Thought distortions are “techniques”, that, unconsciuos or conscious, are used from an interest in finding ways of getting on in the world, rather than an interest in finding ways of discovering the truth. Thought distortions are the background for poor reasoning, diversionary ploys, seductive reasoning errors, techniques of persuasion and avoidance, psychological factors, which can be obstacles to clear thought.
Critical thinking, or philosophy, is in opposition to thought distortions. Critical thinking is about spotting thought distortions, and examining them by presenting reasons and evidence in support of conclusions. Critical thinking is the only tool you can use in order to explore, change and restructure thought distortions. It is not something psychotherapy should take care of!
Up through the history of philosophy thought distortions have got names such as Ad hoc clauses, Ad hominem move, Anecdotal evidence, Arbitrary inference, Argumentum ad populum, Argumentum from ignorance, Attribution, Bandwagon effect, Begging the question, Black and white thinking, Catastrophe-thinking, Cognitive dissonance, Communal reinforcement, Compensation, Contradiction, Conversion to the opposite, Denial, Dichotom thinking, Displacement, Enlargement and reduction of elements in the surrounding world, Endless split of the thought, False dichotomy, Generalization, Groupthink, Hermeneutics of suspicion, Hypnosis, Hypocrisy, Ideology, Ignoring alternative explanations, Magical thinking, NewSpeak, Personalizing, Persuader words, Prejudice, Projection, Pseudo-profundity, Pseudoscience, Rationalization, Reductio ad absurdum, Reductionism, Research has shown that..., Rhetoric, Rhetorical questions, Selective abstraction, Self-refutating arguments, Solipsism, Sophistry, Straw man, Testimonials, Thought-reading, Truth by authority, Vested interest, Wishful thinking..., etc.
On the page A dictionary of thought distortions I have explained the above-mentioned thought distortions in depth.
The difference between the use of thought distortions and the use of critical thinking can be clarified by comparing the so-called Sophists to the philosopher Socrates:
After centuries of successful trading, the local gods and festivals could no longer satisfy the religious needs of the ancient Athenians. Their spiritual hunger was exacerbated by the stress of city life, by the constant threat of destruction, and by the grim vision of totalitarian Sparta: the vision of Greeks living without light or grace or humour, as though the gods had withdrawn from their world.
Into the crowded space of Periclean Athens came the wandering teachers, selling their “wisdom” to the bewildered populace. Any charlatan could make a killing, if enough people believed in him. Men like Gorgias and Protagoras, who wandered from house to house demanding fees for their instruction, preyed on the gullibility of a people made anxious by war.
To the young Plato, who observed their antics with outrage, these “Sophists” were a threat to the very soul of Athens. One alone among them seemed worthy of attention, and that one, the great Socrates whom Plato immortalised in his dialogues, was not a Sophist, but a true philosopher.
The philosopher, in Plato´s characterisation, awakens the spirit of inquiry. He helps his listeners to discover the truth, and it is they who bring forth, under his catalysing influence, the answer to life´s riddles. The philosopher is the midwife, and his duty is to help us to what we are – free and rational beings, who lack nothing that is required to understand our condition. The Sophist, by contrast, misleads us with cunning fallacies, takes advantage of our weakness, and offers himself as the solution to problems of which he himself is the cause.
There are many signs of the Sophists, but principal among these is that they are subjectivists and relativists. Their teachings are about how to get on in the world, and not about how to find the truth. Anything goes: not facts, but the best story wins. And the result is mumbo-jumbo, condescension and the taking of fees. The philosopher uses plain language, does not talk down to his audience, and never asks for payment. Such was Socrates, and in proposing him as an ideal, Plato defined the social status of the philosopher for centuries to come.
No one should doubt that sophistry is alive and well. My concept of the Matrix Conspiracy is permeated with it. We see it in the postmodern intellectualism, in the management culture, and in the New Age environment. The Sophists are back with a vengeance, and are all the more to be feared, in that they come disguised as philosophers. For, in this time of helpless relativism and subjectivity, philosophy alone has stood against the tide, reminding us that those crucial distinctions on which life depends – between true and false, good and evil, right and wrong – are objective and binding. Philosophy has until now spoken with the accents of the academy and not with the voice of the fortune teller.
When Plato founded the first academy, and placed philosophy at the heart of it, he did so in order to protect the precious store of wisdom from the assaults of charlatans, to create a kind of temple to truth in the midst of falsehood, and to marginalise the Sophists who preyed on human confusion.
The Sophists were teachers of rhetoric, who against a fee, taught people how to persuade other people about their “truths”. Rhetoric, or sophistry, is the art of persuasion. Rather than giving reasons and presenting arguments to support conclusions, as Socrates did, then those who use sophistry are employing a battery of techniques, such as emphatic assertion, persuader words and emotive language, to convince the listener, or reader, that what they say or imply is true.
The Sophists taught their pupils how to win arguments by any means available; they were supposedly more interested in teaching ways of getting on in the world than ways of finding the truth, as Socrates. Therefore any charlatan is welcome. And the use of thought distortions is seen as the best tool, when practising the mantra: “It is not facts, but the best story, that wins!”
0 comments:
Post a Comment