Exercise Key Checklist of Thinking Errors

exercise Key Checklist of Thinking Errors An annotated list of common sources of reasoning error followed by a few exercise as examples of ways in which they may be put to work.

thinking error 1 DEFINITION: If we are to reason using everyday language we must be clear about exactly what the words we are using refer to. Everyone attaches slightly different meanings to the words they use depending on their particular experience.

This is not so much of a problem with concrete noun concepts, but is commonly a source of confusion with more abstract concepts. As ideas become more abstract the connection to our experienc~ knowledge becomes more distant. Words like 'freedom' and 'democracy' are worthless unless brought to earth by tangible definition. How many people are tortured? How is the media controlled?

Other descriptive words require qualification if they are not to be too vague. Words like progressive, beautiful, bad or nice.

thinking error 2 AMBIGUITY Referring only to a dark brown table can be worthless if the object is being offered for sale. Does brown indicate mahogany or thick paint covering shoddy construction? This shows an ambiguity caused by using a word that is not precise enough for the context.

In other cases and especially in English we find a single word that has two quite different meanings. These meanings can even be contradictory as in 'to go fast' or 'to stand fast'.

In this type of example definition is provided by the context. Other cases of ambiguity may be more subtle and these are more likely to cause errors in arguement. If a word is causing confusion it is best to restate the problem in different words.

thinking error 3 INCORRECT BASIC IDEAS It is useful to think of this on two levels. That of our assumptions and that of our basic propositions in a particular piece of thinking.

A. Assumptions: These are the unproven intuitions, beliefs and so called instincts that underlie or thought structure as a whole. Most people are not aware of the assumptions upon which they act - they are usually tied up with our feelings and early experiences and inherited cultural norms.

Philosophers have identified fundamental assumptions that we all share such as the consistency of the universe and the principle of induction.

Brilliant thinking on unchecked assumptions can lead to disasters.

B. Basic propositions - Any rational thought process starts from certain basic propositions and from these we may deduce an outcome. This outcome will vary from a definite conclusion to more questions. To make this process clear we must first articulate our basic propositions in full. Then we should check they are factually correct, or to what extent they are supported. Are the supportive references reliable? On what authority are they based? What interests might the authority be acting on behalf of?

We must work back from any opinion to find the propositions on which it is based. We check these and sort out the factual, from the emotional, from the intuitive. Are the facts reliable? What real conditions are behind the emotional feeling? Express the part that is intuitively judged/evaluated as clearly as possible.

This process is invaluable in any area in which you are working or otherwise involved. It allows you to become articulate and clear and will make any subsequent programme of action much more effective.

thinking error 4 CAUSE OR ANTECEDENT Sometimes cause is separated from effect by considerable space or time. The connection between the two may not be obvious. In such cases another factor that is closer in space or time may appear to be the cause. e.g. In prehistoric times, and in come cultures more recently, the causal connection between intercourse and childbearing was not realised. Sometimes causal connections are implied in speech: "After I had taken the medicine my pain went way". But we cannot be certain that the chemical properties of the medicine were the cause of the pain ending.

The point is that the cause is not always the most obvious factor. Apparent causes need to be investigated until actual concrete relations are ascertained.

thinking error 5 REAL ATTRIBUTE OR ASSOCIATION? It is important to be clear about the real 'characteristics' of an object or event as distinct from its associations.

I recently read a statistical report from Scotland which lamented the lack of truth in the stereo~ype of the tight fisted or thrifty Scot. Statistics showed the Scots to be squandering their income at a rate that caused concern in the author of the report. Stereotypes are bad enough simply because they generalise about a people who are in fact all different. They are even more absurd when it is likely that the stereotype is false.

Unwarranted associations that appear as real characteristics are most pernicious. Working class people are said to be dirty and thick. Although put like this, it is patently absurd. This conditioning plays an important part in class division in many guises.

Sometimes we are interested in the associations of an object or event rather than its real characteristics. It is the associations of a Star of David medalion that are important not its physical characteristics. The same is true of most ritual.

thinking error 6 SPURIOUS GENERALISATION Sweeping generalisations are one of the most common weaknesses of everyday reasoning,

Incorrect generalisations are usually made on the basis of inadequate evidence. Observation of a few cases, however vivid, do not mean the rest of the category are similar. e.g. On entering a port of a country you have never before visited you may 'get an impression of the country'. You may see many cars for instance. Then on another trip you travel further inland and find a completely different scene with very few cars.

Other generalisations are misleading in that they do not give any idea of the number of exceptions to be expected. Generalisations that ar not all-encompassing should be qualified.


 * Test for Spurious Generalisation


 * a. Were there enough observations made?

(From different viewpoints In sufficient locations).


 * b. Are the instances recorded representative?


 * c. Were they recorded objectively?


 * d. Was a thorough search for exceptions made?


 * Note: It is possible to make the opposite mistake - assuming one case when there are more than one. Thinking you are the only person feeling so-and-so whereas there are usually many others feeling the same but not communicating about it. (Common in areas of taboo e.g. men talking to each other about their emotional life)

thinking error 7 CLASSIFICATION Classification systems will attempt to make a 'universal' division of the world but this is never possible from one place in space and time. Particular classification systems always show some things more clearly than others. Essentially classification is a gross simplification of the world in which individual things are never the same. But classifications is useful because it is orderly (allows us to find things) and because it helps us understand underlying structure and pattern.

Some classifications become more real than the world they are dealing with. Classification is only ever an temporary artificial for us to understand the world not a grid through which we must live.

When we look for something in, for example, a library index, we must remember we are looking through a classification grid made by another falable human with a specific viewpoint and set of interests. A disadvantage of classification can be seen on the most basic level in the verbal classifications of polar opposites. Good/bad, working class/middle class, normal/abnormal, sane/mad, clever/stupid. These polarities simplify a reality that is spread out on a perhaps multi dimensional continuum and not divided into two opposed categories.

The most complete and flexible classification system is of course language. And yet language itself will reflect the bias of those who are most culturally dominant. So published English will, in the main, reflect a male, middle class, middle aged, white, able bodied view of the world.

This illustration from a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphs shows clearly how gender relations are expressed in language.

thinking error 8 EMOTION There is a very strong tendency to formalise one's early emotional experience in later conscious philisophical beliefs or idealogy.

We will try to use reason to create a plausible explanation for our (basically irrational) feelings. This is a most important point because it is such an insidious and profound process, ie. difficult, to be aware of such sub-conscious steering. Our whole life will have been arranged in accordance with out emotional requirements so our vested interest in this not been challenged is high.

In smaller ways emotion plays a great part in confusing rational thought process. We may cooly use emotive terms, 'my country, right or wrong' to move people emotionally. We may also be dramaticaly emotional 'I'd like to kill you' etc.

Learning to differentiate between feelings and rational thought and responding to each separately in an appropriate way, is one of the most useful things we can do to think more clearly in the plance most people get bogged down (see emotion). Rational thought will almost certainly bring us up against our emotions and those of others. A change of ideas in some circumstances may mean losing friends and a secure job or discarding a lifetimes work. Unless we know how to deal with our feelings separately, we will find only the easy options are open to us in life and we will probably 'rationalise' our choice rather than admit our fears.

A common emotional block is 'fear of failure'. We are conditioned to success being the only acceptable outcome and to err or fail is equated with humiliation, and yet trial and error is a necessary part of the learning process. Only if we overcome our fear of failure can we move into new ground.

thinking error 9 PERSONAL EXPERIENCE  Personal experience is very influential compared with second-hand knowledge (e.g. from books). It is perhaps not surprising that we give knowledge gained by direct experience a status of 'Law'.

Personal experience is the most vivid and rich form of knowledge. At the same time it must be accepted as unreliable whilst unsubstantiated from other sources.

Perceptual errors of magnitude and recognition are common. (link senses section). Generalisation on the basis of too small a sample is the usual error made on the basis of personal experience.

Personal experience is of great value but should be checked against 'third party' sources. On the other hand a knowledge gained from books is greatly enriched by personal investigation.

thinking error 10 VALUE AND OPINION We must be clear how our values are formed. There is the judgement based on 'objective' evidences, measurements etc. and then there is the intuitive evaluation. This latter may be based on less certain evidences and references, personal experience, association and emotional bonds. If we are arrogant with our opinions we must be sure our values are formed from reliable sources.

The best way to check opinions based on experience is by extensive sharing with your peer group. Hearing many other people express a similar feeling can turn what seemed like personal idiosyncrasy or neurosis into a political demand.

Of course group opinions may be held in error. e.g. a few hundred years ago everybody believed the world was flat. But if a lot of people share a strong feellng or opinion you can be sure there is a real social condition behind it even if the conclusion held is incorrect. (e.g. the appeal of the racism of the BNP diverts thinking from other genuine grievances that require recognition).

thinking error 11 CONTEXT It is well accepted now that many 'personal problems' that people suffer have larger social causes. By examining the person we may discover little. It is only by looking at a wider context that we discover the cause of the problem.

Ecology has demonstrated particularly well the interrelation of small events with the larger world. If a problem cannot be solved as it presents itself, perhaps you have not fully appreciated the implications of its context.

Getting this overview may not be more difficult than reading a carefully chosen book, taking a walk or listening to someone with inside information for an hour or two.

thinking error 12 VIEWPOINT In thinking about complex phenomena viewpoint is most important. The more viewpoints from which we study phenomena the more aspects will be revealed. When stuck thinking about a 'problem' taking another viewpoint is always a good move.

Disagreement is often caused by differences in the viewpoint which may make the same source of information appear radically difffferent. It is important to start any debate by stating your point of view (with as much detail and passion as possible) and then to listen to other points of view. The if it seems useful develop bridging ideas.

A single viewpoint is inevitably limited.

thinking error 13 THE PURITY OF SCIENCE An absurdity is built into our society through the artificial division of people into manual and intellectual and then later of the so-called intellectual field into arts or sciences.

These divisions are artificial and should not be treated as if they represent real differences. A car mechanic will go through a perfect model of rational analysis when finding a mechanical fault in a vehicle. In fact a good machanic must have as logical a mind as a scientist. The practical complements the abstract and the intuition and imagination complement reason and 'scientific' logic.

Rationality is not healthy as an isolated ability. Its co-existence with intuition, imagination and action must be accepted.

thinking error 14 FALSE VALIDITY

FALLLACY: Any argument which decieves us, by seeming to prove what it does not really prove.

LOGIC: Rules underlying arguments which, when followed, Will ensure that only true conclusions are drawn from true premises.

____________________


 * a. A logically valid argument is used to imply the truth of one of its premises.


 * The validity of a syllogism is quite independent of the truth of its premises. 'I have sent for you my dear ducks,' said the worthy Mrs Bond, 'to enquire with what sauce you would like to be eaten?'


 * 'But we don't want to be killed.' cried the Ducks.


 * 'You are wandering from the point.' was Mrs Bonds perfectly logical reply.


 * Lewis Carroll, preface to third edition of Euclid and His Modern Rivals


 * b. True premises are used to suggest a false conclusion. e.g. I saw it in the newspaper. All newspapers tell lies. Conclusion (false) It was a lie. True conclusion; It might be a lie.


 * Some ties are not artistic. I admire anything artistic. Conclusion (false) There are some ties I do not admire. If A is C and B is C, then it is a false conclusion that A = B. A and B share the same characteristic but are equal only in that respect.


 * c. Conclusions that are self-evidently true can suggest a valid argument. e.g. No thieves are honest. Some dishonest people are found out. Conclusion (false) Some thieves are found out. Although it happens to be true that some thieves are found out, it cannot be deduced from the stated premises.


 * d. False causality: If B follows A then A is often taken as the cause of B. If you go to Harley Street for a cure and afterwards get better this may suggest, but does not prove, that your recovery was due to the specialist's ministration.


 * e. Irrelevant Application: Validly drawn conclusions are often then reapplied to material which is not part of the origional premises. The reaction of guinea pigs to different coloured light is used to imply that there is a similar human response.


 * f. False Induction: By giving a plethora of substantive detail and avoiding the mention of contradictory instances. e.g. attacks on Western medicine will instance all the times it goes wrong without providing the same space to mention its considerable successes.

thinking error 15 ANALOGY An analogy is used to describe (or explain)  something unknown by reference to something known that has similar characteristics.


 * Presumptive reasoning is based on the assumption that if things have some similar attributes their other attributes will be similar Shorter Oxford Dictionary.

Analogies tend to run away with themselves. They become interesting in themselves as poetry or imagery and begin to imply much more than their circumscribed purpose. This is commonly noted in religions where helpful analogies tend to become blind articles of faith.

The limits of any analogy should be made clear. If we learn that atoms are 'like billiard balls' it should be made clear exactly in what ways they are to be imaged as like billiard balls.

The temptation to overuse a rich analogy should be avoided. There tends to he a confusing transference of properties between analogy and subject. As analogies develop always check with reality that all attributes compared are equivalent and there is no implication of further equivalences.


 * The perfect analogy is: the ratio 2:4 is equivalent to 50: X


 * therefore ,'. X = 100


 * But expressed loosely as 2 is to 4 as 50 is to X - we can derive the result X = 52.

If we know a dog has a liver we might infer that a cat also has a liver; because they are similar animals. This is a useful hypothesis but not a truth until we check with reality by dissecting a dead cat.

Analogy is a powerful mode because of the minds propensity to match up similar patterns.

________________________________Return to Rationality/Reason

'Below are four exercises suggesting formal uses of the checklist above':

exercise Errors of Thinking Checklist Use example A Without too much consideration write a few pages on your current beliefs, values or whatever ...and the reasons you have for holding these positions. Then using any of the checklists comment upon your thinking and reasoning. (Conclude by summarising the strong and weak points of your opinions.)

exercise Errors of Thinking Checklist Use example B Buy an introductory pamphlet in which some group introduces their ideas or other written material that concisely argues a case. This type of thing is sometimes provided in a newspaper editorial or feature. Using the checklist criticise the reasoning. What strengths and what weakness does it have? Do you notice weaknesses not mentioned in the checklist? Summarise the argument as stated flnd your critique of it.

exercise Errors of Thinking Checklist Use example C Visit a court of law whilst a case is being defended. Follow the argument making notes of underlying a assumptions, strengths and weaknesses. Do you agree with the ruling of the court? Could you have added extra dimensions to the case? Where was the reasoning lucid and where was there more room for doubt or even logical error. Other visits could be made to parliament and to the local debating society.

exercise Errors of Thinking Checklist Use example D Collect newspaper articles on some controvesial issue. e.g. European Union democracy, the Arms Race, cloning, immigration etc. What opinions and assumptions can you read between the lines. Are people trying to imply something they simply dare not say? What is your own likely bias in each case? What view might you hold if you were unbiased?

Return to Rationality/Reason