How To Think Logically
A Guide To Determining Truth When Examining Claims
“Those who believe without reason cannot be convinced by reason.”
- James Randi
The first step in finding the truth is determining if the truth is desired. Some people are happy living in their own world and don’t care if their beliefs are true.
As long as their beliefs make them feel good, or justify their outlook on life, they are happy to continue believing them. Many people tell themselves they desire truth, but when that truth contradicts their beliefs, they cannot reconcile it in their minds.
If truth is desired, intellectual honesty must be the standard across the board. Every claim, no matter how we feel about it, must be examined with the same integrity. This is the only way to safeguard ourselves against false beliefs.
Truth is vital because believing things that aren’t true can have dire consequences on our decisions and our life.
What Is Truth?
When I say truth, I mean objective truth.
An objective truth is either true or false. There is no middle ground. There’s no grey area. For example, if I say I own a dog that is either true or false.
This is not to be confused with a personal truth — a personal truth is rooted in preference and/or feelings.
The problem comes in when people confuse personal truths with objective truths.
For example, a color-blind person could look at a Coca-Cola can, call it green, and call that a personal truth.
However, when we observe a Coca-Cola can without an impairment, it is definitively what we call the color red.
The can is not green; therefore, the color-blind person would be incorrect.
Alternatively, someone’s favorite color, food, or design style are all accurate representations of personal truth.
For example, if someone claims their favorite color is red, we can generally assume they are telling the truth. They could be lying, but unless we have a reason to believe they are lying, it’s pretty trivial to reject their claim.
If we were petty and wanted to investigate a personal truth claim further, we could try to gather evidence and probably reach a more rationalized conclusion on whether we were convinced.
For example, we could look at the shirts they wear and see if the majority of them contained the color red. But even if they didn’t, this doesn’t disprove the claim.
They may favor red but don’t prefer how it looks on their apparel.
So it’s generally best to take people at their word on a claim of personal truth unless it’s essential, or you have a reason to believe they are dishonest.
Preferences and feelings are subjective for each person.
And finally, the amount of people who believe something to be true does, in no way, prove whether it is true. This is a Bandwagon fallacy.
For example, there are approximately 1.9 billion people who believe in Islam and approximately 2.38 billion people who believe in Christianity. Both cannot be correct. One or neither must be true.
Absolute Certainty
When I took a statistics class in college, my professor said,
“When we look at data, we’re not attempting to determine absolute certainty. What we’re determining is a level of confidence, and once we reach that level of confidence, we either reject or fail to reject the premise.”
So, when we‘re trying to find the truth, it’s better to hold a level of confidence and allow that level of confidence to shift if and when we acquire new information.
Our level of confidence should be the determining factor in how convinced we are that something is true or false.
If we’re being logical, we attempt to avoid positive and negative claims because they assert certainty.
An example of a positive claim is that Bigfoot exists.
An example of a negative claim is that Bigfoot doesn’t exist.
Both are claims that assert certainty. Although only one can be correct, the more intellectually honest person could say they are not convinced that Bigfoot exists rather than making a negative claim.
This is because the person making the claim, whether negative or positive, always holds the burden of proof.
For example, if I claim that I can run 60 mph without the aid of anything mechanical, it’s up to me to prove it. It would be foolish to ask you to prove I can’t run 60 mph. You’re not making a claim. I am.
Good Vs. Bad Reasons For Belief
A good reason for belief would be backed by adequate and/or testable evidence, and a bad reason would be a belief based on inadequate evidence and/or evidence that couldn’t be tested.
Take note that both of these examples require evidence.
The difference is whether that evidence is good (sufficient) or bad (insufficient). The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence must be.
For example, if I claimed I owned a dog, that wouldn’t require extraordinary evidence. Lots of people own dogs. It’s somewhat safe to assume that I’m telling the truth. Could I be lying? Absolutely.
If there were a reason for me to lie about owning a dog, that claim would require further evidence.
On the other hand, if I claimed I had a dog that could fly, that would be an extraordinary claim. This type of claim would require extraordinary evidence because, as far as we know, dogs cannot fly.
What Is Sufficient Evidence?
It depends on the claim.
Would a video of my dog flying around my backyard be sufficient evidence? Can we alter video footage through special effects and AI? Yes, we can.
So one could technically refer to a video as evidence, but it’s neither good nor sufficient in this case.
Would a photo be sufficient evidence? Do we have image editing programs like Photoshop that can alter subjects and their environments? Yes, we do.
Would a live, public demonstration of the flying dog be good evidence? It would certainly be better than a video or photo. But is it sufficient?
What if the dog is attached to invisible wires? What if there’s a hidden underground fan that blows the dog into the air?
These would probably not be likely scenarios at a live demonstration, but they cannot be ruled out.
What if we took the dog to a controlled environment, called in world-renowned non-biased biologists, and held a public demonstration?
That’s even better.
This type of evidence would be more extraordinary, and if the dog did fly in this scenario, it would be much more difficult to reject the claim.
This is because the more reliable the test and/or data, the more confidence we can have in the claim.
History Claims
Winston Churchill said, “History is written by victors.”
We all have to accept that our history, whether American or World, is probably not 100% accurate.
A few factors that could affect our confidence level in any historical claim would include how the claim was made, if the claim was extraordinary, and the number of sources that help verify the claim.
For example, the claim that George Washington existed and was our first president holds a lot of sufficient evidence.
It’s not extraordinary, it’s well-recorded in history from multiple, verified sources, we can visit his grave, and we can go to Mount Vernon and visit his home.
Do we know that everything from history about Washington is 100% accurate? No, and, likely, it’s not.
However, through evidence, we can hold a level of certainty about his life and presidency.
On the flip side, let’s examine the claim that a man named Jesus was the son of God, had powers, and rose from the dead. Now we’re throwing in some extraordinary elements.
The claim that Jesus existed is not necessarily extraordinary, but the supernatural elements are. We would need some extraordinary evidence to be convinced of the claim.
Some historical claims are more reasonable to believe than others.
Supernatural Experience Claims
Much like personal preference claims, our first reaction should not be to reject that someone has had an experience unless we have a reason to believe they are being dishonest.
However, what we can reject is the conclusion of the experience.
This is because a supernatural experience is an anecdotal fallacy.
A supernatural conclusion would require extraordinary evidence.
For example, if someone said they saw a ghost, we would probably not deny that they saw something, but we would need sufficient evidence to have confidence in their claim that it was a ghost.
Can we recreate what they saw? Can we test it? Can we verify it? Have we, in any way, proven in the past that the supernatural exists? Have we ruled out schizophrenia, medication, or substances?
How can we be sure we’ve eliminated all known or unknown reasons one might believe they saw a ghost?
In these instances, I often refer to “the god of the gaps.” Early Greeks believed that lightning was a weapon of Zeus because they didn’t understand science and electricity.
Just because you can’t think of a better explanation for what you experienced, doesn’t give you a rational pass to slide something in there.
You also have to consider that there could be scientific explanations for your experience that haven’t yet been discovered.
The most rational answer is, “I saw something, and I don’t know what it was.”
It may have been a ghost, but you don’t get to add that to the list of possibilities until it’s proven that ghosts exist.
There may be ghosts in our universe and science could one day prove they exist. There could be ghosts in our universe and science never proves they exist. Or there may not be ghosts at all.
In any case, when you jump ahead, and assume you know the answer without sufficient evidence, you are no longer being rational.
Does Our Belief Lack Good Reason?
When our brain receives new information, it forms an initial assumption based on our life experiences. This assumption could be true or false.
Your job, as an intellectually honest person, is to determine if that assumption has insufficient or sufficient evidence.
If the evidence rejects your assumption, you must change your belief and vice versa.
If you’re a legitimate truth seeker, you’re operating within the evidence you have researched about the belief instead of your emotions.
Your data (or evidence) that you found to support or reject the belief could be incorrect, but if you’re at all concerned about intellectual honesty, then how you arrived at the conclusion is far more important than the conclusion itself.
For example, someone may be convinced that Bigfoot exists even though there is no sufficient evidence to support its existence; therefore, the reason for being convinced that Bigfoot exists is bad.
On the flip side, if one were convinced that Bigfoot did not exist, and it was proven in the future that Bigfoot does exist, their conclusion would have been incorrect. However, they still held rationality in their original conclusion because the reason was based on the lack of sufficient evidence available to them at the time.
Operating within the information we have, if gathered honestly and without bias, is rational.
How Can We Ensure We Believe As Many True Things As Possible?
I want to start by saying that you don’t have to take a firm stance on anything that neither interests nor directly affects you. You technically don’t have to take a firm stance on anything at all.
That may seem obvious, but I’m convinced that many people feel the need to have an opinion on everything so they don’t seem uneducated or lacking in empathy.
There’s nothing wrong with saying, “I don’t know. I don’t have enough information on this subject to form an educated opinion.”
This is often the most intellectually honest answer you can give.
However, if you want to become well-informed on a topic, claim, or interest, follow the path of sufficient evidence. If you can’t find it, don’t take a firm stance.
When researching, always get as close to the source(s) as possible. Sometimes it’s impossible to investigate the source which is all the more reason not to hold a firm belief.
What About Faith?
Faith and logic are opposites. If one holds a faith belief, that belief is not founded in good reason.
It is the excuse people give when they don’t have a good reason to believe something. If you have good reason to believe something, then you don’t need faith. If you need faith, then you don’t have a good reason for believing something.
Faith is not a pathway to the truth because it’s not reliable.
You could believe something in faith, and you could be correct. You could also be incorrect. We can’t use good evidence to help us determine if it’s correct or incorrect because, if we could, we wouldn’t hold the faith-based belief in the first place.
We would instead have good evidence to support our belief.
I feel the need to add that faith and hope are different. It’s OK to hope for something. I think it’s good. Hope doesn’t require a belief, nor does it require any type of evidence.
Hope is simply something you wish for.
And finally, confidence is often substituted for the word faith, but it’s not the same. Confidence is a measure of certainty about something. Confidence has evidence to back up your certainty and faith does not.
The examples above are reasons why I’m an advocate for using accurate language when engaging in conversation.
Conclusion
Two intellectually honest people can examine the same claim and come to different conclusions. This usually happens when one has found evidence the other hasn’t. This is why it’s essential to ask questions, have conversations, and understand where people are coming from.
Even if I disagree with someone, I still hold them in high regard if they hold their belief(s) for good reasons. Discussing with someone who isn’t intellectually honest, and doesn’t understand standards of evidence, is usually futile.
Additionally, suppose someone arrived at their belief using logic and intellectual honesty. In that case, there’s a good chance they will convince me to shift my confidence level in the topic of discussion, as I should be able to do for them.
I am convinced some people simply lack the ability to think critically. This is not an intentional derogatory or demeaning statement. I mean they cannot do it. Their brain will not compute. I believe this is important to understand and remember because if we don’t, it can lead to unnecessary anger or resentment.
To find the truth, ignorance must be lost.