Thinking critically in a critical time

William G. Hoy

Baylor University

On the final exam for my "End-of-Life and Bereavement for Health Care" course, I pose a

provocative question to my students. Throughout the semester, I try encouraging students to "consider the alternatives" to my opinions and the evidence I present or the theories and clinical interventions they read in their various texts. I ask them in class discussions, "In what ways are we not considering all of the options on this question?" and "What if there were another way to think about this?"

So the question I ask on the final exam? Here it is: "Dr. Hoy is certainly not short on opinions! Whether in his perspective on the role of media in reporting about death, loss, and grief, or the value of funerals and memorialization, or how bereavement does and does not work, you have examined evidence and heard from 'leading figures' in the field (through books and journal articles). But just because it is said by a professor or published in a journal does not make it so. Choose one of the perspectives your professor has 'pushed' this semester and, based on your reading and evidence, advance an alternative view. You will not be penalized for taking an alternative view; in fact, the grade penalty will come if you write something like, 'I agree with everything Dr. Hoy thinks!' However, you must provide credible evidence that supports your position, whatever it might be."

Why is that kind of thinking so important? In their epic tome, Character Strengths and Virtues, psychologists Christopher Peterson and Martin Seligman advance the notion that there are a handful of vital virtues widely embraced and endorsed by the world's great faith and philosophical traditions. Open mindedness, which includes the near-synonyms judgment and critical thinking is high on the list. The authors posit the dangers of myside bias (also called confirmation bias in research) wherein one only looks for evidence that supports one's conclusions. We are all prone to it but we increase the chances of such bias by not asking ourselves, "What else could be true about this?" and "What am I missing in this analysis? and "What is the evidence for an alternative conclusion on this matter?"

Much in the "conventional wisdom" has been upended in recent weeks. But be very cautious about repeating what you read on your favorite news channel or re-posting what you see on social media. Though I swore off media updates several weeks ago, I usually try to read about a topic of interest from these four media sources: CNN, BBC, Fox, and the Wall Street Journal. Regardless of which side of the political aisle you are seated, I think it is dangerous to consider only one of these sources for all your information. If nothing else, you'll learn more about how the other half thinks!

Look for alternative views. Ask yourself, "Is this fact or is it opinion?" and "What is the 'vested interest' (i.e. bias) of the one offering this view?" At the very most, these are pre-digested collections of facts and near-facts that are always presented through the philosophical lens of the one doing the presenting.