Amped Training

Like this article? Share it!

Critical Thinking and Evaluating Information

A logical argument is constructed from premises which then support a conclusion. Logical fallacies are dishonest, misleading, or incorrect construction of arguments, and there is in fact an entire field devoted to studying this process.

Suffice it to say, the reasoning is the most important part of evaluating any claim. Strong claims will be backed with evidence and solid reasoning.

Example of a strong claim:

    "The sun is bright."

This is a strong claim, for obvious reasons. Approximately 50% of any given day in most places on the Earth can prove this is true without a doubt. Even those unable to observe the sun, such as the blind, could be convinced of this point beyond a doubt with reasonable education in physics and indirect observation (such as the feel of intense sunlight on the skin, or knowledge of Earth's biosphere), which would be examples of sound logical reasoning.

    "Lifting weights will make your muscles bigger."

Again, this is a strong claim. It can be supported by empirical evidence; just go to any gym and compare the average person to the average person on the street. Although this is a weak argument, it is still a supporting premise of the claim.

Stronger evidence comes in the form of academic research, which has not only confirmed that weight training increases muscle mass at the macro level, but has shown that there are physiological and chemical responses to the activity. As opposed to the above anecdote, academic research is much harder to dismiss out of hand. While a smart person could dissect the anecdote, peer-reviewed research isn't so easy to pick apart, especially when the body of research is relatively wide.

While any piece of data in isolation may not be strong, when the entire body of data is more or less established we can be fairly certain of the conclusions.

A weak claim on the other hand will either have no evidence (ie, pulled out of someone's ass), or it will be based on poor reasoning, as in cases where there is solid evidence but poor interpretation by the person making the claim.

Example of a weak claim:

    "The sky is red."

This one is easy. You can walk outside on most any day and see that the sky is not in fact red (we'll excuse for a moment the "city lights" phenomenon that can cause a reddish-pink coloration to the night sky). But what about subjective interpretation (the hippie stoner existential argument)? You know, just because you think the sky is blue doesn't mean everybody else perceives it that way, right?

Wrong. Guess what colors really are? They're wavelengths of visible light. Wavelengths can be measured objectively with rather simple equipment.

So now we've got empirical evidence, both in the form of a consensus (most people would not deny the claim that the daytime sky is in fact blue), and in objective, repeatable observation (light wavelengths).

This would be an example of blatant bullshit. But there can be claims that are harder to see through. Another such approach involves the way research and data are interpreted, as opposed to the argument itself being flawed.

The argument itself can be sound. But if it's based on a false premise, ie the research doesn't say what it is claimed, this is a failure of interpretation, and is a form of intellectual dishonesty. This doesn't mean the person is lying outright. It means that they are being deceptive by using poor reasoning. This would be an example of cherry-picking, in a variation of the "stolen concept" fallacy.

All poor reasoning can ultimately be reduced down to the fallacies of logic, and this includes both the argument itself and the interpretation of even valid data.