Critical Thinking Blog #4

As Susan Jacoby was making her point on junk thought in chapter 9 of The Age of American Unreason, she made the statement that, "Moreover, public ignorance in large and powerful countries is particularly dangerous to the rest of the world precisely because of the capacity of powerful states to inflict damage on the weak." This is a profound and powerful statement. Essentially, this single sentence sums up what I believe to be the purpose of the book, as well as the purpose behind any critical thinking class. 

We are surrounded, in our day to day lives by what Jacoby refers to as "junk thought": attempts by proponents of various theories, dogmas, and ideologies to convince us of their arguments by utilizing language that - on the surface at least - appears scientific or authoritative. These arguments all share one common feature: the reliance on the ignorance of the target audience. That is one aspect in which we excel as a nation. Members of American society (actually, many wealthy societies), as they rely more and more on electronic media for their information, seem to be embracing a culture of ignorance. If we were to look at what is presented to us with a critical eye, however, rather than taking what is offered us at face value, we would see much of it for what it is: junk. 

The danger in this junk thought - from the rejection of climate change science to the unfounded belief that vaccinations cause autism - is that it is presented as fact. If accepted as fact, it has the power to block progress, or even to reverse progress we've already made. Worse yet, and as we have demonstrated in recent months, as America goes, so goes the world. If there is any greater argument against the "banking" concept of education, which we read about at the beginning of the semester, it is that if we are not taught how to think rather than what to think, then every one of us will fall victim to junk thought. 

What is “junk thought”? Is it thinking that is worthless? What is that, exactly? What examples can you find in your experience? In your opinion, how does it influence people? Please end your blog with at least one good critical question.

Junk thought, to me, is basically a refusal to think away from the status quo. It is merely regurgitating the thoughts of the rest of one's segment of society, often in the adherence to a particular political or religious ideology. Junk thought is not only worthless, but in this context, it can be dangerous. Those who espouse junk thought, on both sides of the political spectrum tend to dismiss any sentiments which attempt to refute their line of thinking. The problem with this isn't so much in the dismissal, but rather in how it is done in most cases. When all opposition is dismissed summarily without looking into and analyzing the argument it presents, or even the argument which one presents in support of their chosen ideologies and values, that is where the danger lies. Rather, junk thought tends to adhere and appeal to populist sentiment, while discouraging any further analysis of issues. The result of this can only be an obstacle to social progress. Often, because of great ideas are either dismissed entirely or - in the best case scenario regarding junk thought - delayed in their implementation.

Examples can always be found in the political arena. Most notably, at least for me were the sentiments which vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin expressed during the 2008 Presidential Election. While both sides were no strangers to appealing to the populist sentiment of "traditional American values", she did so in an almost condescending manner. During her speech at the Republican National Convention, rather than relying on her knowledge of issues and of her opponents' stances on these issues, she instead appealed to the ignorance of her audience on these issues. At one time, while addressing then candidate Barack Obama's qualifications, she said, "Mr. Obama was a community organizer. I don't even know what a community organizer does, do you?", and when addressing her camp's stance on energy policy, rather than going in depth on the issue and explaining the benefits and potential downfalls of her running mate's policy of finding new petroleum reserves in the U.S., she instead just relied chanting the mantra of, "Drill baby, drill."

In effect, the arguments she presented during her speech had little substance of their own. Rather, they relied on discrediting the opposition while discouraging any real analysis of the issues at hand by those she was speaking to. It is in this regard that junk thought is particularly dangerous.

What is Jacoby's definition of "junk thought", and in her writing, how does she address the dangers that it poses?

Critical Thinking Blog #3

Consider the current youth popular culture compared to those of the past. What movements do you have in your youth culture? How are you a part of your youth culture?

I was born in 1980, which puts me right at the tail end of Generation X (or the 13th Generation, depending on who is doing the labeling). My generation is typified as the "nothing" or "in between" generation because there were no great wars or tragedies like World War II or The Great Depression to define our youth (which is true, had I enlisted in the military at 18, I would have likely been out before the invasion of Iraq in 2003). Even so, growing up, I saw the rise of what is arguably the most diverse youth culture ever. From the rise of hip hop in the late 80's (I was just old enough to start caring about music when groups like NWA and Public Enemy came on the scene) to the grunge explosion of the early 90's, music changed drastically. We had our own pseudo-poets in Kurt Cobain and Zack de la Rocha to replace those that Jacoby cited from her own time like Simon and Dylan. The internet rose to prominence in the late 90's (though it had been around in some iteration or another for quite some time) and changed everything forever. Suddenly the acquisition of information was cheaper and easier, and people across the world could experience the youth culture of their peers in other countries.

Being labelled as the "do nothing" generation, it was up to us to define our own place in the world. Because of this, and because we took cues from the counter culture that came before us, activism and volunteerism has become far more common during my lifetime than possibly any other time in recent history. I play my part in this aspect of youth culture by volunteering whenever time allows, and by joining organizations such as Amnesty International that do work in support of causes I care about. During the most recent election my circle of friends and I became active in promoting the causes and candidates we believed in. We attended rallies in opposition to Propositions 8 and 4, and attended rallies, mailed literature, and gave our time to make phone calls in support of Proposition 2 and our current President. We were definitely not in the minority, as people in their late teens through early thirties came out in record numbers to support the causes they care about. Time will tell if this is only a short-lived trend or a shift in the way the youth of our nation lives. With any luck, coming generations will build on the atmosphere of volunteerism and activism with their own causes and experiences.

Pre-reading Blog #3

How do you perceive your popular culture? What does popular culture consist of in your world? Music? TV? The Web? Fashion? What attracted you to this particular section of popular culture? Why do you like it? How do you understand its history? Please end your blog with at least one good critical question.

Popular culture is somewhat of a mystery to me, to be completely honest. From my teenage years through my early twenties, I always did my best to be on the outside looking in at mainstream America's popular culture. My friends and I did everything we could to show that we weren't part of the popular trends of the time. We listened to punk, dressed in our own style (though, admittedly, I personally stayed far away from the mohawks, spikes, and leather jackets), and just generally tried to avoid anything but our own subculture. Looking back now though, I can see that I was just part of a cult of non-conformity. In our efforts to be different from the rest of society, my friends and I - and all of the other people we saw at shows and parties across the state and country - ended up more or less becoming part of a seperate, smaller popular culture with its own rules and history.

What attracted me to this particular subculture was the accessibility. I could pay $5 to go to a show and be in the same room as a few hundred people who, for the most part, had similar life experiences, concerns, and tastes as me. Then, after the show, I could go drink a few beers with the band. Punk (at least in its truest form throughout its history) doesn't revolve around money, or fame, or the rampant consumerism that most of the rest of American popular culture seems to. The people on stage are the same as the people in the audience and there are no illusions to the contrary.

Now that I'm a bit older though, and I've settled down and "matured" a bit (some may argue that I haven't), I've come to realize that being an outsider is pretty hard. As mindless and frivolous as most American pop culture may seem - from the latest reality tv show to whatever song may happen to be on the radio about some girl kissing another girl - it's still popular. It helps to at least know something about it, even if you don't like it. I would challenge anyone who says different to drop the name of her favorite Blood for Blood album at the water cooler and see where that leads.

This leads to my critical question. Based on the rest of the assigned reading, it's reasonable to assume that Susan Jacoby will make the case that American popular culture is playing a part in the rise of anti-intellectualism in our society. What evidence does she offer to exemplify this argument?

Critical Thinking Blog #2

"The persistence of anti-evolutionism, and its social revival as a movement during the past twenty years, sets the United States apart from every other developed country in the world." These are Susan Jacoby's words from The Age of American Unreason. It has been nearly 150 years since Darwin first proposed his Theory of Evolution, and the fact that we are still having a debate over it in this nation is absolutely assinine, in my opinion. The evidence of evolution is all around us, and to deny even the possibility that we (along with every other living being on this planet) evolved from something less advanced is to close your eyes to the world. There is absolutely no reason that evolution and creationism, as ideas, need be mutually exclusive, however those who choose to interpret the Bible literally refuse to hear that argument. In fact, most fundamentalists refuse to hear any argument in favor of evolution, no matter how logically it is presented. In the scientific community, evolution is generally accepted as fact. Changes have been observed in species over time. The only debate that remains isn't as to whether or not creatures evolved, but how they evolved and why.

Those who believe in creationism rarely offer any credible evidence to back up their claims. Rather, their faith in their argument alone is offered as proof of its validity. The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, has its basis in countless observations and experiments which have proven it to be true. In the scientific community, for a claim to be deemed a "theory", it must be considered plausible and must be based on a significant body of evidence. In light of this information alone, if one were forced to choose between one end of the spectrum or the other in the evolution-creationism debate, there can be only one logical choice.

The scary truth of the matter is that this debate is one which affects our world significantly. Many of the same fundamentalists who adhere to the tenet of creationism and who argue that it be taught in schools as an alternative to evolution also attempt to debunk the validity of research into climate change. In his article, "The Delusional is No Longer Marginal," Bill Moyers cites an interesting passage from a fundamentalist history book, America's Providential History, "the Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's earth ... while many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people." The belief that we were created along with the world leads to the assumption that the world was created for us, and that it will always provide for us. The creation/evolution debate is only a small facet of a much larger conflict between science and fundamental religion that, more often than not, stands in the way of changing the world for the better.

Pre-reading Blog #2

In a nutshell, when I see the word "pseudoscience", I think of fake science. The word invokes images of a myriad of ideas, from the benefit of diet schemes to the wonders of metaphysics, that are presented as scientific fact. These claims are generally poorly researched and don't undergo the rigorous scrutiny of the scientific process that is required to bring an idea from a "hypothesis" to a "theory" or a "law". Ultimately, claims that fall into the realm of "pseudoscience" are often refuted and disproved by evidence that is brought to bear after scientific research and experimentation is conducted by a reputable source.

The battle between evolution and creationism, as Susan Jacoby presents it, is a classic example of the contrast between science and pseudoscience. Darwin's Theory of Evolution has undergone nearly two centuries of continuous scrutiny and has been proven to be true as much as any concept in the realm of science can be. Evolution can be recreated reliably using experimentation and models based on the information that scientists know to be true. As a result, it has sufficient merit to be taught in a science classroom as fact. Creationism, on the other hand, relies on religious teaching that cannot possibly be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt by any worldly process. The main argument presented by creationism's proponents doesn't rely on evidence to prove that their way of thinking is true. Rather, intelligent design is regarded as fact because scripture says it is. Majority of the energy involved in arguing creationism's validity goes into poking holes in the Theory of Evolution. Many of these "holes", however, vary between being misleading and just downright untrue.

What strategies doesl Jacoby utilize in the reading to further refute creationism as well as other pseudoscientific claims that she examines?

Critical Thinking Blog #1

Part One

I've come across the term "critical thinking" more times than I care to count over the course of my education. My favorite high school English teacher always used to tell us how, "in high school you're given facts to memorize and regurgitate, but once you go on to college, you'll be given facts and expected to exercise your critical thinking skills." As many times as the phrase was thrown at me in his class, on standardized tests, and even in the titles of college courses, I've never taken the time to sit down and figure out for myself what the term actually means. For me, "critical thinking" is the process of taking raw information and sifting through it with an eye for what's true and what's false. I then use that information to form an opinion, which then becomes the basis for an argument or the cause for an action.

After listening to the inauguration of our 44th President today at work, I can't help but think of the most obvious example in which I used the exact process described above: I voted.

Don't get me wrong, voting is nothing new for me. This election, however, was a little different. For the first time ever in my illustrious voting career, I poured through every page of the sample ballot, trying to find any bit of information that I could use to dig deeper into an issue. By the time I showed up to the polls on November 4th, I was sure that I had made the right decision regarding every issue on the ballot. I had done my research, sorted through the information given to me from all sides, and formed a solid opinion regarding what was the right course of action.

Sometimes though, I fail to think things through critically. This phenomenon usually occurs in the presence of alcohol. I should start off by saying that I love my girlfriend with all of my heart, and one of the reasons I love her is that she is insanely intelligent- especially in the realms of politics, foreign relations, and the environment. Once in a while, I forget this.

One night, at a friend's cocktail party, I decided (at about beer #2) that it would be a great idea to argue the merits of coupling farms with small-scale animal ranches. The problem is, though, that my opponent was my girlfriend, Sarah- a vegan, who basically spends most days defending her diet choice to people who love meat. She already has her argument down pat, and it's pretty much bulletproof. I, on the other hand, had read parts of "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and knew a few facts about small-scale farming and ranching, however I hadn't taken any time to really organize what little I knew and use it to form a cohesive argument.

Things didn't end well for me.

After noticing that several people were actually watching me make a complete ass of myself as I argued myself in circles, spitting out random facts off the top of my head, and getting shot down at every turn by my far more composed and knowledgeable partner, I decided it was time to throw in the towel. Eventually, I uttered the only words I could think of that she couldn't poke holes in: "Yeah, but still." Then I skulked off to nurse my mental wounds and bruised ego with another beer and some dry salami.



Part Two

The word "intellectualism" conjures up many images for me, most of which involve stuffy old men sitting around smoking pipes and discussing the meaning of life. It's a word that is occasionally used as an insult, one that brings to mind frivolity in the pursuit of knowledge. While I personally can appreciate the quest for ideas and knowledge that intellectualism embodies, the term rarely seems to have positive connotations in society. The image of an intellectual has long been one of an elitist and someone who is separate from the rest of society. As Susan Jacoby says in The Age of American Unreason, "America's idealization of the self-made man - one who succeeds by his own wit and industriousness without advantages conferred by either a privileged family background or formal education - did not easily accommodate respect for those who devoted their lives to teaching and learning."

"Logic" and "reason" on the other hand, seem to be far more respected terms. When I think of these two words, I think of the cool-headed and even-handed thought process it takes to find a solution to a problem. For me, someone who has the ability and will to include logic and reason in his or her decision making process is somebody who deserves my respect. Logic and reason are the corner-stones of the critical thinking process. They represent the difference between a knee-jerk reaction and a cool calculated decision based on assessing the facts at hand. Sadly though, as Jacoby points out over the course of the reading, these two qualities - along with intellectualism - seem to be losing out in American discourse.