article: "Critical Thinking: Volume I — The Foundation. A Short Course For TIs"

[Squareinthecircle]

Critical Thinking: Volume I — The Foundation


What Critical Thinking Actually Means
by Kevin Boykin
10/21/25


1. What Critical Thinking Is and Is Not
In this day and age we are lied to constantly — by our government, by companies, by other governments (just assume everything from government is a lie to some degree), and more. National values have disappeared, so even those we consider “friends” need to always be kept in sight. We require a system that reveals what people are actually saying. It needs to tip us off to less-than-honorable verbiage, inconsistencies, and more.

Critical Thinking is the most useful information I ever learned. I use it almost non-stop. I would be 100% ineffective without it.

People use the phrase “Critical Thinking” constantly. Most mean “being skeptical.” But skepticism alone isn’t thinking — it’s reaction. The word critical is taken to mean something akin to complaints, but in this case that is far from the truth. The term does not suggest we accuse an argument of looking fat in those jeans. Critical Thinking means to approach words like a film critic approaches movies. We need to examine what’s actually there — what it actually means.

Critical thinking is the practice of checking whether what you accept as true actually holds up.
It’s not cynicism, and it’s not blind trust in “experts.”
It’s the habit of testing information before we believe.

2. Logic as a Protocol
Logic isn’t a personality trait. It’s a set of repeatable steps.

1) State the claim.
2) List the evidence.
3) See if the conclusion follows.
4) Ask who benefits.
5) Test it again when emotions rise.

Follow those steps no matter the subject. When you can’t think clearly — because of fatigue, pressure, or manipulation — these steps still run. That’s what makes logic a protocol, not a preference.

3. Structure Over Feeling
Emotion is information, not instruction. It’s information on how an argument went wrong.
It can signal where to look, but not what to believe.

When emotion drives judgment, bias follows.
When structure drives judgment, truth has a chance.

So while emotion does provide information, it will never be our friend.

4. Why It Matters
Critical thinking keeps perception honest.
Lies distort reality; sloppy reasoning does the same thing by accident.
Accuracy is a form of self-respect.

This isn’t about winning arguments.
It’s about staying coherent when the noise gets loud.

5. A Simple Method
Step 1 – Define the claim. Boil it down to one sentence.
Step 2 – Check evidence. Who said it, when, and how do they know?
Step 3 – Examine the logic. Does the conclusion actually follow?
Step 4 – Look for motive. What changes if people believe it?
Step 5 – Re-test under stress. If anger or fear enters, see if the logic still holds.

Run these steps until it’s habit.

6. The Practical Result
Used regularly, critical thinking becomes protection.
It limits how easily outside forces — or your own impulses — can steer you.

Information can be weaponized.
Logic turns it back into data.

7. The Closer
Critical thinking is disciplined honesty with yourself.
It’s not the opposite of emotion; it’s what keeps emotion from running the show.
Learn it, practice it, and the noise loses power.

Author’s Note: My targeting was increased significantly in intensity, from a level that already stole my ability to think, walk, play guitar, and more. It was their pressure on me that I used as motivation for this series and several more coming up.





https://kasspert.wordpress.com/2025/...he-foundation/

[Squareinthecircle]

"Critical Thinking: A Short Course For TIs Volume II — Ten Common Fallacies and How to Spot Them"


Critical Thinking: Volume II — The Fallacies



by Kevin Boykin  10 / 21 / 25



Preface – Why This Volume Exists
In the first part we defined critical thinking as the disciplined art of making sure what you accept as true actually is.
This second volume moves from definition to pattern recognition. Once you can name a fallacy, you can neutralize it.
The goal isn’t to “win arguments,” but to keep your own reasoning stable when others start to wobble.

1. Ad Hominem — Attack the Person
When the focus shifts from the claim to the speaker.
Example: “You’re not a scientist, so you’re wrong.”
Fix: Call it out. Shift conversation back to the evidence.

2. Anecdotal Evidence — ‘My Uncle Said So’
Using one story as universal proof.
Example: “My neighbor smoked all his life and lived to 90, so cigarettes are fine.”
Fix: One case is data-point zero. Look for replication.

3. Appeal to Authority — Credentials as Truth
Assuming someone is right because of their title (a government’s dream).
Example: “A Harvard doctor said it.”
Fix: Check the argument, not the résumé.

4. Red Herring — Change the Subject
Dragging the discussion away from the point.
Example: “Sure, the policy failed, but what about the other party’s scandals?”
Fix: Keep returning to the original question.

5. Straw Man — Fight a Cartoon
Misrepresenting an argument so it’s easier to attack.
Example: “You said we should reduce defense spending; you must want no military at all.”
Fix: Restate the opponent’s actual claim before responding.

6. Kettle Logic — Contradict Yourself to Win
Using several opposing excuses at once.
Example: “I never broke your window, and it was already broken.”
Fix: Pick one line of reasoning and stand by it.

7. Loaded Question — The Trap
A question that assumes guilt.
Example: “When did you stop beating your wife?”
Fix: Identify the hidden assumption before answering.

8. False Cause — Correlation ≠ Causation
Assuming sequence means cause.
Example: “Crime rose after ice-cream sales increased, so ice-cream causes crime.”
Fix: Search for third factors and test with controls.

9. Confirmation Bias — Seeing What You Want to See
Accepting only evidence that supports your view and dismissing what contradicts it.
Example: “Every time I forget my umbrella, it rains. It never rains when I bring it — therefore, the presence of my umbrella decides the weather.”
Fix: Deliberately look for information that could disprove your belief. Truth survives scrutiny; delusion avoids it.

10. Appeal to Emotion — Feelings as Evidence
Using fear, pride, or sympathy instead of logic.
Example: “If you don’t agree, you don’t care about children.”
Fix: Separate how you feel from whether it’s true.

Putting It Together
When you notice one of these, pause.
Name it silently. Once recognized, a fallacy loses power.

Practice until spotting them is automatic.
Then, when conversation turns chaotic, you’ll still know where the ground is.

Next Up — Volume III: The Field Study
In the next volume, these principles leave the page and enter real life.
A recorded exchange becomes a case study showing how fallacies appear “in the wild” — and how logic keeps its footing when emotion takes the wheel.







https://kasspert.wordpress.com/2025/...-to-spot-them/

[Squareinthecircle]

Critical Thinking: Volume III – The Field Study


Applied Critical Thinking: Logic vs. Laughter in the Age of Denial




by Kevin Boykin
10 / 28 / 25

Preface — Where We’ve Been
In Volume I, we defined critical thinking not as cynicism but as the disciplined art of shielding truth from emotional interference.
In Volume II, we catalogued ten fallacies — Ad Hominem through Appeal to Emotion — and examined their habitats in everyday speech.

Now we leave the laboratory. We go into the wild. And wild it turned out to be.

Note on Methodology

The individual referenced as Volunteer #1 demonstrated enthusiastic compliance.

Volunteer #1 (Facebook handle: WP Du Plessis) was informed during the exchange that his participation might appear in a forthcoming study on cognitive fallacies. His continued engagement constituted consent. The profile is now private, with no accessible business or personal content beyond a small network of connections. The citation here serves documentation, not derision.

Selective paraphrasing has been employed for clarity and expedience; no logical content has been altered.

For our purposes here we take no side in this debate — we only observe the logical fallacies at play. Our position of neutrality enables us to see beyond our own emotions.

I. The Setup
Our expedition began with an unusual specimen: a published medical study titled
“Genomic Integration and Molecular Dysregulation in Aggressive Stage IV Bladder Cancer Following COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination.”

When Distinguished Gentleman #1 commented that the establishment would likely ignore it, Volunteer #1 appeared almost on cue. What followed was not debate but demonstration — an inspired and insistent participation of sociological forces zealously involved in a real-time crash course on how logic interprets an emotion-based argument.

II. The Exchange (Selected Transcripts)
1) DG #1: “DO NOT TRUST YOUR DOCTOR!”
Volunteer #1: “I’d rather trust my doctor than peddling grifters McQuack and SlowQuack. 😉😂”

Fallacy: Ad Hominem + Appeal to Ridicule — The argument ignored, the ego fed.

2) DG #1: “The doctors who deny scientific proof? The ones pushing another booster? It’s possible that those volunteering now will be the canary in the coalmine for others.”
Volunteer #1: “Nice fiction. The market for humor is wide open.”

Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule — Fake nervous laughter substitutes for logic.

3) DG #1: “Some believe this was meant to skim the lowest IQs from the population.”
Volunteer #1: “If so, you conspiracy nuts would’ve been first in line. 😉😂”

Fallacy: Circular Reasoning + Projection — Insult as both premise and proof.

When direct evidence — letters, patents, and logical structure — entered the chat, the emojis multiplied. Each 😂 became a data point in the psychology of denial.

III. The Analysis — Cognitive Defense in Motion
Ridicule as Reflex
Mockery grants the illusion of superiority while avoiding the risk of engagement. It’s easier to laugh than to think.

Evasion by Mockery
Labeling information “fiction” anesthetizes cognition. It’s not skepticism — it’s escape.

The Peer-Group Shield
Public ridicule isn’t for the opponent; it’s for the audience. Laughter summons witnesses and creates consensus without content.

Confirmation Bias in Freefall
Every contradictory fact is folded back into the bias that spawned it: “Only conspiracy nuts believe this.”
Loop complete, truth deleted.

IV. The Meta-Moment
Somewhere between the silence and the sarcasm, Distinguished Gentleman #1 recalled the principle that anchors this series:

“Every situation is an opportunity — it’s my responsibility to understand how.”

The encounter became the opportunity.

Logic is not a debating trick; it is a survival protocol. It translates the foreign, it reveals the hidden.
When fatigue or interference flood the mind, emotion fails first. Logic does not.
It runs like code — step by step, rule by rule — preserving clarity at all times.

Without critical thinking we don’t understand what is presented; we settle for what our previous limited resources and faulty processes delivered as definitions.

V. The Lesson
Critical thinking isn’t about winning an argument. It’s about staying whole when others fracture.

Fallacies are emotional shortcuts.
Ridicule is surrender disguised as confidence.
Logic is the only dry land when emotion floods the room.


To my ever-obliging co-author, witting yet witless — Volunteer #1, thank you.
Your participation provided a flawless live-action tutorial in everything this series has sought to teach.

And to the reader:

When medicine and politics wrestle for truth, logic is the referee that never takes a bribe.


Appendix — Fallacy Index Across the Series
(Volume II established the taxonomy; Volume III demonstrates it in live context.)

Ad Hominem – Attack the person instead of the argument.
Introduced II | Demonstrated III


Appeal to Emotion – Manipulate feeling to bypass reason.
Introduced II


Straw Man – Misrepresent the claim to simplify attack.
Introduced II | Demonstrated III


Red Herring – Distract from the main issue via irrelevant pivot.
Introduced II | Demonstrated III


Circular Reasoning – Use the conclusion as its own proof.
Introduced II | Demonstrated III


Appeal to Ridicule – Laughter as argument replacement.
Introduced II | Demonstrated III


Confirmation Bias – Filter evidence through belief.
Introduced II | Demonstrated III


Peer Shield / Bandwagon – Safety through crowd agreement.
Introduced II | Demonstrated III


Evasion by Mockery – Tone as substitute for content.
Introduced II | Demonstrated III



Afterword — On Resistance and Resilience
Logic stands tall, remaining completely unaffected in the whirlwinds of emotion and fallacy.
These encounters — unpleasant though they feel — are weights we lift to preserve clarity. The process requires a temporary detachment from emotion, making it easier to perform. The mind that emerges unbroken is the one still capable of truth.







https://kasspert.wordpress.com/2025/...e-field-study/

[Kam Sus]

Great article, thanks for it!