, SIDE ORDER OF SHAME." Or recall Homer's attempt to purchase a firearm - "Five day waiting period? BUT I'M MAD NOW!"

What I mean is, my friend's comment describes how most people think of themselves and their opinions. But few people would ever say as much. So, now that my friend has outed himself as a self-perceived careful thinker, I hearby out myself. I am a self-perceived "careful thinker."

Of course, the million dollar question is, am I genuinely entitled to think of myself as a careful thinker? What's required?

At bare minimum, the first question to ask is, "to what extent are my beliefs grounded in argument?" An "argument," by the way, is a collection of two or more propositions, one of which is the conclusion, or what the argument is supposed to prove or demonstrate, and the other proposition(s) are the argument's premises - the reasons for accepting the conclusion. The premises of an argument are connected to one another, and to the conclusion, by what logicians call "inference." "Inference" is the process of deriving new propositions from a previously accepted premise or set of premises, based on valid logical rules. The structure of an argument - the way the various propositions "hang together" to yield the conclusion - is called the "inferential structure" of the argument.

Okay. Enough already with the logic lecture. Suffice it to say that the more one's beliefs are grounded in argument, the more one entitled is to say that he or she is a careful thinker. If you don't require reasons for your beliefs, you can't claim to be a careful thinker.

But there's an obvious problem with this initial formulation. Many beliefs are grounded in bad arguments - arguments that do not really justify the beliefs supposedly grounded by them. A person who is a careful thinker must guard against bad arguments.

But How?

Well, there are only two ways an argument can go wrong. The first concerns the premises. If one or more of the premises is false, or doubtful, or questionable, or in dispute, then the argument will not be sound - or its soundness will be in doubt or dispute. The second concerns the inferences. If the inferences are logically invalid, or unreasonable, or tenuous, then the argument will not be sound.

So, bad arguments can be avoided if we pay attention to the premises we're relying on and to the inferences we're drawing therefrom.

In my experience, non-ideologically driven people are fairly good at evaluating the validity of their inferences. Whether they've studied logic or not, most people recognize an invalid or unreasonable inference within an argument - provided that they are paying attention. Not everyone, but most of us. Good for us.

Where things get hairy are the premises people rely on. Particularly in political discourse, I've noticed that opponents often occupy starkly different factual universes. "Torture works." "No it doesn't." And many (if not most) times, the different factual universes are the product of what one or both sides wants to believe - irrespective of any actual evidence. Or forget political discourse and consider family relationships. My wife and I can be "discussing things" - usually my shortcomings - and we'll disagree about what the other person said a mere 15 seconds prior.

Fortunately, it is usually possible, by diligent effort, to get one's facts straight. If someone really wants to verify his factual premises, it can usually be done. And any person who refuses to allow his factual suppositions to be challenged and/or checked, is simply not entitled to call himself a careful thinker.

However, people frequently rely on premises that they are not consciously aware of. Logicians call these premises "enthymemes" or "silent premises," but they are generally thought of as background assumptions or background beliefs. Arguments frequently rest on faulty or questionable assumptions that the believer isn't even aware of.

Here's an example. Libertarians argue that it is wrong for the state to forcibly tax one person and give the revenue to another person, because people have a property right to what they earn. However, most libertarians would concede that people do not have a property right to what they earn within an unjust economic system.

So, what are libertarians assuming? They're assuming that the economic system in which people earn their income is just. They're also relying upon some implicit conception of what it means to have a "right," and of how rights can be affected by the presense or absense of justice - but let's keep it simple for the point of illustration.

Is our economic system just? Maybe. Maybe not. Depends, among other things, on how we conceive of "justice." But before one can even think about these issues, one has to notice that specific assumptions inform the rather simple sounding arguments we make. And to notice these assumptions, one has to knuckle down and think carefully about what one's argument assumes. This is something people are notoriously (1) bad at; and (2) reluctant to do. Its too much work. And its terrifying! It is why people often hate philosophy courses - all philosophers do is identify latent assumptions and demolish them. Don't believe me. Pick up David Hume.

Underlying assumptions not only inform our arguments, they effect the way we interpret events. A person who assumes people are naturally sinful thinks a self-centered child requires no further explanation. A person who believes that people are inherently good, on the other hand, has, in the words of Rickey Riccardo, "some splaining to do."

At any rate, you can't be a careful thinker unless identifying and scrutinizing your tacit assumptions are things that you regularly do.

One more thing. Human beings have a natural tendency to accept, without scrutiny, arguments in support of propositions that we already accept. We have a corresponding tendency to rigorously scrutinize arguments in support of propositions that we reject. The later tendency is fine, but the former renders us terribly vulnerable to bad arguments. So, a careful thinker makes a special disciplined effort to scrutinize arguments for propositions that she agrees with.

In sum, a careful thinker: (1) requires reasons for her beliefs; (2)checks - and allows others to challenge and check - her inferences; (3) makes sure she gets her facts straight; and (4) regularly identifies and scrutinizes the assumptions underlying her arguments and interpretation of events; and (5) pays special attention to arguments offered in support of propositions that she already accepts.

I do these things. I am a careful thinker. Of course, I never enjoy anything, irritate my son, and freak certain people out. But I am a careful thinker. Good for me.

What about you?

Joe H.