i feel like i have zero critical thinking skills ;-;
a lot of the time when someone poses an idea or a theory they think they’re right, and so they use language that enforces that. but then someone refutes it, and uses language affirming what they believe and i see the point in their argument. and then it gets refuted again and again and again and im just confused.
hi great question. i would love it if there were a single easy litmus test to figure out who’s ‘right’ and whose info i should trust! unfortunately things are rarely this easy, and it’s actually completely normal to be overwhelmed by the amount of information being produced and shared, especially when it comes to topics you haven’t researched/lived/etc. for most of us, this will be most topics!
i’d preface this by saying that i think your overall attitude here is actually a good one. you’re framing it in a pretty self-deprecating way—but actually, imo this type of openness to discussion and disagreement is a really good place to start, esp when dealing with topics that are new to you. nobody enters a contentious debate with a fully fledged, defensible viewpoint. you might feel like you’re just treading water here, making no progress toward being able to evaluate arguments for yourself, but i highly doubt that’s true.
all of that said: while i again cannot give you a single litmus test for figuring out what’s 'right’, there are four pretty basic sets of questions that i automatically run through when encountering a new idea, source, topic, or argument: we can call these origin, purpose, value, and limitations.
origin: who’s the author? do they have any institutional affiliations? who pays their salary? is this argument or paper funded in any way? is the argument dependent upon the author’s social position or status (race, class, etc) and if so, are those factors being discussed clearly? does the author have ties to a particular nation-state or stakes in defending such a nation-state? what’s the class character of the author and the argument? what’s the social, economic, and intellectual context that gave rise to this argument or source?
purpose: why is this source or person disseminating this information or making this argument? are they trying to sell you anything? are their funders? are they trying to persuade you of a particular political viewpoint? keeping in mind the answers to the 'origin’ questions, are there particular ideological positions you would expect to find in this source or argument, and are they present? what are the stakes for the author or source? what about for those who cite the source or further disseminate or publish it?
value: what does this source or argument accomplish well? what aspects of the argument are new to you and strike you as insightful? are there linkages being made that you haven’t encountered elsewhere, and that you think are effectively and sufficiently defended? are there statistics or empirical data that might be useful to you in forming your own argument, even if you disagree with how this source or author is interpreting them? what does this argument or source tell you about the types of debates being had, and the rules of those debates?
limitations: where does this argument or source fail you or fall apart? are there obvious rhetorical fallacies you can identify? is the author forgetting or overlooking some piece of information that you know of from elsewhere? which viewpoints may be omitted? keeping in mind the answers to the 'purpose’ questions, if this source is defending a particular ideology or political position, is that one you agree with? is it only defensible so long as the author omits or distorts certain pieces of information? are there points where the argument jumps from evidence to a conclusion that the evidence can’t fully support? are there alternative explanations for the evidence?
over time you will often find that it becomes more and more automatic to ask yourself these questions. you will also find that the more you read/hear about a particular topic, the faster you can determine whether someone is presenting all of the evidence, presenting it fairly, and using it to fully defend the argument they ultimately want to make. and you will probably also find that at some point, you’re able to synthesise your own argument by pulling the strong parts from multiple other people’s viewpoints, combining them with your own thinking, and fitting them together in a way that adequately explains and materially analyses the issue at hand.
Thank you for this! One of the resources I use for teaching my students about persuasive speech and media literacy is the Stanford philosophy Argument and Argumentation page:
autistic anger issues are So Much. i have my temper more under control now in that i rly dont yell/lash out anymore but i do regularly boil inside with incandescent uncontainable rage over something inconsequential and then it evaporates in the span of ten minutes. incomparable
