Your critical thinking skills are fundamentally necessary to everyday existence. You exercise them without thinking about it most times and you are better off for it. Many times this is easy. "This chick really hates Trump," and "I want to bang this chick," therefor "I won't bring up Trump and kill the mood." Or "I wanna get baked," and "I'm outta weed," therefor "I'll scrape some resin outta my pipe." Easy and Useful.
Usually, even unpolished logic can get you through the day. This simple A + B = C is good enough for most tasks.
But what happens when someone tells you something complex like "Love is the opposite of Fear?" Or "One should not Judge?" These require a few more steps of critical analysis in order to decide whether they are true and whether you should adjust your behavior accordingly.
There are a few useful tactics you can use to enhance your Critical Thinking Skills.
Translate the statement into other terms.
"Love is the opposite of Fear." Well, what is Love? What is Fear? And what is Opposite?
Love - is a measure of my affinity for something; how much I like something and want to be around it.
Fear - is a measure of how safe I feel with something; how secure I feel with something.
Opposite things are the same in nature, but different in degree. Hot and Cold are of the same "nature" - temperature - but they vary in degree. Soft and Hard are descriptions of "texture" or "solidity" and they describe the different degrees of solidity that things can possess.
Opposites describe the opposing ends of the spectrum regarding the nature something. You can't experience opposites at the same time from the same thing. Something that is hot cannot be described as also cold. Soft cannot also be hard. Day cannot also be night. We can experience the midpoints of the spectrum, where they blend into one another, but not the opposing points of the spectrum at the same time.
If Love is a measure of how much I like something and Fear is a measure of how secure I feel with something, are they the same in nature? No. Love's nature is affinity, and Fear's nature is security. Therefor, they cannot be opposites.
Think of good examples from your own experience to back up your new premise.
If our new premise is "Love and Fear are not opposites," then we can test that premise with examples from our own experience. If we can't find anything to back up the new premise, then we might have to throw it out.
Roller Coasters. I have been on roller coasters that terrified me and I loved every minute of it.
Broccoli. I feel the exact opposite of Love when I think of eating broccoli. I have never even been mildly startled by broccoli, much less actively Fear it.
I sponsored a tiger at a sanctuary for a while. They let me bring him toys and feed him through the cage. I loved that cat. But I damn sure wasn't getting into the cage with him.
Because we can "logically" come to the premise that "Love and Fear are not opposites," and we can back up that premise with real-world experience, then we can be pretty sure the premise is valid. At least partially.
Take things to the extreme.
When someone asserts that "There is no right and wrong," or "There is no good or bad," I offer to brutally rape and torture them. To test the theory. Never had any takers. That's because they have (quite rightly) judged that being raped and tortured would be a "bad" thing for them.
When someone tells me never to judge a person, I present this scenario: If a man comes to your door, wanting to babysit your children, and he's got his criminal record with him which consists of 500 offenses - all child rape - does he get to babysit your kids?
New Age speaker Abraham Hicks is fond of saying "Wherever you stand, you are in the best place you ever stood." What about the asshole sacrificing an infant to Moloch? Is he in the best place he ever stood? What about the infant? Is the child being torturously murdered in the best place he ever stood? Seems like even 20 minutes before would be better than where he is right now.
When you take things to the extreme, you can determine whether or not an assertion is an "absolute truth," or something that's just true sometimes. Much New Age philosophy makes assertions of absolute truth. An absolute truth only needs to be wrong once to make it not absolutely true. The ends of the spectrum - the extremes - are the easiest way to test assertions of absolute truth.
Get to know the Logical Fallacies.
Logical Fallacies are incredibly useful in determining the validity of a claim. If all of the arguments used to back up a claim are logically fallacious, the claim is not yet proven to be valid. It isn't proven to be false, either. It just isn't proven yet. Learn the logical fallacies and get good at picking them out when someone is asserting a claim.
Beware: The "Oily Appendages of the Elite" are trying desperately to modify the Logical Fallacy known as the Appeal To Authority.
The Appeal to Authority essentially states that "Just because this guy's got a PhD, doesn't mean he's right." Scientists and institutions can be wrong. Do not take their word for it just because they claim to be an authority on the subject.
Many websites are now modifying the Appeal to Authority with disclaimers that read:
"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence."
The "claims of experts" and "scientific consensus" are precisely what the Appeal To Authority logical fallacy was designed to keep in check.
In fact, the phrase "nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge" is, itself, an Appeal To Authority.
All of us THC'ers know that most scientists and experts will not acknowledge "empirical evidence" that does not conform to the "scientific consensus."
The use of Logic and Reason is your best protection from lizards spinning lies to enslave you. Emotion and "feelings" can mislead you in determining the validity of a claim. The best lies are the ones that make you feel good (the Appeal To Emotion logical fallacy).
If you polish and perfect your skill with logic, you will be armored against the next set of comforting lies dripped from the tongues of reptiles.
Usually, even unpolished logic can get you through the day. This simple A + B = C is good enough for most tasks.
But what happens when someone tells you something complex like "Love is the opposite of Fear?" Or "One should not Judge?" These require a few more steps of critical analysis in order to decide whether they are true and whether you should adjust your behavior accordingly.
There are a few useful tactics you can use to enhance your Critical Thinking Skills.
Translate the statement into other terms.
"Love is the opposite of Fear." Well, what is Love? What is Fear? And what is Opposite?
Love - is a measure of my affinity for something; how much I like something and want to be around it.
Fear - is a measure of how safe I feel with something; how secure I feel with something.
Opposite things are the same in nature, but different in degree. Hot and Cold are of the same "nature" - temperature - but they vary in degree. Soft and Hard are descriptions of "texture" or "solidity" and they describe the different degrees of solidity that things can possess.
Opposites describe the opposing ends of the spectrum regarding the nature something. You can't experience opposites at the same time from the same thing. Something that is hot cannot be described as also cold. Soft cannot also be hard. Day cannot also be night. We can experience the midpoints of the spectrum, where they blend into one another, but not the opposing points of the spectrum at the same time.
If Love is a measure of how much I like something and Fear is a measure of how secure I feel with something, are they the same in nature? No. Love's nature is affinity, and Fear's nature is security. Therefor, they cannot be opposites.
Think of good examples from your own experience to back up your new premise.
If our new premise is "Love and Fear are not opposites," then we can test that premise with examples from our own experience. If we can't find anything to back up the new premise, then we might have to throw it out.
Roller Coasters. I have been on roller coasters that terrified me and I loved every minute of it.
Broccoli. I feel the exact opposite of Love when I think of eating broccoli. I have never even been mildly startled by broccoli, much less actively Fear it.
I sponsored a tiger at a sanctuary for a while. They let me bring him toys and feed him through the cage. I loved that cat. But I damn sure wasn't getting into the cage with him.
Because we can "logically" come to the premise that "Love and Fear are not opposites," and we can back up that premise with real-world experience, then we can be pretty sure the premise is valid. At least partially.
Take things to the extreme.
When someone asserts that "There is no right and wrong," or "There is no good or bad," I offer to brutally rape and torture them. To test the theory. Never had any takers. That's because they have (quite rightly) judged that being raped and tortured would be a "bad" thing for them.
When someone tells me never to judge a person, I present this scenario: If a man comes to your door, wanting to babysit your children, and he's got his criminal record with him which consists of 500 offenses - all child rape - does he get to babysit your kids?
New Age speaker Abraham Hicks is fond of saying "Wherever you stand, you are in the best place you ever stood." What about the asshole sacrificing an infant to Moloch? Is he in the best place he ever stood? What about the infant? Is the child being torturously murdered in the best place he ever stood? Seems like even 20 minutes before would be better than where he is right now.
When you take things to the extreme, you can determine whether or not an assertion is an "absolute truth," or something that's just true sometimes. Much New Age philosophy makes assertions of absolute truth. An absolute truth only needs to be wrong once to make it not absolutely true. The ends of the spectrum - the extremes - are the easiest way to test assertions of absolute truth.
Get to know the Logical Fallacies.
Logical Fallacies are incredibly useful in determining the validity of a claim. If all of the arguments used to back up a claim are logically fallacious, the claim is not yet proven to be valid. It isn't proven to be false, either. It just isn't proven yet. Learn the logical fallacies and get good at picking them out when someone is asserting a claim.
Beware: The "Oily Appendages of the Elite" are trying desperately to modify the Logical Fallacy known as the Appeal To Authority.
The Appeal to Authority essentially states that "Just because this guy's got a PhD, doesn't mean he's right." Scientists and institutions can be wrong. Do not take their word for it just because they claim to be an authority on the subject.
Many websites are now modifying the Appeal to Authority with disclaimers that read:
"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence."
The "claims of experts" and "scientific consensus" are precisely what the Appeal To Authority logical fallacy was designed to keep in check.
In fact, the phrase "nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge" is, itself, an Appeal To Authority.
All of us THC'ers know that most scientists and experts will not acknowledge "empirical evidence" that does not conform to the "scientific consensus."
The use of Logic and Reason is your best protection from lizards spinning lies to enslave you. Emotion and "feelings" can mislead you in determining the validity of a claim. The best lies are the ones that make you feel good (the Appeal To Emotion logical fallacy).
If you polish and perfect your skill with logic, you will be armored against the next set of comforting lies dripped from the tongues of reptiles.
Last edited:
