The Path of a Critical Thinker — Part 8

Four vital questions to ask when confronted with a claim that may or may not be true:

1) Is it logical?

2) Is it livable?

3) Is it the best possible explanation of the facts?

4) Is it the best possible explanation of my experience?

Question 1 should be obvious. We apply logic to figure things out. Question 2 can be restated as, “Does this principle work in real life?” The claim, “There is no objective truth,” for example, doesn’t satisfy the test of “livability” found in Question 2. If the claim is true, and reality is actually determined by subjective factors such as “what I believe or want or feel,” then an architect should be able to design a building however they desire without relying on the fundamental principles of building design and construction. As long as they believe that they’ve designed a sturdy, safe building, then they have done so, right?

I would not want to step into a building designed using such principles. And that is my point: In order to construct a safe, reliable building (or car, or computer, or, dare I say, worldview), there are objective standards one must follow. If those standards are not met, the building will most likely not stand. One may believe that there is no objective truth, but no one can live as though there is no objective truth.

Question 3 incorporates 1 and 2 and applies I.B.E. – “Inference to the Best Explanation.” For example, I can’t prove in the strict sense that I’m not plugged into The Matrix or being fooled by Descartes’ evil demon; however, the best explanation for the facts and evidence available to me currently is that I’m not in the Matrix, and this world around me is, in fact, real. Until I discover sufficient evidence to the contrary, that’s what I will continue to think.

I believe personal experience, while by no means a foolproof tool, should at least be considered. That’s the premise behind question 4. It is a mistake to rely on one’s personal experience alone; it is equally a mistake to ignore one’s experience altogether.

We live life according to probability, not certainty. Belief is inevitable, whereas proof is usually found only in mathematics and bottles of liquor. A critical thinker will be mindful of this.

Seems most people possess something in their set of beliefs they cannot prove or have not yet proven. And I wonder whether that is in itself such a bad thing. When I say that I seek the truth, that doesn’t imply that I don’t already have beliefs, or at least inclinations. Not believing anything at all is impossible. Seeking truth means I won’t stop examining, questioning, and studying, and I won’t assume that I’ve figured out all the mysteries of the universe, because I want my beliefs to conform to reality as much as possible.

Many believe that, if one can’t prove or at least give some good reasons why he believes X, then one should not believe X. British mathematician and philosopher W.K. Clifford said, “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” At first, Clifford’s quote seems reasonable. If one doesn’t have sufficient evidence, then one shouldn’t believe. Sounds good, but I question whether Clifford’s statement can satisfy its own standard. Do we really have sufficient evidence to believe that it’s always wrong to believe anything upon insufficient evidence? What is that evidence? And what does “sufficient” mean? What’s the criteria for sufficiency? And is there sufficient evidence to support belief in that criteria?

I contend that holding a belief apart from proof is in itself not diametrically opposed to a life of truth-seeking, freethought, or critical thinking. Believing “just because that’s what I believe” is intellectually neutral. To reiterate the list I offered in part five, belief runs contrary to critical thinking when:

1. one refuses to subject their belief to rational scrutiny and critique;
2. one refuses to examine the evidence against their belief;
3. one refuses to examine the evidence for opposing beliefs;
4. one refuses to examine said evidence objectively;
5. one claims to possess knowledge and proof when in truth they have neither;
6. one is in love with their paradigm too much to change it;
7. one continues to ignore overwhelming evidence in order to keep their belief.
8. one believes their belief is true because they believe it.
9. one acts with deep conviction on a belief for which they have no evidence.