Paper 2
Sample Answer
1) INTRODUCTION
The second period in the course aims at bettering the process of thinking and this is achieved by two ways. The first is by introducing or strengthening the base of techniques / tools for conceptual visualization, critical analysis, creative thinking, logical inference, rational decision, real-world testing, effective reasoning, and rational argument through real-life examples. The second is by identifying where we go wrong in thinking, and systematic conceptual biases and how these can be subdued. Both of these ways have their roots in the fields of applied philosophy and science as described by Prof. Patrick Grim in his book The Philosopher’s Toolkit: How to Be the Most Rational Person in Any Room. This book is a good introductory package for explaining the why and how of the ways we think currently using concepts from cognitive science, psychology, logic and philosophy, and truly acts as a toolkit for modifying our everyday thought process. In this response paper, I summarize the different lectures in the toolkit with a broader aim of simplifying them for the purpose of my own quick reference in the future. After all, simplification is one of the foremost lessons advocated in this toolkit for thinking better!
2) THINKING BETTER
a) Types of Thinking
Thinking is of two types – descriptive (how we think) and normative (how we can think better) (Grim 2013, 4). There are multiple examples illustrated to help us understand the normative side of thinking with lessons on what to distrust and what to improve. Pictures, patterns and contexts are important factors that underlie the way we think and because of our propensity to look for these, it can both be a strength and weakness in better understanding and over understanding a context, respectively (Grim 2013, 5-6). While Socrates has worked to understand what people think, Aristotle introduced the question of ethics i.e. how they should think or how to think better, more logically, validly and systematically (Grim 2013, 7-8). Though Charles Sanders Peirce recognized science as the important and fundamental medium or technique of thinking, it is also believed that philosophy is influenced by other fields too such as economy, physics and social science (Grim 2013, 8-9).
b) Rationality and Emotionality
We deploy reason and emotion in our everyday decisions. Reason and emotions are interdependent enemies; enemies because studies have proven how, for example, stress can reduce cognitive abilities by ten percent and memories by a third among soldiers (Grim 2013, 13), but interdependent because one without the other results in a chaos – values embedded in emotions influence prioritization or more broadly actions, and one needs both intuition and analytical skills for rational decision-making especially in long-range (Grim 2013, 16).
c) Visualization
Visualization is a tool most important for problem solving, logical thinking and rationality (Grim 2013, 22). George Miller’s “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information.” mentions the limit to the number of items humans can hold at a time as seven plus or minus two but this has also been viewed to be context-dependent – this limit to the capacity grasp is the reason why most of us feel comfortable working with numbers using pencil and paper rather than in mind; in reality it is believed that there is no such limit to cognitive capacity (Grim 2013, 23-24). Even Einstein’s relativity theory and tests on bending light, and Pythagorean theorem are products of visualization (Grim 2013, 25). The relationship between concepts, the atoms or most basic elements of thought, are best represented through Venn diagrams (Grim 2013, 30). It is important to note that concepts are not the same as words – words differ from one language to another but concepts are universal. Concepts have both an inherent internal structure as well as relational structure between one-another (Grim 2013, 31). Denotations relate to things that concepts apply to and therefore is important for rational arguments whereas connotations relate to emotional associations of words or concepts which are far from rational (Grim 2013, 32). Concept trees resemble family trees and categorical propositions are best thought of as Venn diagrams making it an essential tool of thought / logic. However, categorization is a sensitive process capable of turning individual-specific, even socially harmful or unethical in some situations (Grim 2013, 36). The paradox exercise on categorization on page 39 is certainly puzzling (Grim 2013, 39).
d) Thought Experiments
The power of thought experiments is illustrated through going to extremes, generalizations and the power of just one counter-case to prove it wrong, and simplifications in proving something or to simply explore something (Grim 2013, 40-44). Aristotle, the first person to analyze thinking systematically in an effort to make it less difficult, more accurate, effective and faster, started off a chain of thinking that led to further formalizing, systematizing, and mechanizing thoughts that is continuing even until the current contemporary computer/laptop age (Grim 2013, 48-49). His categorical propositions and square of opposition are some brilliant visualizations that help understand logical relationship between any two propositions instantly all the relations between our four types of categorical propositions: universal and particular propositions, positives and negatives, contradictions and implications, and contraries and subcontraries (Grim 2013, 50-53). Validity is a term used to refer to the “degree of support between premises and conclusion” (Grim 2013, 78). A three-circle technique embodies ironclad, airtight validity which is described as “If the premises are true, the conclusion absolutely must be true. If the premises are true, it’s impossible for the conclusion to be false. We can’t get a much tighter connection than that”, which was worked out by Aristotle using three-step arguments called syllogisms. A syllogism takes us from categories, to propositions, to steps in an argument (Grim 2013, 60-62). A valid deductive argument is one in which the information in the conclusion is already contained in the premises (Grim 2013, 67). The most important and rather fun way of thinking is, however, lateral thinking, creative thinking or thinking outside the box – which needs to start with first identifying the box in every problem or opportunity, and then deliberately trying to think outside of it (Grim 2013, 60-72).
e) Flow of Arguments
Complex arguments (with more than three premises) are better visualized using ‘flow diagrams’ that show breaks, disconnects, weak logical links, rather than trying to deconstruct them into syllogisms (Grim 2013, 79). To construct flow diagrams, it is important to remember that propositions do not come tagged as premises or conclusions and will be context-dependent and that we may also need to rearrange arguments to improve logic. Flow diagrams can also branch out to multiple or parallel conclusions or branch in to same conclusion from different arguments. Reasons can also be dependent or independent and the dependency can be found out by stress-testing – testing the validity of the conclusion in the absence of one or more of them; dependent reasons are represented using plus sign (+) between them or as a graph from data to conclusion with an intermediate warrant (Grim 2013, 80-83).
Heuristic is a quicker approach to a problem, or a rule of thumb that employs practical method but is not guaranteed to be always right, optimal, or rational (Grim 2013, 87). Recognition heuristic, wisdom of crowds, satisficing heuristic are some types of heuristics and conceptual patterns that speeds up our thinking and are generally positive (Grim 2013, 87-90). Perceptual biases (example: optical illusions), attention biases (being blind to changes), malleable memory (verbal framing of memory), availability heuristic, anchor-and-adjustment heuristic, are some types of heuristics that bring out humans’ inherently built systematic mistakes-making tendency, and generally negatively affect rational thinking (Grim 2013, 95-100).
f) Rationality in Different Contexts
i) Polarized Context
Polarized arguments increase the gap between two groups due to tendency for selective reception to arguments that support their position and selective rejection of those that oppose; this tendency can lead to the dynamic of even selective reception/rejection of sources of information (Grim 2013, 78). These differences in treating identical information as well as seeking out information further increases polarization; rationality in such contexts can be sown by negotiation strategies; to set aside ego and emotions, and view the issue from distance and not as embedded in it, to set independent standards, and to agree on collaborative research (Grim 2013, 107).
ii) Rhetoric
At some point in the past, rhetoric was seen as a required skill for effective speaking, for foundation of liberal education, and had many cultural adaptions of it before it went on to be associated with deception and flattery (Grim 2013, 111). According to Aristotle, the three qualities of a persuasive presentation are character of the speaker (ethos), emotion that resonates with audience/listener (pathos), and clear and rational step by step argument (logos) in that order (Grim 2013, 111-112).
iii) Bad Arguments
Fallacies, the standard form of bad/bogus arguments, are again summarized in this period, major types discussed being appeal to the majority, post hoc, ad hominem (including tu quoque, and poisoning the well), false alternative, complex question, hasty generalization, and appeal to ignorance (Grim 2013, 119-123). What may be a recommended heuristic in one context may be a fallacy in other – the point is to understand the context and the time in hand to make a decision (Grim 2013, 123-124).
iv) Advertising
Advertising is a technique used to subdue rational thinking and convince one to buy a product or do an action (such as vote to a person), that is more linked to psychological techniques than logical fallacies. These techniques, more often than not, fall into two categories – first is the one without any information or content but loaded with emotion and the second is the one where there is information but used in a misleading persuasive way (Grim 2013, 134). Some of the common advertising strategies are, attractiveness attracts (also in the form of appeal to prestige), appeal to emotion (most common in political advertising that exploits pride and fear), appeal to dubious authority, not telling the whole truth, magic word. Despite laws against false advertising, the onus is on us to outwit the advertiser by seeing through these common fallacies (Grim 2013, 134-139).
v) Numbers and Statistics
Appeal to statistics is an interesting topic in itself where people are more attracted to arguments with numbers, but this has high risk of being inaccurate especially with more spread. To avoid falling for it, important things to consider points such as the sample, its source and representativeness, and survey bias (Grim 2013, 142-143). Deciding between mean, median and modes also makes people on different sides of an issue to make different choice. This leads to a fragment of thought that complex information in reality cannot be compressed into a single number, nor a single graph. Similarly, there is a distinction between correlation and causation and the former alone cannot provide information on the latter (Grim 2013, 146). Another daily action or human tendency is gambling or playing the odds. Also called probability, we do not often handle these rationally and non-equiprobable outcomes further complicate real-life decisions (Grim 2013, 149). Probabilities and frequencies are linked (law of large numbers) – to deduce one from the other, and combining probabilities is needed to arrive at probabilities of two events to happen. The way to combine differs based on the nature of the events (such as addition for mutually exclusive events, multiplication for independent events, etc.). Gambler’s fallacy is the one that treats events that are independent as if they are dependent (Grim 2013, 149-151).
vi) Choices and Decisions
Another dynamic, the choice, can be helpful in limited numbers but confusing in larger number, which is where decision theory to maximize expected utility (product of probability with desirability) helps (Grim 2013, 156). While decision theory is a normative theory, prospect theory is a descriptive theory on what people actually do. Unlike the former where gains and losses are valued equally, the latter prospect theory sees people perceiving losses to have more negative value than positive value of gains of similar magnitude and this along with other factors such as miscalculating probabilities or thinking in images or being led astray by context, leads to irrational decisions (Grim 2013, 159-160). Pascal’s wager is an interesting argument that uses decision theory on why it is rational to believe in God (Grim 2013, 160-161).
g) Science and Experimentation
Guarding ourselves against pseudoscience is another necessary factor. Pseudoscience can be identified amidst science by checking its falsifiability – science provides a possibility to be proved false, whereas pseudoscience claims to be unfalsifiable (by redefining the theory, or moving the target, or making ambiguous statements) (Grim 2013, 165-168). This establishes the significance of experimentation or ‘put things to test’ (Grim 2013, 169). It needs a ‘well-designed’ experiment. Controlled experiment does this in two ways, one which explains the happening of event Y in the presence of a factor X and one that explains the not happening of Y in the absence of X – to show that X is indeed the factor making the difference in the happening of Y. Randomized controlled trial is an improved version of this that employs random selection of participants or treatment assignment to rule out the possibility of occurring by chance (Grim 2013, 173-175). An added layer to remove any biases is the ‘double-blinding’ if which neither the researcher nor the participants know the testing conditions of the participant until later (Grim 2013, 177). There are certain limitations though, such as faking experiment or data, cherry-picking of facts, the ‘file-drawer’ problem where not all experiments make it to public access, and the trueness of the underlying assumptions of an experiment (Grim 2013, 178-180). An extension of the decision theory is the ‘game theory’ (developed by John von Neumann) which is designed to address, in an abstract way, rational decision making in the social context—the context in which multiple players are making interlocking decisions (Grim 2013, 183). Game here includes every situation involving multiple players and actions that influence the outcome (Grim 2013, 184). However, even though this considered the best tool for studying social rationality, applying it has limitations as one also has to keep in mind that actions of cooperation and competition may not always be clear and don’t have to be all or nothing; further, opting out may be an important possibility. The field of behavioral economics puts the canonical assumptions of rationality to test (Grim 2013, 187-188). A three-part model structure is a visualization tool involving input, mechanism and output where with mechanism and one of input and output, we can find the other – finding input from output is retrodiction and finding output from input is prediction. Explanation is the process of the finding the mechanism that connects the known input with known output (Grim 2013, 192-195). In short, a combination of conceptual modelling and experimentation is needed for studying real social rationality.
h) The Final Lessons
To sum up, the philosopher’s tool kit highlights the following seven as the great lessons for thinking better: simplification, looking for patterns but also watching out for them, thinking systematically, experimenting or putting it to test, thinking socially, thinking with both sides of brain (emotional as well as rational), and giving oneself the time to think.
3) CONCLUSION
This period has adopted the philosopher’s tool kit with the aim of teaching a set of conceptual techniques and strategies, tips, methodologies, and rules of thumb for thinking more clearly, with greater focus, more effectively, and more accurately and for building stronger and more rational patterns of inference and argument. While adopting all these is not a one-night accomplishment, reading through so many examples, exercises, questions and experiments is sure to get the readers into the habit of thinking better. As the saying ‘practice makes one perfect’ goes, every little effort to implement these strategies and tools in real life will add up to making effective decisions with social responsibility which in the long run will make the entire mankind great thinkers.
REFERENCES
Grim, Patrick. The Philosopher’s Toolkit: How to Be the Most Rational Person in Any Room. Chantilly, Virginia: The Teaching Company, 2013.
