We live in the information age, and we actively or forcibly receive a large amount of information through mobile phones and computers every day. The good news is that you have more channels to get favorable information, and it is more convenient. For example, if you want to learn a technology, you may need to look for a master everywhere in the past. Now you can search online for experience stickers and start self-study. The downside is that there is too much information. If you don't know how to judge and screen, you will easily become blind people who are eaten by information.
It is because we are exposed to more information that we have to learn how to judge: Is this view correct? Why? What is the author's purpose? There are too many people around us to instill all kinds of ideas into us. Advertisers want us to believe that their products are the best, bosses want us to believe that this company has a big cake to eat, and relatives want us to believe that someone is the happiest in life. There are too many voices in the world. Only when you can judge clearly can you become a person who can think independently and have critical thinking.
Learning to ask questions is a map to achieve this goal. As the title, this book consists of a series of questions, including:
According to the logical relationship, I rearranged these key issues and drew a structural diagram.
When we encounter a controversial topic or a topic related to our own life, we will accept different viewpoints and reasons. We might as well imagine everyone's or each faction's point of view as an iceberg, floating on the water are reasons (including evidence) and arguments, which is the surface structure we can see.
But in addition to the surface structure, there are some icebergs hidden under the water, including assumptions, reasoning and ambiguous words, which are also the key to whether you accept the other party's point of view. After examining the whole iceberg above and below the water surface, there are two main levels to go through: what important information has been missed (in fact, some contents here are repeated from the previous ones, so it is considered to be a careful inspection) and what reasonable conclusions can be drawn (if the evidence and reasons are verified, then think about whether other conclusions can be deduced).
Therefore, your final judgment is more reliable after seeing the whole picture of the iceberg and going through two levels.
Next, it is subdivided according to this logical framework.
No matter how much the other person says, whether the reason is sufficient or not, his ultimate goal is to make you accept his argument.
The conclusion can be divided into descriptive topics (what is the most common reason for domestic violence? ) and prescriptive topics (should schools provide sex education? ), usually at the beginning and end, accompanied by keywords such as therefore and indication. Sometimes, people who communicate with us will not directly tell their own conclusions. In this case, you have to draw a conclusion by reasoning. For example, what do you think of the barber shop? He said the service attitude was good and the hairstyle was close to what he wanted. Although the other party didn't say it clearly, you can come to the conclusion that this barber shop is good and I recommend it.
I have done some exercises myself, and I feel that the conclusion is easy to find, so I won't go into details. What needs to be remembered is that this is the first step of judgment! ! You must find a conclusion before you can judge.
Do a little exercise: can you find the topic and conclusion?
Again, look first and then judge.
Therefore, when the other party throws you a bunch of arguments for no reason, you have the right to refuse to accept it because you can't judge. Such people are either confused or lack of critical thinking, and they can't prove their views themselves.
Generally speaking, except the argument, the rest are the reasons to support the argument. Whether they are reliable or not is another matter. But in order to be clear at a glance, you can circle the explanation, number different reasons and underline them, as shown below.
Red is the topic and argument, and blue is the reason. They are marked with serial numbers for two reasons.
As mentioned above, evidence is a very important category of reasons, including:
Next, analyze the effectiveness of each one.
Intuition: Sometimes intuition actually depends on some other types of evidence, such as a large number of related personal experiences and reading experiences. But as bystanders, we can't judge according to such intuition. So this kind of evidence is generally ignored directly.
Personal experience: a single personal experience, or even the sum of personal experiences, is simply not enough to constitute a representative sample of experiences. Personal experiences often make us make mistakes in generalizations. So the next time you hear "In my experience …", you must be careful.
Typical case: A fascinating description of one or more people or events to confirm a conclusion, usually based on observation or interview. For example, one argument in support of banning cell phones while driving is that some heartbreaking stories are all caused by car accidents caused by drivers making phone calls while driving, resulting in the death of many young people. We often use typical cases in life, because it is often very convincing, so it is concrete, vivid and touching. But it is precisely because vivid and concrete cases attract our emotions that we should be more careful, rather than obsessing about their value as evidence, to find other more relevant research evidence. Next time you encounter a typical case, you might as well ask, is this example representative? Is there a strong example to the contrary? Is there any bias in the way this example is mentioned?
Testimony of the parties: In most cases, we don't need to pay too much attention to this testimony of the parties until we find more relevant professional knowledge, interests, values and prejudices behind it. I was deeply impressed by the testimony of the parties in 12 Angry Men. The boy was accused of killing his father, and the old man downstairs and the middle-aged woman opposite provided testimony respectively. At first, almost everyone believed the testimony, but only one person doubted it. With the further development of the plot, it was finally found that there were loopholes in their testimony. They all lied because of selfishness, and the boy was probably wronged.
However, in the testimony of the parties, there is a particularly convincing, that is, expert opinion. Because of their professional background, experts are more likely to be exposed to information that we can't reach, and it is easier to make objective and fair judgments, so many people will believe it when they open their mouths. But you should remember that experts often make mistakes. We should continue to ask:
If an expert quotes an expert's opinion, and it is difficult for you to determine the source and credibility of the original argument, you should be more vigilant.
Personal observation: the most credible reports are often based on recent observations, which are made by several people at the same time in the best environment. They have no obvious and strong expectations for the observed events, and they are also unbiased. For example, when you are absorbed in watching a movie, there is a conflict between two people next to you. When you recall who is right or wrong, you may not be able to say it objectively.
Research report: Observation data are usually collected systematically by trained researchers. Scientific research, if carried out satisfactorily, is our best source of evidence, because scientific research emphasizes verifiability, controllability and accuracy. So how to evaluate whether scientific research is ideal? There are the following clues:
Analogy: Something with some familiar characteristics is used to help explain something with similar characteristics. To evaluate the quality of an analogy, you need to judge whether the two things being compared have related similarities but lack related differences. For example, in the following example, it is obviously inappropriate to compare dogs with daughters on this issue, because daughters are human beings, have cognitive ability and can distinguish right from wrong.
To sum up, among all the reasons, intuition and personal experience are generally unreliable, other types of reasons are reliable after careful verification, and the research report is the most effective.
Statistics are evidence in figures. Such evidence may look very moving, because numbers make the evidence very scientific and accurate. But statistics often lie.
We can test the data by the following methods:
1. Try to find enough information about how these data are collected. One of the most common uses of statistical data of unknown origin is to impress or impress others with a large number of figures, and the accuracy of these figures is often doubtful.
2. When you see the average, you must remember to ask: Is it average, median or mode? Will the different average values you choose have any effect?
For example, for a while, the average salary was more than 8,000, and netizens vomited that their hind legs were low. Such an average wage should be average, but in China, the gap between the rich and the poor is serious, and the average is much larger than the median, which does not represent the income level of ordinary people.
3. Understand the full scale, that is, the difference between the minimum and maximum. A common advantage of knowing the full range and numerical distribution is that it will remind you that most people or things are not completely in line with the average, and the results that are quite different from the average are also expected.
For example, doctors told 20-year-old cancer patients that the median survival time of patients with the same cancer is ten months. But we don't know the total value and numerical distribution. Some people, even many people, may live far more than ten months, even to their 80 s! Knowing these data may change the view of cancer patients on the future.
4. Check whether the data can draw a conclusion. You can ask yourself, "What kind of statistics will help to prove that his conclusion is evidence?" Or "What appropriate conclusions can we draw from these data?" Let's look at the following example. Is there a problem from data to inference?
5. Is there any missing data? Ask yourself, "Are both absolute values and percentages provided?" "Is this ... a comparison?"
6. Different expressions are more touching. For example, a bar chart showing favorite foods, the same data gives people a completely different feeling.
So far, we have checked all the water parts of the iceberg. A simple summary is to find arguments and reasons, and choose the truly reliable ones from the reasons. The reason is wrong, and the conclusion is wrong no matter how rigorous the inference is.
The next part is the part under the iceberg and two levels.