Critical thinking

Oct 28, 2009 Editorial

Behind the seemingly legalistic dispute concerning the propriety of the government’s post-election actions, lies some trenchant disagreement between the two major parties as to facts about how they attempted to defuse any impasse before the elections.
Given the many potential reasons to be skeptical of information in conflictual situations, it is not surprising that agreeing on the facts can be a real challenge, one that contributes to a conflict’s intractability such as ours in Guyana. Yet it is possible for conflicting parties to agree on important facts, and though this might not resolve a conflict completely, it is certainly a step in the right direction.
Can we attempt this in Guyana? In seeking to reach agreement on facts, it is important to realize that there are two areas to focus on: the information-gathering processes and the attitudes of the persons who must be convinced.
Regarding information-gathering methodology, the overall objective is to minimize the three negative possibilities — bias, adversarial methods, and errors — so as to uncover (to the extent possible) the objective facts. There are several formal methods that have been specifically designed for conflict fact-finding, each intended for a specific conflict scenario: a truth commission has been proposed by many of the actors in our conflict; unlike scientific facts which can be investigated through joint fact-finding if the people work together, neutral fact-finding may be best for us since the parties to the conflict are highly uncooperative and untrusting.
All these information-gathering methods operate under two implicit assumptions. First, they assume the parties acknowledge the general value of the scientific method. Second, it is assumed that key conflict figures are willing to ratify facts that have been uncovered by fair means, even if doing so could have undesirable consequences for them. Unfortunately, acquiescing to the facts may not be palatable to some.
A person or group who has made up their mind to take a predetermined position will not be convinced by any of the various fact-finding methods. Therefore, it must be recognized that if key conflict figures truly want an improved situation, such adversarial tactics must be set aside.
What this really means for the disputants is that they must strike a balance between cautious skepticism and gullibility, having an open mind while not allowing themselves to be conned. This stance is called “critical thinking,” and there is an ongoing debate on how to achieve this mode of thought.
However, critical thinking essentially involves focusing on two aspects of factual claims: the arguments and the evidence. The critical thinker is able to recognize flawed arguments as well as evaluate the adequacy and applicability of evidence. Importantly, they do this with their own arguments as well as with the claims of others.
A critical thinker will, by definition, assent to the results of fair fact-finding methods. In addition, such a person is generally in a better position to obtain trustworthy information in the first place, being skilled at filtering out lies and inaccuracies. In this respect, use of critical thinking may aid in preventing factual disputes, or may be valuable when formal fact-finding methods are used.
An example of how important critical thinking is to conflicts is demonstrated by the fallacy, argumentum ad hominem. This principle states that to judge an argument by its source (either a person or group) is a mistake. The fact that, for instance, a political party has special interest in a certain position does not automatically suggest that their claims are false. Though conflicts of interests are a factor, claims must also be judged on their own merits, evaluated as to the validity of the arguments and the strength of the evidence.
The most effective step in obtaining credible information in a conflict situation is for the parties to take a step back from the dispute and be receptive to facts. Disputants who do this, who set aside their adversarial tactics, put in motion the pursuit of a common goal with other like-minded individuals, quite possibly including those on the other side of the conflict. In doing so, the human barriers to obtaining trustworthy information are breached.
Though technical challenges still exist, overcoming this human challenge is the first step to a successful fact-finding mission.

Latest News

Critical thinking

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Keevin Allicock – the next torchbearer for Guyanese professional...

Guyana Harpy Eagles begin Fitness Preparation for...

The business end has arrived, a place in the...

Thirteen-year-old benefits from Project...

Milerock stop Winners Connection 9-3 behind...

Dharry reigns supreme with second-round KO...

Features/Columnists

The eternal optimism of the human spirit

Breaking the Chains of Poverty: A need for political will

Fresh and new, may it be

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Critical thinking

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]