It is hard to say which is currently more destructive: the worldwide spread of the deadly COVID-19 virus or the 颅accompanying outbreak of irrational assertions that 颅trigger the 鈥渄ebate鈥� about vaccines, wearing masks, the role of science and the 颅imposition of social restrictions that are generally intended to suppress the spread of the lethal virus.
In fact, it may be time to reassess the role of public education as a much-needed remedy to the 鈥淚 have a right to my opinion鈥� thinking.
There鈥檚 a saying common among 颅experienced educators: Don鈥檛 teach students what to think; teach them how to think.
That idea goes back at least as far as Socrates and is what, today, we call the Socratic method of teaching.
The Socratic method is a way of teaching that fosters critical thinking by encouraging students to question their own unexamined beliefs, as well as the theories and expressed opinions of those around them.
On the one hand, kids are exposed daily to a constant barrage of emotional 颅thinking that tends to dominate the discussion about every topic of any consequence 鈥� 颅vaccination, climate change, freedom, 颅gender confusion, even the role of religion in politics.
On the other hand, critical thinking 颅validates evidence-based truth rather than emotion. That kind of thinking disavows the 鈥渋t is whatever I want it to be鈥� currently popular brand of magical thinking.
Grades 11 and 12 are not too early for 16-聽and 17-year-old kids to begin learning how to search for evidence that might even contradict their own first conclusions.
The problem with the 鈥淚鈥檓 entitled to my opinion鈥� justification for fallacy is that, all too often, it鈥檚 used to provide 颅refuge for beliefs that should have been long since abandoned.
It becomes shorthand for 鈥淚聽can say or think whatever I like鈥� 鈥� and by extension, continuing to argue against a point of view is somehow disrespectful.
That kind of intellectual narcissism is an increasingly destructive feature of our 颅public discourse.
For example, there is the vigorously expressed belief that, as a COVID denier, 鈥渕y opinion about viral transmission is just as valid as Dr. Bonnie Henry鈥檚鈥� 鈥� this despite the fact that Dr. Henry has a 颅legitimately earned international reputation as a leading epidemiologist and I can鈥檛 spell 颅anti-inflammatory corticosteroid 颅dexamethasone to save myself 鈥� even if I knew what that was.
Philosopher Jos茅 Ortega y Gasset wrote in his 1930 book The Revolt of the Masses: 鈥淭he Fascist species were characterized by the first appearance of a type of man who did not care to give reasons or even to be right, but who was simply resolved to impose his opinions. That was the novelty: the right not to be right, not to be reasonable: the reason of unreason.鈥�
Perhaps, but today more than ever teachers in all subject areas owe it to students to teach them how to construct and defend an argument 鈥� and to recognize when a belief has become indefensible.
If there is an assertion that should be discouraged in any classroom it is the 鈥淚鈥檓 entitled to my opinion 鈥� I have a right to my opinion鈥� mantra. It is, too often, employed by people who should know better as a thought-terminating clich茅.
As philosopher Patrick Stokes has pointed out, the expression is often used to defend factually indefensible positions.
Another philosopher, David Godden, has argued that being entitled to any point of view demands acceptance of certain 颅obligations, such as the obligation to 颅provide reasons for holding that view. Again, to argue otherwise is simply intellectual 颅laziness.
Godden called these the principles of rational entitlement and rational 颅responsibility, and advocated teaching these principles including the notion that the 颅obligation to provide reasons always involve a willingness to be comfortable in risking one鈥檚 own opinions against what may be the force of the better reason.
Perhaps a good place to begin with 鈥渉ow to think鈥� in the classroom would be an 颅examination of the more commonly employed 鈥渓ogical fallacies.鈥�
A logical fallacy is a statement that, while at first glance it seems to make sense, turns out to be no more than a sleight of logic. 鈥淎d hominem鈥� attacks, which attack the opponent rather than his/her argument, fall into that category, as do 鈥渆veryone says鈥� non sequitur (it does not follow) arguments and appeals to common prejudices about immigrant groups, indigenous beliefs 鈥� or anybody not like me.
As Ayn Rand, writer and champion of clarity of thought and objectivity stated: 鈥淩eason is the only means of acquiring knowledge. The entire history of science is a progression of exploded fallacies.鈥�
Geoff Johnson is a former superintendent of schools.
