Framing and critical thinking
Written by Robin Marie in News, Opinion, Politics at March 4, 2011
Republicans in Tennessee and Oklahoma are currently trying to pass bills which, the language claims, would encourage “critical thinking” skills in the science classroom by protecting all teachers who would “discuss” the “controversies” surrounding “certain” scientific theories. (All scare quotes mine.)
My tone is sarcastic for good reason. As is obvious, and as the ACLU notes in opposing the bill in Tennessee, the real purpose of these bills is to give cover for teachers who want to slip creationism into the classroom. And as none of our readers need explained to them, the whole idea that evolution is “controversial” – among scientists, that is — is a preposterous claim to make.
But most Americans do not know this, and that is why the conservative framing of this issue – often referred to as the “teach the controversy” argument – is brilliant. Especially interesting here is how conservatives have co-opted the phrase “critical thinking” to describe baseless skepticism concerning evolution, which rests upon mountains of incontrovertible evidence. They have listened to how progressives talk about what is wrong with the mindset of fundamentalists, and decided to turn this on its head. Thus the common conservative voter who feels looked down on by scientific or academic elites can argue right back that it is they, not himself, who abandon critical thinking by refusing to allow the “debate” about creationism to be heard in the classroom.
On our upcoming podcast, we discuss the problem of critical thinking in the context of talking about Lee Strobel’s film version of The Case for Faith. Such apologetics expose just how illogical, and assumption-ridden, so much – indeed nearly all – of apologetics really is. What passes for “critical thinking” in the evangelical and fundamentalist world would not even pass as thoughtful commentary amongst skeptical communities, or really any community which is trained to differentiate actual critical thinking from sophistic bullshit. How to expose this, and teach more people how to actually question their ideas and explore the reasons they are based on, is the question not only for the atheist community, but the broader progressive movement. (As we also talk about on the next show, all atheists are actually not all progressives (or liberals if you prefer), but I think this is usual enough for me to justify typically seeing the two as friendly and related.)
But in the meantime, it is good to take a lesson from the fundamentalists and think how we present and frame our arguments – because they are rather good at it. Of course, whatever framing goes on, our arguments would also have the benefit of being true, or at least, sincerely based on the available evidence with no attempt to disfigure or hide the evidence of the opposing side. I still hold out hope that in the long view, that counts for something.
