Why Bother?
/If you have had too much of politics, philosophy, and religion or perhaps of just plain serious thinking, you may want to skip this thread of the website. Here you will find my thoughts and reactions concerning the crazy world we confront every day. You’ll find out what I think is wrong with the state of affairs in the United States and what would have to happen to fix it. I hope to approach these topics not from the standpoint of trying to convince, but of addressing the errors of thinking that have gotten us here. In doing so, I will definitely use examples from controversial issues, but I will analyze them from the standpoint of critical thinking and ethical philosophies, drawing on my experience teaching critical thinking and ethics at Radford University. On occasion, I’ll just reflect on my personal experiences and wanderings. If you choose to delve into this section, my sincere hope is that you might look at something in our world with a slightly changed perspective.
Critical Thinking
Every time election season comes around, I find myself shuddering at the over-the-top rhetoric employed by the candidates. Having taught critical thinking for almost ten years, I wonder whether any of my students are using the tools we made available to them in their adult lives. Luckily, my partner Stoney and I tape almost everything we watch on TV, so we skip through all of the political ads. But a lot of people don’t. And politicians know that if a person hears an exaggeration, lie, or lapse of logic enough times, they’ll believe it. It’s funny how everyone seems to agree that we should teach critical thinking, but most adults don’t have any idea what it is. More on this later…
“Just the Facts, Ma’am”
Folks of a certain age will remember this quotation from the television crime show Dragnet. On arriving at a crime scene, Joe Friday would use it to get to the heart of the situation quickly.
Facts. Before the internet, entertainment news stations, talk radio, social media, and endless tweeting, people had better access to actual facts and less to far out conspiracy theories. And before Donald Trump, most politicians and leaders would acknowledge verifiable facts. Not so today. Donald Trump lost the 2020 Presidential election. No investigation, even in the reddest of states, has turned up any evidence of widespread fraud. What we do have is evidence that Trump planned to deny a loss as early as July. We have his closest aides testifying that he understood that he’d lost. And we have an orchestrated plot to illegally overturn the election and retain power. That’s called a coup, something we associate with third world countries. But in spite of these facts, a significant swath of the electorate and many current politicians and current candidates refuse to acknowledge this loss. States are electing attorneys general and representatives whose agenda is to attack voting rights and make it possible to overturn elections if they don’t like the results. Electing U.S. house representatives that deny the basic fact that Trump lost will be devastating to our democracy. Politicians may disagree on how to fix particular problems, but they need to start by recognizing and accepting facts. Otherwise, there is no hope for our democracy.
But with so much disinformation floating around, how can anyone know what to believe?
First, they need to get their news from the most objective sources they can find. The New York Times: the Washington Post: the major news networks NBC, CBS, and ABC. Did you know that Fox News is registered with FCC as an entertainment show? That gives them a lot of leeway to spread falsehoods.
They need to fact check what they hear. Politifact.org and Factcheck.org do extensive research to verify news stories and conspiracy theories. They rate the truthfulness of claims and give the relevant background. When an outrageous claim comes up on my Facebook feed, I Google it to get the facts. When some “expert” is quoted, I check to see if that person’s view is representative of others in their field. A small-town doctor in Texas that tells the world to use horse medicine to treat or prevent Covid is way out in left field compared to hundreds of thousands of his peers. An “expert” who goes against the tide of their peers is most likely a quack.
What does the preponderance of the available evidence say? Is that person really an expert? Those are the answers people should be looking for.
