ACCUSATIONS AND CRITICAL THINKING

An accusation was made. One person accused another person of doing something unethical and illegal. In human affairs this occurs a lot; it’s a regular event between people. And normally once an accusation is made, the conversation then moves to hear it out and find evidence that the asserted event did happen. After all, one can make an accusation without there being any actual event. That also happens all of the time. Sometimes it is intentional (someone is just trying to hurt another) and sometimes it is unintentional (someone thinks that someone did something or assumes it or jumps to that conclusion). Saying that something happened is not the same as something actually happening. One is a verbal map, the other is the territory of action. “The map is not the territory.”

Now in the case of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, when an accusation surfaced from a Doctor Ford, a great many people on the left politically assumed that the words of accusation was sufficient as evidence. Many came out and said, “I believe her...” even though there is no evidence of the event except her words. They are taking her words (a verbal map) as equivalent to the event and releasing the need for evidence.

Her words stopped their thinking—they stopped questioning and stopped looking for evidence. Normally, when someone accuses someone of an act— we ask for evidence. We ask for details. When, where, how, etc.? We do not assume that the act of accusing is evidence. It is not. That’s what people did in the dark ages. If someone accused you of being a witch, you were considered guilty of being a witch until you disproved it. That kind of reasoning meant that you have to prove a not. When the human race matured, we stopped asking people to prove a not. We only ask that you prove what is. If you say someone actually did something, then we ask you to give evidence of what is— what did the person do? When? Where?

Anyone can make an accusation against anyone else. That’s the blame frame and people do all the time. Yet when that happens, thinking people ask questions in order to find out if there’s any evidence or truth to the assertion. That’s what you do if you are a thinker and know how to do critical thinking. Asking a woman who is making an accusation to give proof is the foundation for all modern legal systems.

After all, who would want to live in a world where any and every accusation is treated as unquestionably true? That would be a nightmare world! In that world you could easily ruin someone’s life and reputation by simply making an accusation. If you are not responsible for giving evidence, for proving the accusation, then you could create all sorts of havoc by simply inventing whatever accusations that would darken someone’s character. Then the person is guilty until he or she proves himself not guilty. Fortunately, all modern justice systems start from the other direction: innocent until proven guilty.

For anyone who is skilled in critical thinking, asking for facts that provides evidence of an event is a basic first step in rational thinking. To jump to the conclusion that the accuser is truthful, that you believe him or her, assumes a fundamental illogical prejudice. The irrationality? You have pre- judged before you have any evidence. You are privileging an accusation (a verbal map) over an actual event. Now why would anyone do that? Probably to make a point or to achieve a political agenda.

Critical thinking is lacking when someone jumps to the conclusion that an accuser is to be believed because a woman is claiming sexual aggression. That’s pre-judging (prejudice) that we must believe her is due to her gender, not the facts. Now it is true that in the past many women have made such claims and have not been believed. Yet because that is about other people in other circumstances, that history is irrelevant. Just because something has been the case in the past does not mean that is the case now or always will happen.

It is also true that many accusations used to be dismissed because a woman uttered them. But again, that does not mean “all women who make accusations always tell the truth.” That’s an over- generalization. That over-simplifies a complex situation. Women lie and make things up just as men do. The gender of being female does not prevent one from misrepresenting things, being confused, having agendas, or outright lying. The issue is not about gender.

In the case with Judge Brett Kavanaugh, several factors make the facts of this particular accusation very weak.

1) The fact that there was no report or statement that anything happened for 30 years (1982 to 2012). For 30 years there was no indication of a trauma.

2) The fact that the accusation arose as a “recovered memory” in therapy. Once in psychology, the idea of “recovered memories” prevailed. Then Dr. Ellen Langer of Harvard showed how easy it was to “install false memories.” Also there were repeated cases where DNA evidence proved the innocence of persons who had been convicted of rape based on the so-called “recovered memory.”

3) Every person who was supposed to have been a witness to the event has sworn that they were not there or that the event didn’t happen, so there’s not a single witness to corroborate the story.

4) The accusation arose in a social, political context wherein the Democrats have been trying hard to stop the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh. It arose as last minute leaks from a Democrat Senator, Dianne Feinstein. Though she had the accusation in a letter for two months, she never brought it up during the formal Senate process. So the context and timing of the accusation seems suspiciously political.

Next time you are accused of something— let’s hope that everyone involved can do some solid critical thinking! That is, “disciplined thinking that’s clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence” and that they can also think-about-their-thinking. That’s what Executive Thinking (2018) is all about.