|
CHAPTER 9
Sage's Journal
Decatur, GA
August 8, 1988
Ayo has a light teaching schedule this semester, so he can meet with us tomorrow. I've cleared my calendar, and Mrs. Adkins knows I'll be over early to pick up Peter. I'll treat him to breakfast at Thumbs Up before we meet with Ayo.
Our waitress delivers my waffle and Sage's omelet. We used to eat breakfast at Thumbs Up in Decatur -- about halfway between Stone Mountain and Atlanta -- but stopped after it became so popular and busy. Sage was nice to bring me here, and it's a bonus that there was an empty table.
"Good decisions require logical thinking," Sage says between bites. "What Simon taught you, as will Gabriel and Eliada, is a combination of knowledge and wisdom. A good way to greatly increase your wisdom is to learn how to be a critical thinker -- someone who can analyze information. Professor DeLuz will introduce you to the basics of critical thinking."
We finish breakfast, return to Sage's pickup, and complete the drive to Georgia State University. That's where Professor DeLuz teaches philosophy. I learned a lot from Mr. L'bleak, I think to myself. I'm beginning to understand that I can benefit from talking and listening to mentors, so I'm more cooperative and less scared of this meeting.
Professor DeLuz meets us in the plaza next to the Georgia State College of Law. Sage introduces us, but I flinch and pull back as soon as he and I begin to shake hands. His right hand is shriveled, and two fingers are missing. "I worked on a ranchero as a niño-a child," he volunteers. "One afternoon, we were cutting brush when the hombre next to me swung his machete too wide. He chopped off my pinky and ring fingers, and sliced open the back of my hand. I know you can't see it, but the scar runs from knuckle to wrist. He'd been smoking ganja all day, and was so wasted he didn't even apologize. After that, I decided I didn't want a life of forced labor where I could be killed by the idiot next to me."
"I'm sorry, I didn't know," I apologize.
"The gift of being blind to the appearance of another," he muses, "is that you don't prejudge. I hope you never relearn that trait."
He ushers us through the Urban Life Center lobby and up to his second-floor office, where he has to move papers off a couch so Sage and I can sit. It must be a small office. Although he sits at his desk, I feel as if we are huddled together. An air-conditioning unit buzzes to my right, in competition with the street traffic immediately outside.
"Thanks for seeing us, Ayo," Sage starts.
"It's always good to see you, Shade," says Professor DeLuz, calling her by a nickname Simon also used. "You know that. And after you explained what you're up to, well…it sounds like an interesting project."
Project? I wonder to myself. Does he think I'm some kind of a project? Sage doesn't seem bothered, but I don't like the sound of "project."
"As I was telling Peter," Sage says, "I asked you to meet with us so that you can teach him the basics of critical thinking. I figure a solid introduction to critical thinking, together with a couple of years' practice before he's out on his own, and he'll be in good shape."
"I couldn't agree more," he says. "If critical thinking were a mandatory part of early education, most teenagers would be more secure and not so blown away by life's challenges."
I sit here listening, but fade out as I think of other things. I promise myself I will work to stay focused.
"Sage," he says, "you said you'd take notes of what you think is important?"
"Yep, no problem. I've my journal right here," she says, shuffling through her purse.
Sage's Journal
Atlanta, GA
August 9, 1988
…every day we make decisions in response to the problems we face. Some problems are easy, and our decision is of little consequence, such as choosing which clothes to wear to class. Other problems are difficult and our decision is of great consequence, such as choosing whether to have a child. Unfortunately, some people don't put any more thought into their difficult problems than they do their easy problems.
…each of us has made good and bad decisions to both easy and difficult problems. Eventually we realize that life is far better when we routinely make good decisions…
No one has developed a method of making the right decision every time. However, techniques and precautions exist that you can learn and use to make the right decision very often-maybe even most of the time. Using these techniques and precautions is called critical thinking.
The first critical thinking concept to understand is that of a claim. A claim is a statement that's either true or false. Not every statement is a claim, so not every statement is true or false. … The purpose behind most claims is to convey information, change our attitude about someone or something, or influence our behavior in some way. These three purposes may be present by themselves or in some combination.
…when confronted with a claim, a critical thinker first determines whether to accept the claim because it's true, reject the claim because it's false, or wait for more information before deciding on the claim. The degree of confidence one has in accepting or rejecting a claim depends on the amount of evidence supporting that claim. … Lots of credible evidence in support of a claim should provide a high degree of confidence in accepting that claim. On the other hand, little or no support for a claim should cause a critical thinker to reject it or wait for more support.
…frequently we're presented with unsupported claims-claims without any proof or support. Advertisements are usually unsupported claims. …it's the job of the critical thinker to determine whether there's sufficient evidence to accept an unsupported claim…
…sometimes people make supported claims, claims with proof or support-also called an argument. … In an argument, a number of claims (called reasons) are arranged to logically support the last claim (called the conclusion).
When you evaluate claims, stay focused and leave your emotions out of the process. While there are times our emotions provide excellent guidance to our actions, I advise against following your emotions when critical thinking suggests you decide a different way.
"To summarize what I've said so far," Professor DeLuz says, "critical thinking is the careful determination of whether you should accept, reject, or suspend judgment about a claim or argument based on your confidence in that claim or argument. Peter, if I ask you the time, or tell you to close the door, those statements are not claims, because they're neither true nor false. They're simply examples of a question and a directive."
"But," Sage joins in, "if he told you it was daytime, or that the door was closed, those statements are claims, because they're either true or false."
"That's right," he says, "and you can check really simple claims, like whether it's daytime or a door is closed, fast and with a high degree of confidence."
"Uh-uh, it isn't that easy," I jump in. "You can see out the window or look at the door, but I can't do that."
"Yeah," Sage replies after a long silence. "Ayo doesn't teach the visually impaired, but I'll bet many of his students are as blind as you. They may be able to see windows and doors, but they can't make good decisions any better than you. So if you learn to think critically, you'll make better decisions than those who can physically see but remain blind to the importance of wisdom and how it's applied."
"She's right," Professor DeLuz responds. "People typically fail because they're blind when it comes to making good decisions. Those who learn to think critically gain a skill that I compare to X-ray vision. Instead of seeing only the problem, a critical thinker can see through to the solution. Peter, though you may not be able to see, you can train yourself to be a critical thinker, and thereby gain a clear picture of the problem at hand."
"Uh-huh, I get the blind comparison," I say defensively. "Can you move on?"
"Let's return to the door example," Professor DeLuz says. "If I claim the door is closed, I've presented an unsupported claim, because you can't see the door. However, if I tell you I'm closing the door, and you hear it shut, you have your proof. Are you OK with what I've said so far?"
"Uh-huh. A claim's either true or false and comes with or without support."
"Muy bién," he responds. "I've had college students who don't grasp that on the first try. Now let's talk about clarity and precision. What do you think of when I make the claim 'I can see the waiter with glasses'?"
"You're looking at a waiter wearing eyeglasses," I respond.
"OK, Sage what do you think of?" Professor DeLuz asks.
"I think you can see the waiter because you're wearing your own eyeglasses."
"Well, one of you is wrong, or maybe you're both wrong. Couldn't I mean that I see the waiter carrying drinking glasses?"
I nod and hear Sage agree.
"But we can't all be correct…or can we?" he asks.
I don't know, but Sage responds, "There's one set of circumstances when we could all be correct, but given our different understandings, I'll answer no, we can't all be correct. Your claim is either true or false. It can't be both, since it can't be true for one of us and false for the other. I think you need to reword your claim before we can decide whether it is true or false."
"Sí, on all counts. You can't make a decision regarding a claim until you clearly understand the claim. And as we've just shown, this claim is ambiguous because it's open to several interpretations."
"What does ambiguous mean?" I ask.
"It means unclear or confusing," Sage replies.
"And that's the next thing to remember," Professor DeLuz says. "A claim must be clear. The right words must be connected in the right way to present the intended message. By contrast, a claim is ambiguous if it has more than one meaning or if the particular meaning isn't clear. Because my claim about the waiter is so easily misunderstood, you don't know whether it's true or false. The same holds true for arguments."
"So how would you rephrase your claim?" asks Sage.
"That depends," Professor DeLuz says, "and I bet Peter can do it for us."
Oh crap! More Socratic method, I think to myself. Will it never end?
"Peter," he directs me, "please rephrase my ambiguous claim to communicate its three different meanings.
"Uh…" I verbally stumble, "I see the waiter when I wear my eyeglasses…or…uh…I see the waiter wearing his eyeglasses and…hmmm…I see the waiter carrying drinking glasses. How was that?"
"Great! That was perfect," Sage says as she applauds.
Professor DeLuz continues, "Clarity and precision are desirable, but don't agonize over perfection. What's important is that the claim is clear enough. An argument may likewise be ambiguous because one of the claims is unclear, irrelevant issues are included, the claims are in an illogical sequence, or the argument itself is incomplete. Now, about arguments."
Sage's Journal
Atlanta, GA
August 9, 1988
The primary task of the critical thinker is to determine whether to accept, reject, or delay evaluation of the claim or argument presented. This task requires three steps: The first is to understand what you're being asked to accept or reject, the second is to evaluate the reasons for accepting or rejecting, and the third is to actually accept, reject, or postpone your evaluation.
…when you're presented with an unsupported claim, you have to determine for yourself the reasons for accepting or rejecting the claim. When you're presented with an argument, the reasons are provided for you. Then your task includes determining whether the reasons provided support the conclusion. You do this by asking a two-part question: Is each reason provided true, and does the conclusion logically follow the set of reasons?
For an argument to be considered valid, each reason within the argument must logically build on the previous reason, and they all must lead perfectly to the conclusion. … However, even if the reasons provided are logically perfect, the conclusion may still be wrong because one or more reasons are false.
…here's an example of a valid argument: Everyone who skateboards has a tattoo (a reason), and Jessi skateboards (a reason); therefore, Jessi has a tattoo (the conclusion). This argument is valid, because the reasons logically lead to the conclusion. However, is the conclusion still believable after you learn Jessi is twelve years old, and there's no way her father will let her have a tattoo? Of course not! … Although that argument was logically arranged, you'd be wrong to agree with the conclusion, since the first reason is false. Thus, you'd be unwise to rely upon a merely valid argument for decisions where you could be harmed if the conclusion is wrong.
An argument may also be invalid, that is, even assuming the reasons provided are true, the conclusion may still be false. Invalid arguments are those whose reasons provide some support, but not absolute proof, for accepting the conclusion.
…here is an example of an invalid argument: Candace's uncle has traveled sixty thousand miles in his new plane without a mechanical failure (a reason). Therefore, the uncle's plane will not have a mechanical failure during an upcoming short trip (the conclusion). The argument is invalid, because the plane certainly could have a mechanical failure even though it has not in thousands of miles.
…perhaps you can base some unimportant decisions upon just a valid or invalid argument if that argument is strong; the trick, then, is to determine the strength of the argument by determining how well the reasons prove the truth of the conclusion-in other words, how likely the conclusion is to be true. Conclusions that are very likely to be true have strong arguments, while conclusions that are very likely to be false have weak arguments…
For the important decisions you have to make, it's not enough for an argument to be strong; the argument must also be sound. A sound argument is one where every reason is true, and each reason builds on the previous one in a logical manner, leading perfectly to the conclusion.
…here's an example of a sound argument: Some chemicals are poisonous (a reason), and anything that's poisonous is unsafe for humans to eat (a reason). Therefore, some chemicals are unsafe for humans to eat (the conclusion). This argument is sound, because it's valid and the reasons are all true. You are wise to rely only upon sound arguments for your reasoning and important decisions.
…now about unsupported claims. Unsupported claims are conclusions presented alone. Instead of relying on the reasons provided to prove the conclusion, as we would with an argument, we have to rely on other techniques or come up with our own reasons. … It takes practice to become good at evaluating unsupported claims, so we'll discuss those in detail.
"Peter, tell me why you might talk to someone," Professor DeLuz says.
I wonder to myself why adults sometimes ask questions that are so lame. "To learn something," I reply, "like I'm talking with you right now to learn about thinking."
"Fine, we'll start there. Informative claims, claims that give information, are sometimes unsupported in an attempt to mislead or deceive. So how can you determine the motivation of the person presenting the claim? I'll answer that question for you-you can't. There's no way to tell, so you have to check the claim against other information you have or can get."
"Sage," Professor DeLuz says, "you're a lawyer, and I bet you get lied to sometimes."
"Nope. More like always by everybody. Being lied to is an occupational hazard."
"So how can you tell whether someone's lying to you?" he asks.
"Well, I can't, because I don't have any special powers. Even lie detectors can be wrong. But I think I see where you're heading with this, so I'll explain what I do when I'm presented with an unsupported claim, such as when someone says they were not at the scene of the murder that they are charged with committing."
"Muy bién, señorita, please continue."
"I take one of two approaches. If the unsupported claim comes from an unreliable source, I simply reject the claim. If the information I want is that important, I'll try to find it through a reliable source. If the unsupported claim comes from a reliable source, I'll accept it if it doesn't conflict with what I know or what other credible sources claim."
"You're exactly right."
Sage's Journal
Atlanta, GA
August 9, 1988
The first rule of evaluating an unsupported claim is that you must verify that the claim comes from a credible source. If you doubt your source, you're wise to form no opinion until you have more information. … But what makes a source credible? A person who tells of something they witnessed should be regarded as credible unless there's a reason for you to believe otherwise. The more extraordinary the claim, that is, the more unusual the claim's content or result, the greater the need to establish the source as credible.
…the more knowledgeable a person is about a subject, the more reason there is to believe that person is a credible source. Through education or experience, the most knowledgeable person is an expert. … An unsupported claim made by an expert is likely reliable, provided that the claim relates to the expert's specialty and there's no reason to doubt his or her ability to make an objective claim. Claims by experts unrelated to their specialty are no more reliable than claims by non-experts.
…our most reliable sources of information are our own observations. Observations, however, can be inaccurate for a number of reasons: distortions of light or noise may interfere with your view; you may be distracted, upset, or tired; your senses may be impaired; personal qualities such as biases and expectations may cloud your mind; and your memory of an observation may not be accurate-your observations are no better than your memory. Despite these potential problems, firsthand observations are still the best source of information you have. … To avoid being misled, you shouldn't believe an unsupported claim that conflicts with your own firsthand observation, unless you're thoroughly convinced your observation was wrong.
The second rule of evaluating an unsupported claim is that the claim must be checked against your background knowledge. Background knowledge is that personal set of true facts and beliefs we have each accumulated from our own experiences. Claims that conflict with your background knowledge may have to be dismissed. … For example, if someone says they saw a cow jump over the moon but doesn't offer any proof, or if you have never seen a cow jump over the moon, you should dismiss the claim because such a claim is contrary to your knowledge. The more outrageous it is, the more confident you can be in dismissing the unsupported claim.
"It's hard to evaluate a claim about something in which you have no background knowledge. So, the broader your background knowledge, the more effectively you can evaluate claims. The most effective way to become a good critical thinker is to increase your background knowledge by reading, conversing with others, and taking every opportunity to learn." Professor DeLuz continues, "There may come a time when you suspect your background knowledge is outdated. In resolving a conflict between your background knowledge and a contradictory new or unfamiliar claim, you may have to check and perhaps update your background knowledge."
A long silence takes my mind off of listening long enough to realize I'm hungry. "Can we get some lunch?" I ask.
"Sure," Sage replies. "We've been at this almost four hours. Any suggestions, Ayo? My treat."
"There's a new Jamaican restaurant on Auburn Avenue that I hear is good. It's about six blocks away, near the King Center. You two up for a walk?"
I nod my head and Sage agrees.
"Great," he says. "On the way over, we can talk about persuasion."
Professor DeLuz and Sage talk about some old friends for part of the walk. I'm grateful for the break from listening. While I feel fortunate to have these mentors, after a while my head gets full. My break does not last long. "Peter, anyone ever try to convince you about something by trying to make fun of you, threaten you, or make you feel stupid, stuff like that, instead of relying on evidence or support for their claim?"
"Uh-huh. Sometimes people tell me to believe what they say since I'm blind and wouldn't understand."
"Wouldn't understand what?" he asks.
"I've always wondered myself," I reply. I think a few seconds and then finish my reply, "Wouldn't understand what they're too stupid to not explain, I suppose."
They both laugh really hard. "You're probably right," Professor DeLuz says between snorts, "especially about the illogic of it all. Well, what they're most likely trying to do is rely on unsupported persuasion to sway you. Let's talk about an aspect of persuasion called nonargumentative persuasion, OK?"
"Uh-huh," I respond.
"Nonargumentative persuasion is the use of language, emotional associations, or other devices of faulty presentation to sway the listener or reader into accepting an unsupported claim. It's these things, not critical thinking, that the speaker or writer wants you to rely upon to accept their unsupported claim."
We walk about a block before he continues. "One of the most persuasive people of modern history was born close to here. Know who I'm talking about?"
While I'm thinking Sage jumps in. "Martin Luther King, Jr.," she says.
"Hey," I snap, "he's talking to me."
"We're all working together on this."
"Piss off" seems like a good response, so that's what I say. Her left hand snatches my neck, and she hauls my head up next to hers before I have time to finish smirking. Between threatening whispers, she almost bites my ear.
"Excuse us, Ayo," she says, releasing me like a fish too small to keep. "Seems it was time for someone's weekly attitude adjustment."
"Uh, no problem," he says nervously. "Uh, like I was saying, Dr. King was an extraordinary speaker who often used nonargumentative devices to sway his listeners. His use of nonargumentative devices was justified when you remember he was speaking at a time when the majority of his listeners were steeped in racial ignorance. Their ignorance was itself based on pseudo-reasoning which, for a majority of listeners, could not be overcome through critical thinking alone."
"I've heard his 'I have a dream' speech," I offer, "it's very cool."
"I agree. I think Dr. King understood that many of his listeners couldn't be receptive to his sound reasoning until he first dismantled their ignorance. So he fought pseudo-reasoning with pseudo-reasoning. That's why that speech is so powerful -- it penetrates the ignorance of many listeners by piercing their emotions."
"Is this it, Island Cafe?" Sage asks.
"Sí, almost passed it."
Sage follows Professor DeLuz, and I follow her. We find and sit at a booth.
"Sage, what's it like?" I ask.
"Okay. But let's order first."
The waiter arrives with menus and a Bob Marley voice. Professor DeLuz and Sage know what they want right away, but I have no idea what any of the choices are about. Our waiter recommends the house special, jerk chicken and dirty rice, so that's what I order. I learn that jerk chicken and dirty rice is a kind of spicy chicken with spicy rice and beans. Professor DeLuz orders goat curry, and Sage gets the roti. The waiter suggests a soda called Ting, so we each order one. There's reggae music playing and the place smells great.
"So? What does it look like?" I repeat.
"Oh yeah," Sage says and begins to describe the inside for me.
"The best part is the colors," Professor DeLuz interrupts. "Each booth is painted a solid bright color with decorations on it, and the walls are painted to look like a tropical jungle with birds and animals. The ceiling looks like a sunset, scarlet red at one end and changing to orange and then dark blue at the opposite side."
"It's pretty, I bet."
"Sí," he says sadly. "It's supposed to resemble eating outside on an island."
"It sounds busy, too."
"It's about three-quarters full," Sage replies.
All three of us are quiet for a moment, and then Professor DeLuz returns to talking about nonargumentative persuasion.
Continue with Chapter 9, Part 2
| |
|
Home | Intro | Chapters | Community | Buy
Guide | About Us | Contact Us
|
| |
|
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Copyright © 2002-2005 by Paul Enrique Knowlton. All rights reserved. You may print or save a copy of any material available on this website for your own personal or educational use, but not for resale or commercial distribution. Each copy and each subsequent copy must always include this copyright notice. By making any copy you agree to include this copyright notice; otherwise do not make a copy.
|
|
