Critical Thinking

Such a basic thing, you'd think it would be a no-brainer (if you'll pardon the word-play there). As has been too often noted, here and elsewhere, it's in critically short supply these days. It comes to my mind today from two widely divergent directions.

First, Hilzoy talking about civilian control of the military. She ends with a quote from the late Andy Olmsted:

I have no use for the support of people who uncritically assume that, since we're at war, it's their duty to support it in order to help the troops. History is replete with examples of troops getting the shaft during wartime, and the only way to protect them against that is through critical thought. You can oppose the war without opposing the troops; people do that every day. I would much prefer the support of people who have examined the war, found it wanting, and seek to bring me home than those who will continue mindlessly beating the war drum regardless of the circumstances on the ground. (Please note that my own position on the war remains one of principled uncertainty.)

The sooner people realize that critical thinking is an asset rather than a liability, the better off we will all be.

And yet this is the default position for far too many people, a reflexive "love it or leave it" mentality that has no bearing on the realities of the situation, whether it be war or anything else.

The other example comes from Ed Brayton, in a post about our perennial favorite, Peter LaBarbera. From the comments:

Actually, I don't know what else to say except that all children should take critical thinking, logic, and scientific methodology classes from a young age, so that the next generation will have at least some chance of stepping out from under the crushing religious bigotry of their parents.

Maybe it's not fair to single out LaBarbera as an example of grossly underused brain cells -- in his case, while I'm trying very hard not to make any assumptions, there seems to be evidence of severe psychological issues in regard to gays that would have the effect of impairing his reasoning ability, assuming he has such an ability to begin with. There's also the possibility that, like so many of his colleagues in the anti-gay right, it's a matter of deliberate scare tactics and he doesn't really believe a word of it -- a sort of "Liars for Christ" mindset.

Here's a good example of the current condition in action: K-Lo (granted, not the brightest porch light on the block, but always good as an illustration of impaired reasoning) as deconstructed by Andrew Sullivan:

"Divorced, stigmatized and barred any legal protections." Andrew Sullivan says that's how I want gays in America to live. No, I just want to protect the institution of marriage — which is between a man and a woman.

The Federal Marriage Amendment for which K-Lo campaigned would render my civil marriage null and void. It would also explicitly remove any legal protections even under the rubric of "civil unions" that would provide me and my husband security. It would give people other than my spouse legal claims on my property were I to die or be rendered in some way incompetent. It would effectively divorce us. This is not factually in dispute. And if K-Lo supports eual treatment for gay couples under the rubric of civil unions, I'd be happy to discover that. But that is the only way she can argue that she is not, in fact, insisting that gay couples be stripped of defensible rights and stigmatized under the law.

There's not, as Sullivan so aptly points out, a middle ground here (and can we please retire the "civil unions" option? It has no validity at all): the "protect marriage" contingent has done nothing to protect marriage from any of the real problems that beset it as an institution. The "pro-family" groups do nothing to help families. It's all empty posing that relies on a lack of critical thinking skills on the part of its audience to have its effect.

It's the same sort of thinking that allowed George W. Bush to steal two elections in a row.