Wandering about twitter this morning I stumbled on a couple of links I thought Iâ€™d share here. The first is an article by Steven Nadler, a philosopher at Wisconsin, who argues in a contribution at TimeÂ that the one weird trick to solve Americaâ€™s stupidity crisis is a basic course in critical thinking.
What is the solution to our creeping national stupidity? Learning how to gain more information from a variety of certifiably reliable sources is an important first step. But what the American public really needs are lessons in how to be rational, how to assess that information â€” distinguishing between real evidence and fake evidence â€” and end up believing only what one is justified in believing. We could use more lessons on what it means to be rational and how to be epistemologically responsible citizens who are familiar with the difference between a valid and invalid argument, and who know an unjustified belief when they see one.
No argument here.
The second link is a medium-long piece by Jay Nordlinger of National Review on the subject of Confederate monuments. Along the way to making the (to me, obvious) point that the Confederacy represented an unequivocal moral evil, Nordlinger went meta and made the following remark about slippery slope arguments:
William F. Buckley Jr. used to warn against â€œslippery-slopism,â€ as he called it. There were always people saying, If you ban Hustler magazine from the public library today, you will ban D. H. Lawrence tomorrow. Bill hated this kind of thinking. It was a kind of anti-thinking. People should make judgments, he said. People should exercise their powers of discrimination.
I, however, have always been soft on slippery-slope arguments. And I make them. But I also think Buckley had a point: People should not be excused from thinking.
If you dishonor John C. Calhoun, do you have to dishonor Thomas Jefferson?Â If you take Calhounâ€™s name off a college within Yale University, do you have to raze the Jefferson Memorial? Do you have to change the name of our nationâ€™s capital, because Washington owned slaves? Oh, come on.
This is a clumsily stated but not unreasonable point. The only thing surprising to meâ€“and Iâ€™m willing to consider this a consequence of professional deformationâ€“is the novelty with which the subject matter is presented: â€œhey, have you ever thought about slippery slopes?â€ Of course you have. (Or maybe you havenâ€™t, if so, you should; thatâ€™s Nadlerâ€™s point).
The slippery slope is a bread-and-butter topic of any worthy critical reasoning course. Justly so. Sadly, as Buckley correctly suggests, people frequently abuse the term as well as the argument form (for abuse of terms see this post by Scott). They do so especially when the matter regards permitting or prohibiting something. If we prohibit x, then logic dictates we prohibit y, and then it will further require that we prohibit z. The chain itself of increasingly horrible consequences does the work of the argument. In the present case, should we remove the statues of Confederate soldiers, etc., then logic requires we remove the statues of other morally problematic figures (like George Washington) Â then there will be no statues (or something).
Buckleyâ€™s point is that this energy-saving line of thought absolves you of addressing the question as to whether reasons apply the same way in the separate cases. The slope is actually slippery, though I wonder whether we should use this term (maybe another time for that claim), when the reasoning applies in the separate cases. In these cases, however, what you actually have is a parity of reasons argument. The same reasons that allow x also allow y. A somewhat recent example. When the Bush administration invited religions to collect federal money for charitable activity, Wiccans showed up (to the dismay of the Bush administration). A quick note on the slope here: I hardly think the Wiccans would consider themselves the bottom of any kind of slope.
Sadly, Nordlinger seems to obscure this distinction and fall exactly into the cognitive efficiency Â problem Buckley identifies, only in his case rejects the possibility of a parity of reasons case out of hand. This is a point any (again worthy) critical thinking course ought to makeâ€“not all slippery slopes are fallacious. Fallacious slippery slopes is that you donâ€™t do any real analytical work. The problem in rejecting parity of reasons arguments out of hand is to do the same thing.