If you get these first two steps right, it’ll eliminate maybe 80-90% of your errors:
Step 1
Define your
terms precisely, and be clear about what you’re trying to conclude or
understand. Unless you get step 1 right you can’t be sure you’re on the path to
understanding the situation or solving the right problem.
Step 2
It’s
essential to understand that an argument becomes irrational
not simply by containing fallacies but by relying on them to reach its
conclusion. If a person’s argument can stand on its own without the fallacious
reasoning, then the argument is rational even if fallacies are present. The key
takeaway is that the conclusion itself is not dependent on these errors
in reasoning. This is important because in many discussions, people may
inadvertently include fallacious reasoning, yet their overall argument remains
logically sound without it. Rational belief or argument, when stripped of
fallacies, should still have evidence or logical reasoning that makes it
probable or plausible. Conversely, an argument that collapses when fallacies
are removed is highly likely to be defective, reflecting an irrational
position. Awareness of this is an effective way to discern whether an argument
is grounded in logic or only appears plausible to you due to fallacies you’re
not noticing. So, the statement is valid in that it differentiates between an
argument that merely contains fallacies and one that depends on them, with
rationality hinging on whether or not the conclusion can stand on evidence and
reason without these fallacies. This distinction helps avoid what’s called the
‘fallacy fallacy’ (the mistaken belief that an argument with any fallacies is
entirely invalid). Here are a couple of examples.
Example 1
Argument:
Exercise leads to a longer life.
Fallacious reasoning: Everyone who lives past 90 exercises regularly.
Conclusion: This line of reasoning obviously involves a hasty generalisation, because it exaggerates the role of exercise in longevity without considering other factors. However, extensive evidence does support that regular exercise can improve lifespan and quality of life, meaning the argument is sound without needing to rely on this fallacy.
Example 2
Argument: Reducing government regulations helps
businesses grow and stimulates the economy.
Fallacious reasoning: All regulations are bad
because they restrict growth and freedom.
Conclusion: All regulations are not bad; some help
promote growth and freedom. However, targeted deregulation often correlates
with reduced costs and increased flexibility for businesses, which can
stimulate growth.
These examples show how fallacies can be present in an argument without making it irrational, as long as the argument’s core conclusions can stand without relying on these flawed reasoning paths. Conversely, an argument that collapses entirely without its fallacies (such as those using only exaggerated fears or appeals to emotion) would lack rational basis.
With a clear understanding of fallacies, let’s move to examining assumptions - which is another key part of critical thinking:
Step 3
Identify the
fundamental assumptions underlying your initial beliefs or arguments, and
question their validity. Assumptions are often invisible, but they usually
heavily influence conclusions. By scrutinising and testing them, you reduce the
chance of being blindsided by hidden biases, or of going askew by faulty
underlying assumptions.
Step 4
Do your best
to present an honest, well thought through set of counter-arguments – as if you
were arguing for the view you claim to reject. Not only does this add the
finishing touches to steps 1-3, it also sharpens your critical reasoning
skills, and invites you to either reconsider your own position, or strengthen
it further if it can’t easily be counter-argued.
In summary, the core guidance is to define your terms and arguments clearly, understand that you’re in need of a re-think if the argument depends on fallacies to be convincing, look for underlying assumptions that might be skewing or undermining your argument, and be thoroughly cognisant of all the best counter-arguments to your position. By following these steps, you’ll develop a more rigorous approach to evaluating arguments.
