Ideas That Have Ruined Me: Criticality and Doubt

1.5 weeks without a post? Beginning a sentence--nay, a blog entry--with a number? It must be mid-term...

I posted earlier that one of the ideas that have ruined me is the importance of criticality and doubt in thinking.

I discovered this importance in Pascal's reason-based doubt-proof-submission paradigm outlined in the Pensees. He argues that reason employs the tactics of doubt (trying to disprove something that seems dubious or potentially dangerous to believe - the tool of the skeptic), proof (trying to concretely and inescapably affirm something that seems intuitively reasonable or advantageous to believe - the tool of the mathematician), and submission (accepting a truth by faith - the tool of the theist); to abandon one or two of these tools would result in philosophical shipwreck.

(Note: Given this scheme, "doubt" is not equivalent to "unbelief"---which the Bible identifies as the root of all sin---but simply a questioning of validity. A Christian would certainly want to "doubt" a heretical statement, in that sense. It's more closely akin to modern-day "critical thinking.")

What has struck me as I thought about this paradigm over the last few years is that I have neglected the discipline of doubt for most of my life. (I always dreaded those "critical thinking" questions in English class growing up.)

Now, I can't stop questioning ideas, be they about physics, theology, or how to best carry my books on my way to class!

Even this week, I've spent a good three hours brain-dead over how to prove to my class a simple physics principle used in every introductory textbook. (I'm omitting the particular details here partly out of a desire for relevance and partly out of embarrassment.) I keep reexamining the argument critically, and can't seem to escape!

But this is where the submission comes in: Because of God's commitment to me, I believe I will escape the circle of doubt. (Well, at least over important things; I suppose it doesn't matter if I swim in doubt over unimportant things. --> There - I doubted my own statement again!)

Which tool of Pascal's trifecta have you ignored? Which have you overused?

Carpenter, Skeptic, Savior

I learned a valuable lesson about skepticism a couple years ago.

My wife and I had just bought our first home (yay!) and decided it would be a great investment idea and a lot of fun to replace all of the carpet with laminate wood flooring. Six months later, we were approximately 10% of the way done, and learned that we didn't find it to be much fun (and, it turned out, we were also eight months away from moving again).

But I learned the value of asking good skeptical questions:

• "Is this really a right angle?"
• "Was that cut supposed to be measured from the tongue end or from the groove end?"
• "These measurements can't possibly be accurate!"

(Okay, that last one isn't a question, but you get the idea.)

I learned that carpenters have to be very good skeptics: They have to know how to ask constructive questions that challenge the status quo to help develop a correct understanding of reality. We have to do the same thing in physics problems (hence my use of a Pascalian group problem-solving strategy), and in studying theology.

It's also important to remember that Jesus was a carpenter, who had to ask such skeptical questions about every cut He made. In many ways, He also applied that same clear-cut understanding to the spiritual world, calling into question those who sat on their spirituality a little too comfortably.

Here's to good skepticism!

Pascal-esque Experiment, Part II

I think my Pascal-inspired group problem-solving session went well. The students were very quiet at first, seeming to not know who should speak first as they read over the first problem. A couple of groups didn't even stand up to use the whiteboard for the first five minutes.

But after only a short time, the room was filled with discussion, and the boards were filled with writing.

A few interesting observations:

1. As always, I find that students think more clearly and write more neatly when they are standing at a markerboard. I think the blood flows to the brain better because the body is more active. Also, seeing your handwriting on a whiteboard makes it all look so much more "official."
2. As always, I also find that students think more clearly and write more neatly when they are working out a problem with others watching them. You can't simply gloss over an assumption or a math step with other students---especially an assigned Skeptic---watching you.
3. Speaking of the skeptic role, I heard a lot of chatter between Skeptics and Leaders! What I noticed, though, was that the Skeptic always countered the Leader's statement with another piece of information: "Yes, but we also know that..." or "Perhaps, but the textbook says that..." were typical beginnings of their sentences. They were never skeptical for skepticism's sake, but always challenged the Leader's statement with a purpose and a counterbalancing idea.
4. Lastly, one student (assigned the role of Scribe) asked what the Scribe was to contribute to the discussion. I hadn't considered this, but quickly realized that part of the Scribe's role was to ask the Leader and Skeptic to clarify their ideas so that the Scribe could write them on the board. This is a crucial role that we often miss in the classroom.

So, did the session work? I think so, but we'll see when I get their homework scores in...

A Very Pascal-esque Experiment

Pascal said,

One must know when it is right to doubt, to affirm, to submit. Anyone who does otherwise does not understand the force of reason. Some men run counter to these three principles, either affirming that everything can be proved, because they know nothing about proof, or doubting everything, because they do not know when to submit, or always submitting, because they do not know when judgement is called for. (Pensees, 170)

This morning, I'm going to be putting this into action in a new group problem-solving system I'm introducing in my classes, which I read about in Just-in Time Teaching. The students will be randomly sorted into groups of three. Each student is assigned a different role: the Leader, the Scribe, and the Skeptic. Each of these reflects Pascal's actions of affirming, submitting, and doubting, respetively. Each group will receive one or two physics problems and given the majority of the class time to solve.


The Leader is to direct the group's conversation, putting forth ideas and looking things up in the textbook. Only the Scribe is allowed to write anything down. The Skeptic is to ask questions of and poke holes in what the Leader says.


This makes me excited, because it is, quite literally, Pascal in action! I'm excited to see how it works out. Tomorrow, I'll post a synopsis of how it went.