I am convinced that we are witnessing the death of critical thinking in modern times.
Notes:
- I am convinced that we are witnessing the death of critical thinking in modern times, let me explain.
- Recently I got piled on in a thread on that bastion of free speech, Hacker News, and it got me thinking about the demise of critical thinking again.
- The thought crime that I committed was to question the source of some data, which was produced by an NGO that was privately funded by vested interests, at least it seemed that way to me based on my initial research.
- So I asked that question on Hacker News, to see if anyone could reassure me that I was wrong, and they were a trustworthy source. Big mistake.
- Rather than providing me with evidence that I was wrong, the hive mind on Hacker News instead demanded that:
- I provide evidence that the basis of my question was valid, given how apparently outrageous it was.
- I provide alternative sources of evidence that were better. Apparent when you ask the question, you take full ownership of the solution (go figure).
- I was also accused of being a troll, suffering from various logical fallacies, and "arguing in bad faith" which is the most amusing.
- Repeatedly I reminded people that nobody had addressed my actual question, because they were too busy attacking me.
- Again, nobody addressed my actual question seriously. Ever.
- Are these the smartest people on the Internet? If so, we are in big trouble.
- Perhaps I should post a link to this episode to Hacker News, and then read the comments to learn some new highbrow insults.
- Truthfully, the core issue that I wanted to discuss was the following: should we not question the source of information, before we accept it?
- One hypothetical example I gave in that thread was the following: "Would you trust a report on the impacts of fracking by a pro-fracking NGO, with private funding? Even if their data looked ok on face value?".
- But yet I was being asked to accept environmental study results, from an NGO that is pro-environmentalist with private funding.
- Fundamentally your response to that is emotional and dependent upon your own personal bias: you are either pro-fracking, or pro-environmentalist, but it's hard to be both.
- It's a blind spot that most people suffer from: they will blindly accept "evidence" that aligns with their bias, but dismiss evidence that is not aligned with their bias.
- It is just confirmation bias all the way down.
- It becomes a faith argument: you should just accept this, because it is good. Arguing against it is bad, making you bad.
- Critical thinking should mean questioning the source of any evidence, the leadership of the organization produced that evidence, and the funding of such organizations. Without that, we are accepting "evidence" on blind faith.
- I will link to the Hacker News thread in the show notes of this episode if you really want to read it, but honestly you will come away dumber. Ref: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43668227
- Questioning is how we learn.
- Questioning is how we challenge bias.
- Questioning is valid.
- Never stop questioning, and never let anyone shut you down for asking the right questions.
- Certainty of conviction is for the faithful, but the path to learning is full of doubts.
- And certainty of purpose is for worker ants.
Notes and subscription links are here: https://techleader.pro/a/688-The-death-of-critical-thinking-(TLP-2025w15)
