Possible to promote A without possessing A?

[T'ai Chi]

From http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=49686 RandFan maintains that it is possible to promote A without possessing A.

This arose from discussion about possible heirs to JREF, and RandFan's assertion was that


It's certainly possible to promote skepticism while lacking critical thinking skills.


Claus maintains that it is not possible via


I don't see how it is possible.


Most comments in the thread back up RandFan.

What do people think?

Is it possible to promote A without possessing A? Yes or No?

[Dogdoctor]

Sure you can promote it. Promoting is a skill and it is not necessary to be a part of whatever you are promoting to do a good job of it. You think advertising people believe their BS? You just need to know how to promote whatever it is you are promoting.

[tkingdoll]

Sure you can promote it. Promoting is a skill and it is not necessary to be a part of whatever you are promoting to do a good job of it. You think advertising people believe their BS? You just need to know how to promote whatever it is you are promoting.

Hmm, yes, but there is a motivational factor at work there: salary.

What would motivate someone to promote skepticism if they do not consider themselves a skeptic?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Hmm, yes, but there is a motivational factor at work there: salary.

What would motivate someone to promote skepticism if they do not consider themselves a skeptic?

Beer?

[Dogdoctor]

Hmm, yes, but there is a motivational factor at work there: salary.

What would motivate someone to promote skepticism if they do not consider themselves a skeptic?

Obviously but then the question was only if it was possible. No mention of motivational factors or the lack of them. Unless someone is going to redefine the question. Also a person may not have enough brains to think critically to any great extent, but enough to recognize that critical thinking is a good thing.

[RandFan]

Examples that have been offered by others and some by myself:

It's possible to promote honesty without being honest.
It's possible to promote virtue without being virtuous.
It's possible to promote fidelity and be unfaithful.
It's possible to promote feminism and not be female.
It's possible to promote gay marriage and not be gay.
It's possible to promote education and be uneducated.

Reasons why.

1.) Hypocrisy.
2.) Self deception.
3.) Inability to truly understand what it is you are promoting.
4.) Believing in whatever you promote but simply lacking that quality or virtue.

There surely are other examples and other reasons.

[RandFan]

Also a person may not have enough brains to think critically to any great extent, but enough to recognize that critical thinking is a good thing.Agreed.

[Freakshow]

I don't think it is always a matter of promoting critical thinking while lacking critical thinking skills. I think it is sometimes a matter of promoting skepticism and anti-woo while lacking critical thinking skills.

Not everyone who considers themselves a skeptic actually has great critical thinking skills. Some of them are very woo-like in their thinking, but just happen to coincidentally have what is considered the "skeptical" opinion. So they think they are great skeptics. But they didn't arrive at their opinions via extensive critical thought. They arrived at them through emotions and gut-reactions, and just happened by chance to arrive at the same opinion as the critical-thinking skeptics.

[SpaceFluffer]

I would certainly take health advice from an overweight doctor...

[David Swidler]

What about culinary advice from a skinny chef?

[tkingdoll]

I would certainly take health advice from an overweight doctor...

That's because thinking isn't the same as doing.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I would certainly take health advice from an overweight doctor...
Or the suggestion to stop smoking from a doctor who smokes.

~~ Paul

[T'ai Chi]

20 Yes to 0 No, I think the results are even more obvious than they were before.

I wonder if Claus can now see how it is possible.

[Upchurch]

I promote the Cardinals baseball team, but you do not want me to play on your baseball team. I promote the sport, but I lack the ability to play the sport.

[T'ai Chi]

I promote the Cardinals baseball team, but you do not want me to play on your baseball team. I promote the sport, but I lack the ability to play the sport.

hehe, I hear ya.

I told the YMCA people, that sure, I'll sign the membership agreement authorizing pictures to be taken, but pictures of me doing any sport will only turn people away from the YMCA. :D

[Upchurch]

And, no offense indented, how many cheerleaders or marching band members do you want on your high school/college football team?

[tkingdoll]

I promote the Cardinals baseball team, but you do not want me to play on your baseball team. I promote the sport, but I lack the ability to play the sport.

Yes, but isn't the difference

a) you probably would if you could, and

b) you believe wholeheartedly in the team and the sport, i.e. you accept it.

To promote critical thinking and yet not be a critical thinker would be rather different, in that you would have to understand the principles and yet reject them.

[Upchurch]

a) you probably would if you could, andActually, no. I really hate playing sports. Kinda ironic, isn't it?

To promote critical thinking and yet not be a critical thinker would be rather different, in that you would have to understand the principles and yet reject them.or you could not really understand those principles and merely believe that you are enacting them.

[tkingdoll]

or you could not really understand those principles and merely believe that you are enacting them.

Ah, that's different to what I thought we were discussing. I would say it's very possible to promote critical thinking and labour under the illusion that one is, oneself, a critical thinker without actually employing the toolkit that you promote. However, you'd have to be pretty thick to be such a person, I think. After all, it would involve describing to people a process that by nature requires one to question one's own beliefs. Therefore, if you were in possession of that knowledge, you would, as part of the process, question whether you were actually doing it (I mean, don't we all? Isn't the point of the whole thing to stop and double-check your own bias?)

That's not the same as someone who promotes critical thinking and yet deliberately does not employ it, which is what I thought the original question was about.

[Upchurch]

Ah, that's different to what I thought we were discussing. I would say it's very possible to promote critical thinking and labour under the illusion that one is, oneself, a critical thinker without actually employing the toolkit that you promote. However, you'd have to be pretty thick to be such a person, I think.Consider the woo's out there who strongly believe that they can do what they are not doing. How would it be any different if you were to merely exchange a woo belief for an anti-woo belief?

After all, it would involve describing to people a process that by nature requires one to question one's own beliefs. Therefore, if you were in possession of that knowledge, you would, as part of the process, question whether you were actually doing it (I mean, don't we all? Isn't the point of the whole thing to stop and double-check your own bias?)It would not be a fully rational position but self-deception despite oneself, and I think that's the point.

[tkingdoll]

dupe

[tkingdoll]

Consider the woo's out there who strongly believe that they can do what they are not doing. How would it be any different if you were to merely exchange a woo belief for an anti-woo belief?



Like I say...pretty thick :D


But no, I don't debate your point. What I was addressing is what would motivate someone to promote something but at the same time deliberately reject it, as in the overweight doctor example. It's hard to think of an example that fits critical thinking.

[Dogdoctor]

sometimes you might have someone trying to promote something but due to lack of certain qualities results in the opposite effect. For instance a real bozo might promote critical thinking and do a poor job of it causing people to think "if that is critical thinking then I want nothing to do with it."

[drkitten]

But no, I don't debate your point. What I was addressing is what would motivate someone to promote something but at the same time deliberately reject it, as in the overweight doctor example. It's hard to think of an example that fits critical thinking.

Skill, and boredom at working through "classroom exercises," for one possibility.

I know of, for example, a few superlative mathematicians who are much better at teaching proofs then they are at actually producing or publishing them. When doing their own (research) mathematics, they rely very heavily on their own intuitions and guesses about what conjectures are likely to be fruitful and interesting. They are essentially lean, mean, conjecture-making machines. On the other hand, they often can't prove their conjectures.

They make great collaborators. They'll come wandering into your office, saying "wouldn't it be interesting if ?", without the faintest notion of how to prove it -- but then will happily co-write a paper with you once you figure out how to prove this interesting conjecture that you yourself wouldn't have been able to come up with. (For an example of this that you may have heard of, consider Len Adelman's contribution to the RSA algorithm. He was the cryptanalyst of the trio, and spent his days breaking the cyphers that R(ivest) and S(hamir) invented each night. When RS finally came up with one that A couldn't easily break, they published -- and thereby won the Turing Award.)

I've seen similar feats in medical diagnosis, where truly expert skill and intuition can replace "critical thinking."

Of course, one of the things that makes these people stand out is that they tend to be geniuses of the first water. And they're often capable -- if rusty -- of doing "critical thinking," but they've taken their work to a high enough level that critical thinking is of less importance to what they do personally than it is to the field as a whole.

No reputable doctor would [i]tell you to diagnose on the basis of intuition. But no competent, experienced doctor would ignore her intuition, either.

[Upchurch]

I hate to introduce the term to the thread because it is so overused and carries so much baggage, but wouldn't such a person be appropriately labeled a pseudoskeptic?

eta: this is in reply to tkingdoll's post, not the ones just above. Sorry.

[tkingdoll]

I hate to introduce the term to the thread because it is so overused and carries so much baggage, but wouldn't such a person be appropriately labeled a pseudoskeptic?

eta: this is in reply to tkingdoll's post, not the ones just above. Sorry.

I suppose so, although with pseudo-anything, it doesn't necessarily denote intent. Can you give me an example of a pseudoskeptic, just so we're clear about who the definition would apply to?

I guess pseudoskepticism could be applied by a dishonest person to give the appearance of having thoroughly investigated something when they have, say, a financial agenda. A lot of woos I know have fallen for scams or conspiracy theories because of a basic appeal to authority. That doesn't seem quite as dramatic as the original hypothesis of someone who promotes critical thinking whilst at the same time not employing it, though.