unbelievable "critical thinking" assignment

[apathetician]

I am currently taking a college level "critical thinking" class. This past week my professor displayed on the overhead a copy of a tabloid article that explains the sighting of Satan's face in a cloud of smoke over Haiti. He then told us that our assignment is to partner up with someone and find out there last name. Whichever person's last name begins with a letter that falls in the beginning half of the alphabet, is required to write a letter to his/her partner defending their position (regardless of what they actually believe) that what is displayed in this tabloid article is fact and that Satan does, in fact, exist. Conversely, the other person is to write a letter defending his/her "issued belief" that Satan does not exist; that the tabloid is rubbish.

Well, guess which side of the alphabet my last name's first letter falls...that's right. I have to write a convincing letter to my partner as to why I am correct in believing Satan exists and - ipso facto - how my partner is wrong.

The agony this task imbues needs explanation. I understand it the following way:

"critical thinking," like any other thinking as such, is not a process of mulling over disconnected items of knowledge - which in Objectivist terms I think is reffered to as "compartmentalization." As I confidently presume, we all here agree with the fact that all knowledge is interconnected and any new information can and does only become knowledge if it can be integrated with the rest of one's context of knowledge - i.e., without contradictions. As such, to think - especially to critically think - and expect any meaningful conclusion demands that one bring to bare all related facts of a given matter. In regard to the assignment I have been given which asks of me to disregard as a minor detail what I really do believe (as in my teacher's mind it is more than likely unsubstantiated anyhow), and not only defend but push this non-belief I have on grounds that truly are irrational is purposeless. I do not see the value of the assignment since it subverts the whole goal of learning to defend a position. To hold the concept "to think" as appart from the knowledge it employs is a "stolen concept." Put plainly, how am I to defend and especially persuade a person when I myself see the errors in what I am supposed to be professing? And to be graded on my effectiveness?

There is my formulation thus far. I am asking that anyone who reads it and honestly considers all the issues described to comment on any errors in logic and/or suggestions they might have for the assignment. Thanks.

[softwareNerd]

You haven't given any indication of how good or bad this class is in general. Essentially, you are being asked to play devil's advocate and don't want to. You could try switching with a classmate. If that's not possible, try to do justice to the devil's advocate role. It isn't an easy one to play in this case (because the example seems rather silly); but, to the extent you can, try to play devil's-advocate honestly -- make your best possible case. Imagine yourself in the role of someone who believes in the devil, thinks he knows what the devil looks like and then sees that face in the clouds; perhaps he saw a black raven fly past as well!

If you wish, as a personal exercise, write your own refutation as well.

[DavidOdden]

I do not see the value of the assignment since it subverts the whole goal of learning to defend a position.

Theoretically, such an assignment could be of value, though the particular assignment is ridiculous. In order to argue persuasively in support of capitalism, you need to understand the argument that are used against it, and be able to answer those arguments. The problem with such classes is that they are deliberately grounded in rationalism and pure opinion. You would think that "critical thinking" refers to the process of understanding an argument fully, attacking it to expose potential weaknesses, and then answering those attacks, perhaps repairing your argument as you go along. But "critical thinking" is actually code for "opinion expressing" plus teacher-guided "opinion-correction". The proper way to do this is to take an issue of substance and actually learn how to do the research. But let me stop dreaming and return to reality.

I would be surprised if there is anything that officially indicates that the purpose of the class is to learn how to defend a position. That would seem to me to be counter to the popular trend of "open-mindedness", where you reach no conclusions and have no opinions until... well, I'm not sure at what point you're actually allowed to have an opinion. An open-minded person would, as you say, assess all of the facts known to them, suppressing none, and then reach a conclusion. What this instructor seems to be doing is requiring you to suppress knowledge, which is, frankly, intellectually dishonest. Now if the assignment were to gather together as much evidence on either side of the argument as possible, that would be of value -- then you could be assessed on how exhaustive your coverage is (assuming that your instructor actually has substantial knowledge of the arguments for and against Satan). Or if this is in a chronologically arranged argument / counter-argument fashion (is it?), you at least can sharpen your skills at refutation of someone's specific arguments, save for the fact that the truth can't be refuted and you got the fuzzy end of the lollipop, when it comes to truth.

[Inspector]

I think your prof is being too literal with this "devil's advocate" assignment.

[apathetician]

You haven't given any indication of how good or bad this class is in general. Essentially, you are being asked to play devil's advocate and don't want to. You could try switching with a classmate. If that's not possible, try to do justice to the devil's advocate role. It isn't an easy one to play in this case (because the example seems rather silly); but, to the extent you can, try to play devil's-advocate honestly -- make your best possible case. Imagine yourself in the role of someone who believes in the devil, thinks he knows what the devil looks like and then sees that face in the clouds; perhaps he saw a black raven fly past as well!

If you wish, as a personal exercise, write your own refutation as well.

Thank you for the reply.

In answer to your comment about the class's value, it is hard to tell so far as it just started. The teacher has already made clear on several occasions, however, that "it is okay to believe one thing and then the complete opposite as well." This was said in light of his introducing the class to what it means to consider other's opinions and conduct yourself in a discussion without forcing ideas on one another - a lesson I deem important but definitely not the way he suggests.

Other than constant reminders of the professor's rejection of objective truths, the class does keeps me busy in a way I enjoy: I analyze and write on issues to come to important conclusions that matter. I have not recieved a graded paper back from him though, so whether or not I am "critical thinking" in accordance with his subjective designation of the term is another story.

I want to ask about your summation of my assignment as "playing devil's advocate." (btw, i'm surprised you didn't say, "pun/no pun intended," hehe.) I agree insofar as my reasoning would have to stem from the opposite viewpoint that I have; but wouldn't you agree that playing devil's advocate is a cognitive strategy I would use to come to a truth? So it would be distinct from what I am required to do - create the best defense possible - by virtue of it leading me innevitably to conclude that Satan does not exist and hence I have not done the assignment? (This really is irrelevant but I just thought i'd ask...)

With the assignment so far, I have decided to equivocate the term Satan. I will defend that Satan "exists" by treating it as a term that refers to either the literal accounts of the pre-concieved entity or the conglomeration of base and sinister attributes one has observed in the course of one's life and simply multiplied them exponentially to an unfathomable standing. It is weak and riddled with holes, I know, and clearly attempts at getting away with satisfying the assignment by hinging on semantic details but hopefully the teacher can appreciate it.

Any thought's are welcomed.

[apathetician]

Theoretically, such an assignment could be of value, though the particular assignment is ridiculous. In order to argue persuasively in support of capitalism, you need to understand the argument that are used against it, and be able to answer those arguments. The problem with such classes is that they are deliberately grounded in rationalism and pure opinion. You would think that "critical thinking" refers to the process of understanding an argument fully, attacking it to expose potential weaknesses, and then answering those attacks, perhaps repairing your argument as you go along. But "critical thinking" is actually code for "opinion expressing" plus teacher-guided "opinion-correction". The proper way to do this is to take an issue of substance and actually learn how to do the research. But let me stop dreaming and return to reality.

I would be surprised if there is anything that officially indicates that the purpose of the class is to learn how to defend a position. That would seem to me to be counter to the popular trend of "open-mindedness", where you reach no conclusions and have no opinions until... well, I'm not sure at what point you're actually allowed to have an opinion. An open-minded person would, as you say, assess all of the facts known to them, suppressing none, and then reach a conclusion. What this instructor seems to be doing is requiring you to suppress knowledge, which is, frankly, intellectually dishonest. Now if the assignment were to gather together as much evidence on either side of the argument as possible, that would be of value -- then you could be assessed on how exhaustive your coverage is (assuming that your instructor actually has substantial knowledge of the arguments for and against Satan). Or if this is in a chronologically arranged argument / counter-argument fashion (is it?), you at least can sharpen your skills at refutation of someone's specific arguments, save for the fact that the truth can't be refuted and you got the fuzzy end of the lollipop, when it comes to truth.

Hah, the fuzzy end of the lollipop -- I like that. Your post was bitter-sweet as I was sure critical thinking would be where I would find an atmosphere conducive to what the title implied but you have put an end to my deluded optimism and I thank you, hehe. I thoroughly agree with you on all accounts.

In answer to your question about where this assignment leads: I don't know. Hopefully a productive place.

[softwareNerd]

... "playing devil's advocate." (btw, i'm surprised you didn't say, "pun/no pun intended," hehe.)

I can't believe I didn't spot that immediately!

... wouldn't you agree that playing devil's advocate is a cognitive strategy I would use to come to a truth? So it would be distinct from what I am required to do - create the best defense possible - by virtue of it leading me inevitably to conclude that Satan does not exist and hence...

One could play "DA" to oneself and then find the error and reject it. However, in this case, you already know the answer. So, you're just playing. It's your opponent's job to find the error. What you're presenting is like a riddle: "spot the error". Your job is to make it as hard as possible for your opponent.

For instance, perhaps...

1. You have checked and found that the image is genuine (e.g. multiple people saw it, the photographer is reliable, film was used and an expert says it was not tampered with).

2. There is something about the photograph that leads you to believe it is not just a coincidence. This would be the difficult part... but, if you think like a conspiracy theorist you may be able to come up with a set of facts that are true, and would lead someone to believe it was not a coincidence, but yet something for which there is a perfectly rational explanation.

One way or the other, just make the most of it for yourself and try to have some fun while doing so.

[apathetician]

Thank you for that. Your perspective is helpful.

[mrocktor]

Also, I suggest you study logical fallacies and choose to use the one that "fits the data" best. Bizarre I know, but it could be fun. For instance:

A. The face of the devil has been known for ages, there are tons of historical records of what he looks like.

B. It has never been proven that Satan does not exist

C. If God is good and there is evil in the world, Satan must exist

D. Satan's influence in the world is extreme. Anyone who argues that he does not exist is obviously doing his work. He is the "deciever" after all.

You can then structure these non-arguments in a "rational" way:

1st. "Prove" Satan exists

2nd. "Prove" his image is known and coincides with the sighting

3rd. "Prove" that any argument to the contrary is proof of Satan's work

That should guarantee a good grade and may even be fun. Also, have at hand a point by point list of all the fallacies you used - if you get praise for your argument you can pull that out and proceed to explain why it's completely wrong and that truth actually does exist (well, if you are feeling adventurous with regards to your grade anyway).

mrock