On Clifford: sounds like you and I are in agreement. Critical thinking is indeed not the norm, so Clifford does in fact go “a bridge too far.”

On “What’s the harm?”: If you click the Jenny McCarthy Body Count link and go to the source page, you’ll find an explanation. The creator of this widget acknowledges that McCarthy isn’t herself directly responsible for these deaths and illnesses, but since she has made herself the de-facto celebrity face of the anti-vax crowd she has certainly contributed to the problem and is indirectly responsible, at the least.

On the Gulf War: I do not believe it was legally wrong for Bush to invade Iraq. I believe it was unjustified. The case to invade Iraq was based on two things being true: (1) Iraq had weapons of mass destruction — chemical weapons at the least, possibly/probably biological, and just maybe some nuclear (but doubtful); and (2) there was a significant risk that Iraq would provide those weapons to terrorists. I believe #1; believed it at the time and still believe that Iraq had WMD’s before the US invasion. The reasons are too long to post about here, so I’ll summarize: we know for a FACT Iraq had WMD’s just a couple years before the US invasion, because UN inspectors found them and documented them — then were kicked out of Iraq. There was no reason to believe Iraq disposed of them, because they never took credit for doing so (to my knowledge). Honestly I do not think the risk of those WMD’s being given to terrorists was high enough to warrant the cost (in dollars and human terms) of the US invasion and all that has followed. Assuming that Bush TRULY believed otherwise, and did not just use this as a flimsy pretext to do what he really wanted to do anyway, then he behaved morally, I would think.

Yes, Iraq breached any number of UN resolutions but as I noted my objections were not legal.

Regarding your last paragraph: sadly, this is exactly what I think has happened. Most people aren’t critical thinkers, so persuasion by political leaders relies on exploiting cognitive biases, playing to emotion, etc. Thus politicians are immoral by default because they rely on and actually foment a lack of critical thinking. I know of very few exceptions — maybe Ron Paul.

The western world has addressed this need to believe by offering individuals a wide diversity of reformed religions. Even this does not solve the problem and many people are swayed by cults, and compact social or political groups, which offer the individual a mechanism through which he mask his self-hatred. See Eric Hoffer, The True Believer.

Your summary of Clifford’s assertion is “that it is immoral to form opinions and beliefs based on insufficient evidence, to avoid any evidence and arguments that might contradict our opinions, and to stifle any doubts we may have.” But some things are not only unproven but also unprovable. In these cases it is problematic to believe or to not believe since both require belief or faith. In the case of religion that means that both belief in a deity and non-belief in a deity are religious beliefs; only the agnostic escapes the trap here.

Furthermore, if Clifford’s position is that it is immoral to “not engage in critical thinking.” He must establish that it is even possible for everyone to engage in critical thinking before immorality may be imputed. That is a bridge too far for me. As an attorney I interviewed, deposed, examined and cross-examined myriad people. The experience left me skeptical that everyone is capable of critical thinking. In a large cohort of the population, the need to believe overrides all else. The result is adherence to religions from the reformed mainstream to the quirky animal rights, Gaia, and medical cults.

I frankly find critical thinkers an anomaly, perhaps a broken gene somewhere.

What’s the Harm?

I agree whole-heartedly with you on the underlying premise of your argument. But please do not overreach. Did McCarthy’s PR actually have a role in each of the 265 deaths and 50,172 sicknesses? If not, you undermine your argument by personally attributing them to her. Better to attribute to the underlying problem of vaccine denial. Yes, I know a truly minor quibble. Maybe I am just peckish today.

Gulf War

You said, “…I suspect that George W. Bush really believed the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Turns out he was wrong to do so. Does that make him immoral, or merely human? If he really believed it — even though mistakenly, possibly fueled by wishful thinking and the confirmation bias — then he also believed it was his moral duty to do something about it.”

From this point I infer that you believe Bush was legally wrong to invade Iraq. If this is not the case let me know.

The Gulf war ended March 3, 1991 by cease-fire agreement. Subsequent agreements established the cease-fire was predicated on many specific provisions. Iraq made little or no attempt to comply with the cease-fire and continued to act belligerently. The US and the UN repeatedly attempted to obtain Iraq compliance. Iraq did not. Note: the UN failed to require the coalition forces reapply to the UN for reauthorization to recommence hostilities.

Legally Iraq breached the cease-fire and the coalition recommenced the hot war.

The weapons of mass destruction and moral duty arguments are red herrings. They have no bearing on the legal argument. (The breaches by Iraq occurred early in the 1990’s and were continuous until recommencement of hostilities in March of 2003. WMD would have added to this but could not detract from it. However, even the tiny amounts of WMD found were a breach.) They do have bearing on the political argument but the political argument has no weight with the legal argument, or it should not.

Lastly, is it a failure of critical thinking to think the legal argument I made above but then argue a completely different emotionally powerful argument? Or is it acceptance that a large potion of the population is incapable of critical thinking and the arguments must be addressed in a way to persuade the non-critical thinker as well? Of course the wheels really come off once the underlying argument is non-critical and is then married to an emotional political argument. The example here would be health care reform.

Mark Sherman