An Experiment In Critical Thinking

Thinking critically does not come naturally to the human race, it is something we have to work at. This is because the way our brains tend to solve problems is using heuristic principles.

A simple way to understanding heuristic reasoning is to think of it as rule-of-thumb thinking, and it may look a little something like this.

That bush is shaking over there

There are little splodges of yellow behind the leaves.

Last time that bush shook and there was yellow there it was a lion.

Run!

Of course the above scenario would happen in a few tenths of a second, and that's the point with heuristic reasoning, it is easy RAM-light neural decision making software.

However we do have another system of reasoning, this is what we use if we are studying a new subject, and that is our critical reasoning system.

A Critical Experiment

I want to take you on a journey of critical thinking, for an example we are going to use a story that I myself used to believe, albeit briefly.

The story is centred around the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York 2001.

Note: I am making no comment on the prevailing conspiracy theories surrounding those attacks, and am not interested in debating the validity of various conspiracies.

More so, I'd like to show you how shortcuts in your thinking (heuristic reasoning), can lead to you getting the complete wrong end of the stick.

OK, shall we begin?

The Missile Theory

As almost anyone who was over the age of about 12 when it happened knows, there was a plane that was deliberately crashed into the Pentagon, killing everyone onboard.

One of the more popular conspiracies was that because there was no footage of that crash, it had been faked and in fact it was a missile that exploded into the Pentagon, and the proof of that was the small size of the hole in the wall pictured after the event.

So if we look at that heuristically it looks like this:

I saw a plane crash into the World Trade Centre

We live in a world whereby almost everything that happens is being filmed.

I didn't see the plane crash into the Pentagon

Planes are big

The hole in the wall is small

Governments lie

Therefore this is a lie

Critical Analysis

Now let us apply critical reasoning to this story, this can only be done if we think about the incident in stages and look for reasonable alternatives to our heuristically arrived at missile theory.

The Big Picture:

So our theory suggests a conspiratorial cover up, so let's fit that into the bigger picture.

We know for sure that at least two planes have been used as weapons. We know this because we saw the second one on TV, and via the dozens of on-the-spot, eye witness testimonies.

So rather than jump to conclusions, we have to ask ourselves why use two passenger jets, and then use a missile instead?

If a cover up is taking place, then this is an obvious hole in the plan.

Empathetic Reasoning

Let us imagine for one moment, that you are one of the conspirators, and you are sitting round the table with your fellow plotters.

You are all sitting there planning the 9/11 attacks, you have everything in place, and somebody tells you that you're going to use three planes and one missile.

You ask; 'But why are we using a missile on the Pentagon? Can't we just use a fourth plane?'

At this point, it's pretty difficult to come up with a credible answer for this, but lets run with it for a second.

The answer comes back; 'We're finding it difficult to get a fourth plane, and seeing as we command the military we can just use a missile and say it was a plane.'

To which you reply; 'Missiles are different from planes, the news people are surely going to come and film at the Pentagon, they will see that there is a lack of the kind of wreckage that is usually associated with a plane crash.'

'Aha!' replies your bright young co-conspirator; 'We will get real wreckage from a plane, and get people to walk around with it when the TV cameras arrive.'

'Hmmm, a couple of things bother me about that Andrew' (I've decided his name's Andrew).

*'You see if we get people to walk around with wreckage from a plane, that didn't actually crash at the site. Won't that mean we'll have to involve more people in our super secret conspiracy?

Firstly because we'll have to explain to them why we want them to wander around with wreckage. Secondly, we'll have to explain to everyone who works in the Pentagon, that we're going to shoot a missile into it and pretend it was a plane.'*

'OK' Replies Andrew.

'Yes, so if we want to keep this a secret, I think it would perhaps be better to use an actual plane. For instance, where are you going to get the wreckage of a crashed plane from? I mean, is there a warehouse somewhere, where we keep the wreckage from past crashes?'

'No'

'I didn't think so Andrew; so in order to get wreckage for our fake crash, we are going to have to actually crash a plane.'

'Ummm, yes.'

'Right, you see my problem here don't you?'

'Sir?'

'Well, if we are going to have to crash a plane, to get fake wreckage. Why don't we just delay that crashing, and crash it into the actual Pentagon? That way, nobody will find out it was a fake crash, and we won't have to tell the hundreds of people who work in the Pentagon our secret.'

Final Analysis

It would have been simpler to crash an actual plane into the Pentagon. Not doing so, would indicate either madness, or a willingness to be caught out. Therefore the missile theory is false.

I find that if there is time, this is the best way to think about everything, using rational, empathy and just plain common sense.

It has helped me shed some notions that at the time seemed perfectly plausible, but on closer inspection became ridiculous.

Long live critical thinking!

WHAT ABOUT YOU, HAVE YOU EVER BELIEVED IN SOMETHING ONLY TO HAVE THAT BELIEF SHATTERED ONCE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT IT CRITICALLY? AS EVER, LET ME KNOW BELOW.

REMEMBER THIS IS NOT ABOUT 9/11 I AM NOT INTERESTED IN ANY 'PROOF' YOU MIGHT HAVE. MUCH MORE IN YOUR REASONING AND HOW YOU COME ABOUT A GIVEN DECISION.

Cryptogee