i feel like i have zero critical thinking skills ;-;
a lot of the time when someone poses an idea or a theory they think they’re right, and so they use language that enforces that. but then someone refutes it, and uses language affirming what they believe and i see the point in their argument. and then it gets refuted again and again and again and im just confused.
hi great question. i would love it if there were a single easy litmus test to figure out who’s ‘right’ and whose info i should trust! unfortunately things are rarely this easy, and it’s actually completely normal to be overwhelmed by the amount of information being produced and shared, especially when it comes to topics you haven’t researched/lived/etc. for most of us, this will be most topics!
i’d preface this by saying that i think your overall attitude here is actually a good one. you’re framing it in a pretty self-deprecating way—but actually, imo this type of openness to discussion and disagreement is a really good place to start, esp when dealing with topics that are new to you. nobody enters a contentious debate with a fully fledged, defensible viewpoint. you might feel like you’re just treading water here, making no progress toward being able to evaluate arguments for yourself, but i highly doubt that’s true.
all of that said: while i again cannot give you a single litmus test for figuring out what’s 'right’, there are four pretty basic sets of questions that i automatically run through when encountering a new idea, source, topic, or argument: we can call these origin, purpose, value, and limitations.
origin: who’s the author? do they have any institutional affiliations? who pays their salary? is this argument or paper funded in any way? is the argument dependent upon the author’s social position or status (race, class, etc) and if so, are those factors being discussed clearly? does the author have ties to a particular nation-state or stakes in defending such a nation-state? what’s the class character of the author and the argument? what’s the social, economic, and intellectual context that gave rise to this argument or source?
purpose: why is this source or person disseminating this information or making this argument? are they trying to sell you anything? are their funders? are they trying to persuade you of a particular political viewpoint? keeping in mind the answers to the 'origin’ questions, are there particular ideological positions you would expect to find in this source or argument, and are they present? what are the stakes for the author or source? what about for those who cite the source or further disseminate or publish it?
value: what does this source or argument accomplish well? what aspects of the argument are new to you and strike you as insightful? are there linkages being made that you haven’t encountered elsewhere, and that you think are effectively and sufficiently defended? are there statistics or empirical data that might be useful to you in forming your own argument, even if you disagree with how this source or author is interpreting them? what does this argument or source tell you about the types of debates being had, and the rules of those debates?
limitations: where does this argument or source fail you or fall apart? are there obvious rhetorical fallacies you can identify? is the author forgetting or overlooking some piece of information that you know of from elsewhere? which viewpoints may be omitted? keeping in mind the answers to the 'purpose’ questions, if this source is defending a particular ideology or political position, is that one you agree with? is it only defensible so long as the author omits or distorts certain pieces of information? are there points where the argument jumps from evidence to a conclusion that the evidence can’t fully support? are there alternative explanations for the evidence?
over time you will often find that it becomes more and more automatic to ask yourself these questions. you will also find that the more you read/hear about a particular topic, the faster you can determine whether someone is presenting all of the evidence, presenting it fairly, and using it to fully defend the argument they ultimately want to make. and you will probably also find that at some point, you’re able to synthesise your own argument by pulling the strong parts from multiple other people’s viewpoints, combining them with your own thinking, and fitting them together in a way that adequately explains and materially analyses the issue at hand.
Thank you for this! One of the resources I use for teaching my students about persuasive speech and media literacy is the Stanford philosophy Argument and Argumentation page:
Hey during this Hot Labor Summer, let’s support some strike funds and donate to unions! And not just the biggest ones in the headlines, but all of them! (Except for police unions, we don’t support class traitors here.) I’ll keep updating with ones I find, but share links you know about in the reblogs.
Let’s start with another performing group that doesn’t get as much press as Hollywood: the Medieval Times strike, which has been going on for MONTHS. In addition to a whole slew of union busting tactics, Medieval Times stopped the MT union TikTok by copyright claiming it, which is just SHITTY. Also they’re striking not just for human labor welfare but also horse welfare, and who doesn’t want to help horses?
a bug bite reveals instantly the true nature of samsara. An infinite cycle where desire and suffering are clearly the same thing, and what you really want is not to satisfy the burning itch but to feel none at all. And the cycle will literally never end until you understand to let go
scratching that shit feels too good i don’t give a fuck about suffering when it feels so fucked up unreal good. escaping samsara is a cope. i’m not letting go of these earthly pleasures. what could be better than an itch firmly scratched?
you just need to satisfy the desire smarter not harder. heat up a spoon in hot water and press it to the bug bite. outsmart samsara.
is there anyone out there with a nyt cooking subscription
will they send me the chamomile tea cake with strawberry icing recipe
This buttery, chamomile tea-scented loaf is a sweet pop symphony, the Abba of cakes. A pot of flowery, just-brewed chamomile isn’t required for drinking with slices of this tender loaf but is strongly recommended. In life and in food, you always need balance: A sip or two of the grassy, herbal tea between bites of this cake counters the sweetness, as do freeze-dried strawberries, which lend tartness and a naturally pink hue to the lemony glaze. This everyday loaf will keep on the counter for 3 to 4 days; be sure the cut side is always well wrapped.
Ingredients Yield: One 9-inch loaf
½ cup/115 grams unsalted butter 2 tablespoons/6 grams chamomile tea (from 4 to 6 tea bags), crushed fine if coarse 1 cup/240 milliliters whole milk Nonstick cooking spray 1 cup/200 grams granulated sugar ½ teaspoon coarse kosher salt 2 large eggs 1 large lemon 2 teaspoons baking powder 1 teaspoon pure vanilla extract 1½ cups/192 grams all-purpose flour 1 cup/124 grams confectioners’ sugar ½ cup/8 grams freeze-dried strawberries
Preparation
Step 1
In a small saucepan, melt the butter over medium heat. Add 1 tablespoon chamomile to a large mixing bowl. Pour the hot melted butter over the chamomile and stir. Set aside to steep and cool completely, about 1 hour. Step 2
Use the same saucepan (without washing it out) to bring the milk to a simmer over medium-high heat, keeping watch so it doesn’t boil over. Remove from the heat, and stir the remaining 1 tablespoon chamomile into the hot milk. Set aside to steep and cool completely, about 1 hour. Step 3
Heat oven to 350 degrees. Grease a 9-by-5-inch loaf pan with the nonstick cooking spray and line with parchment paper so the long sides of the pan have a couple of inches of overhang to make lifting the finished cake out easier. Step 4
Add the sugar and salt to the bowl with the butter, and whisk until smooth and thick, about 1 minute. Add the eggs, 1 at a time, vigorously whisking to combine after each addition. Zest the lemon into the bowl; add the baking powder and vanilla, and whisk until incorporated. Add the flour and stream in the milk mixture while whisking continuously until no streaks of flour remain. Step 5
Transfer the batter to the prepared pan and bake until a skewer or cake tester inserted in the center comes out clean (a few crumbs are OK, but you should see no wet batter), 40 to 45 minutes. Cool in the pan on a rack for 30 minutes. Step 6
While the cake cools, make the icing: Into a medium bowl, squeeze 2 tablespoons juice from the zested lemon, then add the confectioners’ sugar. Place the dehydrated strawberries in a fine-mesh sieve set over the bowl and, using your fingers, crush the brittle berries and press the red-pink powder through the sieve and into the sugar. (The more you do this, the redder your icing will be.) Whisk until smooth. Step 7
If needed, run a knife along the edges of the cake to release it from the pan. Holding the 2 sides of overhanging parchment, lift the cake out and place it on a plate, cake stand or cutting board. Discard the parchment. Pour the icing over the cake, using a spoon to push the icing to the edges of the cake to encourage the icing to drip down the sides dramatically. Cool the cake completely and let the icing set.
