Nicholas
Reid reflects in essay form on general matters and ideas related to
literature, history, popular culture and the arts, or just life in general. You are free to agree
or disagree with him.
“CRITICAL THINKERS”
Critical
thinkers? I would hope that everybody who thinks is critical in the real sense
of the word – that is, capable of weighing, measuring and assessing things in a
reasonable fashion and with all due scepticism, but without becoming enmeshed
in the snares of pure cynicism. To think critically involves being able to
separate fact from opinion; knowing what empirical evidence is; knowing when an
hypothesis or theory is reasonable and based on adequate evidence; and knowing
when what is only an hypothesis has been promoted by its supporters into a
dogma. Critical thinking also involves the ability to discriminate between
reliable and unreliable sources. The partisanship of sources should also be
regarded critically, although one interesting aspect of critical thinking is
understanding that partisan sources are not necessarily
wrong, although they often are. That somebody supports ardently a cause does
not, of itself, make that cause a false one, although ardour does tend to cloud
critical thinking.
Why am I
lecturing you with these obvious truisms?
Because
recently, and much to my regret, I have noticed that conspiracy theorists have
begun to use the terms “critical thinking” and “critical thinker” as code words
for supporters of their own pet (and in many cases untenable) theories.
I most recently
saw this (mis-) usage in a context where one does not expect a high degree of
reasoned argument.
I saw it on
Facebook.
Some facetious
wit had posted one of John Oliver’s comments about how it didn’t matter that
one in four Americans didn’t believe climate change was happening, because
climate change was a fact and whether people believed in it or not was as
insignificant as whether people believed that hats existed or not. In reply, a
comment was added by an angry dissenter from this view, who after stating
(truly enough) that the media are awash with misinformation and facetiae,
proceeded to say that real “critical thinkers” know AGW (anthropogenic global
warming) is not an established truth. Further utterances showed that this angry
personage was indeed a denier of the empirical fact of great human impact upon
the climate. His denial came close to conspiracy theory. All those scientists
who say there is a human impact on climate change, he claimed, have been
suborned by institutions because they want promotion or grants or tenure and
therefore they subscribe to a false theory.
In a way, one
can see how the misappropriation of the term “critical thinking” has happened.
Much that is presented glibly on the mass media (and certainly on satirical
shows like John Oliver’s) is indeed untrue. It takes genuine critical thinking
to separate fact from opinion in the media. But conflating media misinformation
with the consensus of most scientists is not critical thinking. It is
conspiracy theory.
If this
particular person had been the only person in my ken to use the term “critical
thinking” inappropriately, I would not have commented on the matter. But
recently, not once, but twice, I have been harangued by a conspiracy theorist
who repeatedly insists he is a “critical thinker”.
Time was, the
most popular subject for conspiracy theorists was wondering who “really” killed
JFK. Now the most popular subject for conspiracy theorists is what “really”
happened in the destruction of New York’s World Trade Centre in September 2001
– the event which Americans (with their reverse dating system) insist on
calling “9/11”. Apparently the twin towers, says this particular conspiracy
theorist, were deliberately demolished by a secret weapon that the US
government has developed, which is able, by sound waves, to cause tall
buildings to collapse into their own footprint. As for the ‘planes that people
saw crashing into the buildings – they were holograms created by Hollywood-like
trickery. Why the US government did this was, apparently, to create a reason to
go to war, so that they could invade the Middle East, protect their oil
supplies, and continue to dominate the world. The destruction of the twin
towers was an artificial “Pearl Harbour” and the conspiracy theorist was able
to cite an article by an American official, written before “9/11”, stating that
what America needed was a new Pearl Harbour to wake it up. As those who have
had to trudge through this drivel before will be aware, this is called the
“false flag” theory.
There is a major
difficulty attempting to debate with conspiracy theorists. Like fundamentalists
who have a mass of Biblical “proof texts” to floor all comers, conspiracy
theorists really are immersed in their subject and have at their fingertips all
that data which supports their pet theory.
But, usually, ONLY that data. In the case of “9/11”, the mass of eyewitnesses
and empirical evidence is simply ignored. Conspiracy theorists begin with their conclusion (in
this case, that “9/11” was a put-up job by American security to create an
excuse for war) and then work back
from that, ignoring all the evidence that doesn’t support the
pre-conceived conclusion. Additionally, much of their “evidence” is fanciful
and purely imaginary.
Do I need to
stress that none of this is true “critical thinking”?
Further, do I
need to stress that conspiracy theory of this sort is not to be confused with
genuine investigative reporting? In
the process of his/her research, the investigative reporter, sifting through a
mass of evidence, may indeed uncover grubby secrets which governments would
wish to be left hidden (the “Watergate” investigation is the paradigm of this).
But they do not begin with a conclusion and then cherry pick only those scraps
of information that appear to support it.
Another point
needs noting. Conspiracy theorists are masters at confusing cause with effect,
or intentions with consequences. I have no doubt at all that the US government
wages wars for its own national purposes, and that its involvement in the
Middle East and Iraq is linked intimately with its desire to control oil. I am
not naïve about how and why foreign policies are formed. I would even guess
(and it is only a guess) that at least some members of the US administration
used “9/11” as an excuse to beef up “Homeland Security” in ways they wanted to
anyway, and that it gave them a neat casus
belli to invade Iraq. Nor is it inconceivable that secret weapons have been
developed.
But none of this
is proof of a conspiracy causing
“9/11”. At best, it is speculation.
Let me give an
historical parallel. The Reichstag Fire happened when Hitler’s hold on power
was weak and he wanted to secure absolute power. The Reichstag Fire was used by
the Nazis as an excuse to round up socialists and communists, gag a free press
and push through an Enabling Act that gave Hitler dictatorial power. Those who
benefitted from the Reichstag Fire were clearly the Nazis. Therefore, outside
Germany and at least until the end of the Second World War, it was long assumed
that the Reichstag Fire was a put-up job by the Nazis giving them some popular
support to do what they wanted to do anyway. Elaborate theories were devised to
“prove” that the Nazis had set the fire. This conception has remained the
popular legend of the Reichstag Fire. But the consensus among historians now is
that the fire really was set by an ex-Communist arsonist, acting on his own.
Certainly the Nazis used the fire opportunistically, but of itself this is no
proof that they set it. The question cui
bono? always produces answers that are at best circumstantial and that are
not proof.
I make it clear
that there are still some (reasonable) dissenters from what is now the
historical orthodoxy about the Reichstag Fire, but my point still stands. The
outcome (Nazis smashing their opposition) was opportunistic, but it was not the
result of a conspiracy. The outcome of “9/11” (beefed-up “Homeland Security”,
the invasion of Iraq) was opportunistic, but again it is no proof of a conspiracy.
Not that this is of the least interest to conspiracy theorists. I note, in my
own research for this piece, that those who believe in a conspiracy concerning
“9/11” have produced posters comparing it with the Reichstag Fire. They are
probably more right than they realize.
One final point.
To sustain a conspiracy of the sort my ardent conspiracy theorist proposes
would take many thousands of participants. In the thirteen years since “9/11”
not one single person has been identified in relation with such a conspiracy or
come forward or broken cover or even been exposed by the mountains of
classified material leaked by the likes of Edward Snowden. Noam Chomsky is
known as a trenchant critic of US foreign policy, an opponent of the war in
Iraq, and no friend of government propaganda. Yet he rejects conspiracy
theories about “9/11” as clearly as I have here, and for this very reason.
There is not one scintilla of empirical evidence to support them. Only
cherry-picked “evidence” to buttress a pre-determined conclusion.
This is the
diametrical opposite of “critical thinking”.
No comments:
Post a Comment