Wednesday, March 19, 2008
I Hate to Be Critical, But . . .
Actually, maybe more of us should get critical. At least we should think critically. If you’re wondering what that means, just keep reading.
Thinking critically means asking what something means. If you think critically when you watch a news report on television, you’ll notice that they don’t say much. Then you’ll notice that what they do say is usually designed to be upsetting in some way. Then, if you’re being critical, you’ll ask why that is. I don’t have the answer to that one handy, but I’ve seen some amusingly cynical explanations in the past. If you think about it, though, you'll see that your best interest probably doesn't explain the practice.
If we’d all been thinking critically we probably would not have any troops in Iraq. True, Saddam might well still be doing his foolish thing, but maybe not. His power was slipping by degrees as it was. It isn’t that the world isn’t better off without him, but thinking critically I can’t say offhand that Iraq is better off. Some Iraqis are, for sure, but the country may not be.
The reason we probably wouldn’t be there is that a critical reading of the arguments for going in would reveal that, first, Saddam and Osama Bin Ladin hated each other. Odds are that they would never have, in their lifetimes, agreed to help each other. They were on opposite sides of a war that started in 727. Not in a 727, but in the year 727. Saddam’s terrorists worked on Iraqi expatriates, not against the United States. Ah, hindsight, huh? But my point is that critical appraisal of all the so-called arguments for going to war with Iraq would have shown the fallacies being used. Another fallacy was that Saddam had lots of Weapons of Mass Destruction, or WMDs. Critically speaking, what was wrong with letting the UN inspector take another month or two? There were, you will recall, no such weapons there.
Another instance begging a critical review is the notion that we are at “war” in Iraq. In Korea they called the obvious war a “police action.” In Iraq they are calling the obvious police action a “war.” This is excused by calling it a part of the “war on terror.” Let’s get critical again shall we?
Terror is a tactic, like carpet bombing or propaganda. We can no more wage a war on a tactic than on drugs. Drugs are simple physical substances. They don’t fight us, and they don’t force us to use them. If guns don’t kill people seems obvious to many, why isn’t the fact that drugs don’t force themselves on people equally apparent? Drugs can’t fight, because they are inanimate objects. Terror can’t fight because it is a tactic. Thought about critically, any talk of a “war” against either of these things is absurd on the face of it. Don’t like drugs? Don’t use drugs. Don’t like terror? Don’t use terror. If that sounds frightening, you’ve probably been watching too much television news without your critical thinking cap on. A terrorist is a criminal. Ted Kaczinsky is a terrorist, or would be if we let him out. Stalin and Hitler were terrorists. Osama Bin Ladin is a terrorist. We didn’t call the war against Hitler a “war on terror.” We called it a “war against Hitler,” which is what it was. Some other terrorists of the past fifty years include, among others, Son of Sam, Terry Nichols, the Abortion Clinic bombers, the guy who blew up the bomb at the Atlanta Olympic Games, and many others. They are, or were, all criminals. If we want to reduce terror, we should send the cops after those guys. Hanging out in a foreign country because we can’t figure out how to leave isn’t doing much good for anyone, and certainly isn’t reducing the amount of terror in the world. But it makes good copy at six o’clock, doesn’t it?
Want a hint as to when you should be extra careful and start asking difficult questions of yourself, and of the people who are talking at you? Good. Here it is: if an explanation seems simple and easy to understand, and if it feels good to believe that the explanation is true, then the explanation is probably false.
The thing is that people who have only their own interests at heart, and not those of the rest of us, tend to use techniques that get us to stop being critical. They poke at our emotions over and over and over, with truth if it works, or with lies if need be, until we’re all upset and ready to quit thinking and start going along with them.
Please, do yourself, and me, and society, a favor when you stop letting get away with that crap, and start thinking critically.
Thinking critically means asking what something means. If you think critically when you watch a news report on television, you’ll notice that they don’t say much. Then you’ll notice that what they do say is usually designed to be upsetting in some way. Then, if you’re being critical, you’ll ask why that is. I don’t have the answer to that one handy, but I’ve seen some amusingly cynical explanations in the past. If you think about it, though, you'll see that your best interest probably doesn't explain the practice.
If we’d all been thinking critically we probably would not have any troops in Iraq. True, Saddam might well still be doing his foolish thing, but maybe not. His power was slipping by degrees as it was. It isn’t that the world isn’t better off without him, but thinking critically I can’t say offhand that Iraq is better off. Some Iraqis are, for sure, but the country may not be.
The reason we probably wouldn’t be there is that a critical reading of the arguments for going in would reveal that, first, Saddam and Osama Bin Ladin hated each other. Odds are that they would never have, in their lifetimes, agreed to help each other. They were on opposite sides of a war that started in 727. Not in a 727, but in the year 727. Saddam’s terrorists worked on Iraqi expatriates, not against the United States. Ah, hindsight, huh? But my point is that critical appraisal of all the so-called arguments for going to war with Iraq would have shown the fallacies being used. Another fallacy was that Saddam had lots of Weapons of Mass Destruction, or WMDs. Critically speaking, what was wrong with letting the UN inspector take another month or two? There were, you will recall, no such weapons there.
Another instance begging a critical review is the notion that we are at “war” in Iraq. In Korea they called the obvious war a “police action.” In Iraq they are calling the obvious police action a “war.” This is excused by calling it a part of the “war on terror.” Let’s get critical again shall we?
Terror is a tactic, like carpet bombing or propaganda. We can no more wage a war on a tactic than on drugs. Drugs are simple physical substances. They don’t fight us, and they don’t force us to use them. If guns don’t kill people seems obvious to many, why isn’t the fact that drugs don’t force themselves on people equally apparent? Drugs can’t fight, because they are inanimate objects. Terror can’t fight because it is a tactic. Thought about critically, any talk of a “war” against either of these things is absurd on the face of it. Don’t like drugs? Don’t use drugs. Don’t like terror? Don’t use terror. If that sounds frightening, you’ve probably been watching too much television news without your critical thinking cap on. A terrorist is a criminal. Ted Kaczinsky is a terrorist, or would be if we let him out. Stalin and Hitler were terrorists. Osama Bin Ladin is a terrorist. We didn’t call the war against Hitler a “war on terror.” We called it a “war against Hitler,” which is what it was. Some other terrorists of the past fifty years include, among others, Son of Sam, Terry Nichols, the Abortion Clinic bombers, the guy who blew up the bomb at the Atlanta Olympic Games, and many others. They are, or were, all criminals. If we want to reduce terror, we should send the cops after those guys. Hanging out in a foreign country because we can’t figure out how to leave isn’t doing much good for anyone, and certainly isn’t reducing the amount of terror in the world. But it makes good copy at six o’clock, doesn’t it?
Want a hint as to when you should be extra careful and start asking difficult questions of yourself, and of the people who are talking at you? Good. Here it is: if an explanation seems simple and easy to understand, and if it feels good to believe that the explanation is true, then the explanation is probably false.
The thing is that people who have only their own interests at heart, and not those of the rest of us, tend to use techniques that get us to stop being critical. They poke at our emotions over and over and over, with truth if it works, or with lies if need be, until we’re all upset and ready to quit thinking and start going along with them.
Please, do yourself, and me, and society, a favor when you stop letting get away with that crap, and start thinking critically.
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
