A few rather intellectual bloggers have been advising others to 'blog critically' or 'think critically'. I think that the advice is a good one and originates from good intentions.
The above advice, however, has often been misunderstood or applied wrongly. Being critical should not mean being cynical all the time, nor should it mean giving anti-establishment views all the time. Simply reversing the claims made by others represents just that – a simple flip from one view to a directly opposite view – an action which can be executed by any ordinary computer or robot.
Critical thinking, I suggest, should mean that one is able to judge for himself the strength, weaknesses, nuances, and structure of the arguments presented by proponents of various schools of thought on particular issues. It is perfectly normal that on certain issues, one might well feel that the government has done the right thing while on other issues, one might feel that the government could do better. But some habits hinder genuine dialogue in Singapore's civil society. Firstly, there is a tendency in some people to view any sort of criticism negatively. Critics are often viewed as unpatriotic just because their discourses do not match those of the Ministers perfectly. Thus any deviation from the standard script is viewed with suspicion. At the other extreme, there are others who criticize everything they see, as though the country is a shithole. These critics tend to take the moral high ground and assume that their arguments are superior just because they have a moral case. They will ignore other views that are based on a
holistic assessment of situations that take into account
unique characteristics of a particular country. I would like to suggest that both extremes are unhealthy. Just as no society is perfect and utopian, no society is so bad that you have to totally dismiss it or condemn it (for example, by describing it with the word "bloody" as one
blogger has done).
Thus, one should always take the time to see things from various perspectives. This sounds cliché but it is the phrase that most adequately captures what I think. Critical thinking and 'proper argumentative writing' are inseparable, in my opinion. The latter means that
having judged the strength and weaknesses of the various schools of thought, the person is able to present his own arguments in a way that is convincing/persuasive, fair/reasonable, and polite/non-sarcastic.
An argument that is phrased in a sarcastic way can hardly persuade people to try and see things from your point of view. Whenever I read or hear something sarcastic, I feel that the person is not interested in convincing me or engaging in a civilized dialogue; instead, he is probably out to provoke, irritate, annoy, or enrage me. Arguments designed to convince should come across very differently from those designed to say, 'please punch me'. The philosopher Nietzsche once said that people sometimes do not agree with one another not because of the substance of the arguments, but because of the ways they are phrased and delivered – that is, the form of the arguments. So
form can be as important as substance.
Using phrases such as "if you think about it..." (as though people are not thinking about it) or "come on..." (as though people are being unreasonable), or swear words such as "WTF" (whatever that means), or loaded terms that imply dissenters' stupidity, immaturity or incivility, are all strategies falling outside the realm of proper argumentation. I will never think more highly of a piece of writing just because one or more of these strategies are used. In particular, I do wish that people in Singapore will use Hokkien swear words less frequently or not at all if possible, especially in public (and publicly accessible domains). People who are vaguely famous should take note of this, because 'with great power comes great responsibility'. My fear is that over time, my beloved dialect group, Hokkien, will be associated with a vulgar culture of the most banal form – and I would like my culture, which obviously includes its language, to be associated with something more positive in my very own country.
Thus, I have presented my view of what (a) critical thinking and (b) 'proper argumentative writing' should entail – namely, civility (as represented by a decent
form), and avoidance of the two extremes that I have described earlier. Only when (a) and (b) are combined can one engage in 'critical blogging'. Lastly, I would say that many people confuse critical thinking with the practice of voicing personal views on every controversial issue on earth. This is understandable, since this practice does allow people to boost their egos in the process of trying to appear encyclopaedic or morally superior. However, commenting on every single controversial issue on earth is not something that I would personally do, because at times it just seems obvious to me that the fundamental disagreement over certain issues, laws, or policies is due to
normative differences in value systems, to the extent that arguments and counter-arguments will only end up in a stalemate.
