Critical Thinking - a Simple and Concise Look 8

 This post is one in a series on the book How to Think about Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age by Theodore Shick, Jr. and Lewis Vaughn. (Fifth Edition)

Unless noted otherwise all quotes used in this series are from that book, usually with the page number noted in parenthesis.

The series should be read in order starting with the first post.

"We've seen that, in themselves, strong feelings of subjective certainty regarding a personal experience don't increase the reliability of that experience one bit. Only if we have no good reason to doubt a personal experience can we accept it as a reliable guide to what's real - whether about UFOs, ghosts, witches, or the curative power of vitamin C - personal experience is frequently shakier than we realize.

We've seen why we can't escape the fact that there is indeed such a thing as objective truth. There is a way the world is. The idea that truth is relative to individuals, to societies, or to conceptual schemes is unreasonable. Similarly, the fashionable notions that people create their own reality or create reality by group consensus have little to recommend them. 

We've all investigated what it means to say that we know something. We can know many things - including weird things - if we have good reasons to believe them and no good reasons to doubt them. We have good reasons to doubt a proposition when it conflicts with other propositions we have good reasons to believe, when it conflicts with well-established background information, or when it conflicts with expert opinion regarding the evidence. If we have good reason to doubt a proposition, we can't know it. The best thing we can do is proportion our belief to the evidence. If we don't know something, a leap of faith can never help us know it. We can't make something true just by believing it to be true. To accept a proposition on faith is to believe it without justification. Likewise, mystical experience doesn't provide us with a privileged way of knowing. Claims of knowledge based on mystical experience must pass the same rational tests as any other kind of experience. 

We've explored why - even though the scientific method can never prove or disprove anything conclusively - science is our most reliable means of establishing an empirical proposition beyond a reasonable doubt. It offers us a model for assessing new hypotheses, or claims, about all manner of extraordinary events, and entities - a model that can serve scientists and nonscientists alike. If we want to know whether a hypothesis is true, we'll need to use this model in one form or another. The model requires that we judge a new hypothesis in light of alternative, competing hypotheses and apply to each of these alternatives the best yardstick we have - the criteria of adequacy - to see which hypothesis measures up. Under pressure from the criteria of adequacy, some hypotheses may collapse from lack of sturdy evidence or sound reasons to support them. Other hypotheses may not tumble completely but will be shown to be built on weak and rickety foundations."  (Page 228 - 229)

"One, though, may emerge as the best hypothesis of them all, strong and tall because it rests on a firm base of good reasons." (Page 229 - 230)

"Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers. - Voltaire" (Page 230)

"THE SEARCH FORMULA

Our formula for inquiry consists of four steps, which we represent by the acronym SEARCH. The letters stand for the key words in the four steps:

1. State the claim.

2. Examine the Evidence for the claim.

3. Consider Alternative hypotheses.

4. Rate, according to the Criteria of adequacy, each Hypothesis.

The acronym is arbitrary and artificial, but it may help you remember the formula's vital components. Go through these steps any time you're faced with an extraordinary claim.

Note that throughout this chapter we use the words hypothesis and claim interchangeably. We do so because any weird claim, like any claim about events and entities, can be viewed as a hypothesis - as an explanation of a particular phenomenon. Thinking of weird claims as hypotheses is important because effectively evaluating weird claims involves essentially the same hypothesis-assessing procedure used in science." (Page 230 - 231)

"Step 1: State the Claim

Before you can carefully examine a claim, you have to understand what it is. It's vital to state the claim in terms that are as clear and as specific as possible. "Ghosts are real" is not a good candidate for examination because it's vague and nonspecific. A better claim is "The disembodied spirits of dead persons exist and are visible to the human eye." Likewise, "Astrology is true" is not much to go on. It's better to say, "Astrologers can correctly identify someone's personality traits by using sun signs." Even these revised claims aren't as unambiguous and definitive as they should be. (Terms in the claims, for example, could be better defined. What is meant by "spirit"? What does it mean to "correctly identify someone's personality traits"?) But many of the extraordinary claims you run into are of this caliber. The point is that before examining any claim, you must achieve maximum clarity and specificity of what the claim is." (Page 231)

"Step 2: Examine the Evidence for the Claim

Ask yourself what reasons there are for accepting the claim. That is, what empirical evidence or logical arguments are there in the claim's favor? Answering this question entails taking inventory of both the quantity and quality of the reasons for believing that the claim is true. An honest and thorough appraisal of reasons must include:

1. Determining the exact nature and limitations of the empirical evidence. You should assess not only what the evidence is but whether there are any reasonable doubts regarding it. You have to try to find out if it's subject to any of the deficiencies we've discussed in this book - the distortions of human perception, memory, and judgement; the errors and biases of scientific research; the difficulties inherent in ambiguous data. Sometimes even a preliminary survey of the facts may force you to admit there really isn't anything mysterious that needs explaining. Or perhaps investigating a little mystery will lead to a bigger mystery. At any rate, attempting an objective assessment of the evidence takes courage. Many true believers have never taken this elementary step.

2. Discovering if any of these reasons deserve to be disqualified. As we've seen, people frequently offer considerations in support of a claim that should be discounted. These considerations include wishful thinking, faith, unfounded intuition, and subjective certainty. The problem is that these factors aren't reasons at all. In themselves, they can't provide any support for a claim.

3. Deciding whether the hypothesis in question actually explains the evidence. If it doesn't - if important factors are left out of account - the hypothesis is not a good one. In other words, a good hypothesis must be relevant to Tue evidence it's intended to explain. If it isn't, there's no reason to consider it any further." (Page 231 - 232)

"No man really becomes a fool until he stops asking questions. - Charles Steinmetz" (Page 232)

"Step 3: Consider Alternative Hypotheses

It's never enough to consider only the hypothesis in question and its reasons for acceptance. If you ever hope to discover the truth, you must also weigh alternative hypotheses and their reasons.

Take this hypothesis, for example: Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer - Santa's funny, flying, furry headlight - is real and lives at the North Pole. As evidence for this hypothesis we could submit these facts: Millions of people (mostly children) believe Rudolph to be real; his likeness shows up everywhere during the Christmas holidays; given the multitude of reindeer in the world and their long history, it's likely that at some point in time a reindeer with flying capabilities would either evolve or be born with the necessary mutations; some people say that they have seen Rudolph with their own eyes. We could go on and on and build a fairly convincing case for the hypothesis - soon you may even come to believe that we were on to something.

The hypothesis sounds great by itself, but when considered alongside an alternative hypothesis - that Rudolph is a creature of the imagination created in a Christmas song - it looks ludicrous. The song hypothesis is supported by evidence that's overwhelming; it doesn't conflict with well-established theory in biology (as the real-Rudolph hypothesis does); and unlike its competitor, it requires no postulations about new entities.

This third step involves creativity and maintaining an open mind. It requires asking whether there are other ways to account for the phenomenon at hand and, if there are, what reasons are in favor of these alternative hypotheses. This step involves applying step 2 to all competing explanations.

It's also important to remember that when people are confronted with some extraordinary phenomenon they often immediately offer a hypothesis involving the paranormal or supernatural and then can't imagine a natural hypothesis to account for the facts. As a result, they assume that the paranormal or supernatural hypothesis must be right. But this assumption is unwarranted. Just because you can't think of a natural explanation doesn't mean there isn't one. It may be (as has often been the case throughout history) that you're simply unaware of the correct natural explanation. As pointed out in chapter 2, the most reasonable response to a mystifying fact is to keep looking for a natural explanation.

We all have a built-in bias that urges us to latch onto a favorite hypothesis and ignore or resist all alternatives. We may believe that we needn't look at other explanations since we know that our favorite one is correct. This tendency may make us happy (at least for a while), but it's also a good recipe for delusion. We must work to counteract this bias. Having an open mind means being willing to consider any possibility and changing your view in light of good reasons." (Page 232 - 233)

"Step 4: Rate, According to the Criteria of Adequacy, Each Hypothesis

Now it's time to weigh competing hypotheses and see which are found wanting and which are worthy of belief. Simply cataloging the evidence for each hypothesis but isn't enough. We need to consider other factors that can put that evidence into perspective and help us weigh hypotheses when there's no evidence at all, which is often the case with weird things. To command our assent, extraordinary claims must provide exemplary explanations. That is, they must explain the phenomena better than any competing explanation. As we saw in Chapter 6, the way to determine which explanation is best is to apply the criteria of adequacy. By applying them to each hypothesis, we can often eliminate some hypotheses right away, give more weight to some than to others, and decide between hypotheses that may at first seem equally strong.

1. Testability. Ask: Can the hypothesis be tested? Is there any possible way to determine whether the hypothesis is true or false? Many hypotheses regarding extraordinary phenomena aren't testable. This does not mean they're false. It means they're worthless. They are merely assertions that we'll never be able to know. What if we claim that there is an invisible, undetectable gremlin in your head that sometimes causes you to have headaches. As an explanation for your headaches, this hypothesis is interesting but trivial. Since by definition there's no way to determine if this gremlin really exists, the hypothesis is amazingly uninformative. You can assign no weight to such a claim.

2. Fruitfulness. Ask: Does the hypothesis yield observable, surprising predictions that explain new phenomena? Any hypothesis that does so gets extra points. Other things being equal, hypotheses that make accurate, unexpected predictions are more likely to be true than hypotheses that don't. (Of course, if they yield no predictions, this in itself doesn't show that they're false.) Most hypotheses regarding weird things don't make observable predictions.

3. Scope. Ask: How many different phenomena can the hypothesis explain? Other things being equal, the more it explains, the less likely it is to be mistaken. In Chapter 5 we discussed the well-confirmed hypothesis that human perception is constructive. As we pointed out, the hypothesis explains a broad range of phenomena, including perceptual size constancy, misperception of stimuli, hallucinations, pareidolia, certain UFO sightings, and more. A hypothesis that explains only one of theses phenomena (for example, the hypothesis that UFO sightings are caused by actual alien spacecraft) would be much less impressive - unless it had other things in its favor like compelling evidence.

4. Simplicity. Ask: Is this hypothesis the simplest explanation for the phenomenon? Generally, the simplest hypothesis that explains the phenomenon is the best, the one least likely to be false. Simplest means makes the fewest assumptions. In the realm of weird things, simplicity is often a matter of postulating the existence of the fewest entities. Let's say you get into your car one morning, put the key in the ignition, and try to start the engine but find that it won't start. One hypothesis for this phenomenon is that the car battery is dead. Another is that a poltergeist (A mischievous spirit) has somehow caused your car not to start. The battery hypothesis is the simplest (in addition to being testable, able to yield predictions, and capable of explaining several phenomena) because it doesn't require postulating the existence of any mysterious entities. The poltergeist hypothesis, though, does postulate the existence of an entity (as well as assuming that the entity has certain capabilities and tendencies). Thus the criterion of simplicity shows us that the battery hypothesis has the greater chance of being right.

5. Conservatism. Ask: Is the hypothesis consistent with our well-founded beliefs? That is, is it consistent with the empirical evidence - with results from trustworthy observations and scientific tests, with natural laws, or with well-established theory? Trying to answer this question takes you beyond merely cataloging evidence for hypotheses to actually assigning weight to hypotheses in light of all the available evidence. Other things being equal, the hypothesis most consistent with the entire corpus of our knowledge is the best bet, the one most likely to be true." (Page 233 - 234)

"All is mystery; but he is a slave who will not struggle to penetrate the dark veil. - Benjamin Disraeli" (Page 233)

"The mind is like the stomach. It is not how much you put into it that counts, but how much it digests. - Albert Jay Nock" (Page 235)

"I honestly believe it is better to know nothing than to know what ain't so - Josh Billings" (Page 240)

"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; and he that does not reason is a slave. - William Drummond" (Page 246)

"As for hypnosis, it's not the revealer of truth that many believe it to be. Research has shown that even deeply hypnotized people can willfully lie and that a person can fake hypnosis and fool even very experienced hypnotists. More to the point, research also shows that when hypnotized subjects are asked to recall a past event, they will fantasize freely, creating memories of things that never happened. Martin T. Orne, one of the world's leading experts on the use of hypnosis to obtain information about past events, sums up the situation like this: 

The hypnotic suggestion to relive a past event, particularly when accompanied by questions about specific details, puts pressure on the subject to provide information . . . This situation may jog the subject's memory and produce some increased recall, but it will also cause him to fill in details that are plausible but consist of memories or fantasies from other times. It is extremely difficult to know which aspects of hypnotized recall are historically accurate and which aspects have been confabulated [made up and confused with real events]. . . .There is no way, however, by which anyone - even a psychologist or psychiatrist with extensive training in the field of hypnosis - can for any particular piece of information determine whether it is actual memory versus a confabulation unless there is independent verification.

Orne and other experts have also emphasized how extremely suggestible hypnotic subjects are and how easy it is for a hypnotist to unintentionally induce pseudomemories  in the subject:

If a witness is hypnotized and has factual information casually gleaned from newspapers or inadvertent comments made during prior interrogation or in discussion with others who might have knowledge about the facts, many of these bits of knowledge will become incorporated and form the basis of any pseudo-memories that develop. . . . If the hypnotist has beliefs about what actually occurred, it is exceedingly difficult for him to prevent himself from inadvertently guiding the subject's recall so that [the subject] will eventually "remember" what he, the hypnotist, believes actually happened.

Orne describes a simple experiment he has repeatedly conducted that shows the limits of hypnotism. First he verifies that a subject went to bed at a certain time at night and slept straight through until morning. Then he hypnotizes the subject and asks her to relive that night. Orne asks the subject if she heard two loud noises during the night (noises that didn't, in fact, happen). Typically, the subject says that she was awakened by the noises and then describes how she arose bed to investigate. If Orne asks her to look at the clock, the subject  identifies a specific time - at which point the subject was actually asleep and in bed. After hypnosis, the subject remembers the non-event as though it actually happened. A pseudomemory was thus created by a leading question that may seem perfectly neutral.

A study has even been conducted to see if people who had never seen a UFO nor were well informed about UFOs could, under hypnosis, tell "realistic" stories about being abducted by aliens. The conclusion was that they can. The imaginary abductees easily and eagerly invented many specific details of abductions. The researchers found "no substantive differences" between these descriptions and those given by people who have claimed to be abducted.

Research also suggests that hypnosis not only inducesinduces pseudo-memories, but also increases the likelihood that they'll become firmly established. As psychologist Terence Hines says:

What hypnosis does do - and this is especially relevant to the UFO cases - is to greatly increase hypnotized subjects' confidence that their hypnotically induced memories are true. This increase in confidence occurs for both correct and incorrect memories. Thus, hypnosis can create false memories, but the individual will be especially convinced that those memories are true. Their belief, of course, does not indicate whether the memory is actually true or false. "(Page 247 - 249)

The authors go on at length with numerous details about certain personality types being likely to have vivid fantasies and dreams that can be mistaken for actual occurrences. Research in this area is used to explore both UFO abduction claims and ghost sightings. The authors describe this in extreme detail and I have seen very plausible explanations regarding this in other literature.

The authors also debunk the 911 truther claims in detail. I can assure you that if you want to dig into these specific claims the book is well worth your time.

" Weird things are events or objects that seem impossible, given what we know about the world. To explain these things, people often postulate powers or properties that are just as weird. We're justified in believing in these powers or properties, however, only if they provide the best explanation of the phenomena in question. We can evaluate how good competing explanations are in relation to each other by determining how much understanding they produce. The amount of understanding produced by an explanation is determined by the extent to which it systematizes and unifies our knowledge, and that is determined by how well it meets the criteria of adequacy: simplicity, conservatism, scope, and fruitfulness. The SEARCH method highlights the steps that should be taken when evaluating an explanation: State the claim, examine the Evidence for it, consider Alternative explanations, and Rate according to the Criteria of adequacy, each Hypothesis. " (Page 300)