It seems like it might be time to write about critical thinking again. That is my big thing that I like to write about every so often. I've realized I likely cannot change the world by myself. I can perhaps help the future world by making people more aware of critical thinking. We have a lot of new people so some of you may find value in what I write about here.

Mentioning critical thinking is not at all telling you how to think, and what to believe. Instead it is simply tools you can use to have an intellectual discussion. It is the tools you can use to help you identify when people are using common tactics, and fallacies to try to get people to agree, or become submissive. Critical thinking is useful for helping us to see past common engagements that are purely designed to manipulate us emotionally rather than rationally.

Critical thinking is not something we can ever master. You can only get better at it by exercising it, practicing, and occasionally looking up things that might help you get better and better at it. I do this myself.

Here are a few resources that can be useful:

• Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies
• The Critical Thinking Community
• Logical Fallacy Flashcards
• Can you spot the fallacy?

I chose this as the proverbial windmill at which I tilt (Don Quixote reference for those unfamiliar). I see a lack of understanding of critical thinking being used against the population on a regular basis. It is rampant how many fallacies are uttered on a daily basis, and almost all of them manipulate us via emotions.

Source: Pinterest

I am now going to go over a few of the ones I see used most often, and I have written posts about this before.

Appeal To Authority Fallacy

The appeal to authority is a very popular fallacy that is used more than most of the other fallacies. "Well known person X says Y is true, therefore it must be". Often X is not even an expert on Y. Often they are just an actor or other field that has nothing to do with Y. Yet because they are a celebrity it tends to sway people. Now here is the kicker. Let's say X is an expert on Y. That still doesn't mean it should be treated as true without question. Instead in those cases it should be viewed as more a high probability that it is true rather than an absolute. There is still a chance it is false. This is why people still buy lottery tickets. It is a high probability you will not win the jackpot, but there is still a glimmer of hope, so people buy tickets. The appeal to authority actually is a big red flag once you are familiar with critical thinking. It is a way to stop people from asking questions. Once, you quiz yourself and get more and more familiar with critical thinking this fallacy is one of the easiest to spot.

Appeal to Tradition Fallacy

This is the famous "It has always been done like this in the past, so we should continue to do so." Simply because something was done in the past does not mean it was the best choice, or even the right choice. All it tells you is that it was a choice people made. This ties closely in with "those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it". Well this is willfully repeating history. An appeal to tradition can be viewed as knowing their history but advocating for repeating it anyway.

Appeal to Popularity Fallacy

This is appealing to the number of people supporting an idea, choice, etc. This is where someone chooses to use the number of people that believe a thing as being proof a thing is true. I'd say the "world being flat" was and example of this, yet strangely (to me) we have a resurgence of flat Earthers, even here on steemit, so that is not as good an example as it once was. Religion would be a good one. Why religion? Because, the quantity of people following religions changes over time. Which religion has the most followers in the world changes. So if this changes and which one LEADS by population changes then does this mean the TRUTH and FACTS change? For if popularity matters then "Religion X must be true because it has the most people believing in it" could not be true if by that logic in time "Religion Y has more people believing in it" as suddenly that one would be TRUE. Yet if the original statement were true then it could not change. Thus, popularity is not proof. This is why appeals to popularity are a fallacy.

Ad Hominem

This is not so much a logical fallacy, but it is something you become aware of in critical thinking and it is a common tactic. This is the process where a person attacks or implies ignorance in their opponent in a discussion, debate, argument. It is the "you either believe me or you are a fool" type situation, but that quote there is actually also a false dichotomy. Generally an outright ad hominem is simply stated as "you are just ignorant", "I'm sorry but you are a cuck", all the way up to the blatant insults like "fucking idiot". They prove nothing. In fact they can pretty much derail any chance of convincing anyone of anything. The only purpose they really serve is stroking the person that must use them ego. They sometimes are the result of a person being frustrated they cannot convince the person. Yet discussion and changing minds is not an easy thing, if you expect instant change and you don't get it and thus resort to ad hominems then it is into a mirror you should be looking as you speak them, not towards the other person. We cannot expect instant change. This is especially true of big concepts. People need time to think about it. It is rare to see someone agree with you and change their mind. It does happen but, not often. More often what happens is you planted seeds in them, and they planted seeds in you. Both of you need to go off and think. Change can happen, though usually it is long after that discussion.

False Dichotomy

This is the framing a situation as though there are only two choices. Typically there are a lot more choices than two. Famous ones such as "you are either with us, or against us". No, perhaps I am not with anyone. Perhaps I am with both of you. In debates and discussions and the "news" it is often framed as "you either agree that X is the case or you are a fool." There are typically a lot more choices than that. Yet, this is a favored tactic.

Red Herring

This is the tactic where in a discussion someone will say something along the lines of "well what about X." when X may have nothing to do with the debate, or be an extreme side track. It is more about diverting the discussion when it is not going someones way. The bigger and flashier they can make X the more likely it is to be good for distracting someone. As you learn about this, you'll likely notice this getting used quite a bit. If a person is getting backed into the proverbial corner on an issue this is a tactic they will often use to try to get out of that corner.

Absolutes

I have a pet peeve with the casual usage of absolutes. I zero in on them like a bee to honey. If someone tosses absolutes around I often won't even bother with the rest of what they said. This can be a flaw on my part, and has been a few times, but usually it is not. You see absolutes are rarely true. There are cases where they are true. The problem with an absolute is that it only takes a single exception for the absolute to be false. Common keywords for absolutes are ALL, EVERY, NEVER, ALWAYS, NONE, etc. For example: One I encountered today that inspired this post "You do realize every single social change came about through violent means, right?". First that is an absolute, and it is easy to think of examples around us happening every day that don't happen via violence. Yet it is also an appeal to tradition as described above. I pointed this out and was met with ad hominems, and false dichotomies. In reality they were ad hominems veiled in a false dichotomy. I either agreed with them or I was ad hominem...

It was that encounter that made me realize that maybe it was once again time to write a post like this.

If you want to change a mind, you should remain civil. If you choose to resort to ad hominems (aka insults and belittling) then odds are you've already failed in any attempt to change a mind. People will either become defensive of themselves rather than what you were discussing (ad hominem acting as a red herring) or they'll stop talking to you. Either way, nothing was settled. You don't prove anything, and perhaps you inflate your own ego some, but you also could be blind to the opportunity that comes from civil discussions with those who disagree with you. That can be one of the most rewarding of experiences, though YES it is challenging, and NO you should not expect immediate agreement. Big ideas require deliberation and thought upon the things that are discussed. Change may happen, and it is likely if it does that you will not be there to see it. Yet, is this about getting a trophy, or is it about changing minds?

EDIT: Update. The person just edited their comment, the original is still on the blockchain if you need verification and changed it to "You do realize every single major soical or political change (slavery, breaking free from overlord, civil rights, etc) came about through violent means, right?" It is still false. Rosa Parks was about civil rights... and it was not violent. :)