#howtothink

Ask more questions. Over the last few weeks, the public news in all forms has painted a very clouded image of what is fact and what is conjecture, and I am bothered by it. Acts of violence in order to evoke a heated response and destabilize society are targeted. When someone decides where to strike, it is calculated. Neither of these facts bestows upon anyone the authority or the necessary evidence to draw conclusions as to the nature of the act in question.  

I have observed people in my communities both online and local, formulating passionate, definitive conclusions. When something happens outside our locale, it often becomes much more difficult to attain accurate, unbiased information. Lack of integral information doesn't seem to stop anyone deciding the facts for themselves.

There is no better way to end a conversation than to express raw emotion coupled with complete disregard for logic. Opinions are commonly mistakenly inserted as a proxy for insight and understanding when dealing with consequence. Read a satirical article without analyzing it's context while simultaneously choosing to focus on the “repercussions”, and it may seem easy to become apologetic. Understanding the grand macrocosm of the landscape is useful and educating.

This is a call, from a healthy, practicing "Devil's Advocate": Ask more questions. Exercising your right to abstain from passing quick judgment should be commended. For instance, in relation to the satirists that were shot and killed this last month, I have not passed any judgment as to their connection with any specific organization. I know that any terrorist organization would claim responsibility given the chance. Terrorists operate on fear, and an event like this is a perfect fit to that end. If they are responsible, they would claim involvement. If they weren't involved...they would claim involvement. Either way, I cannot be sure, so I do not pass judgment. I am happy to say that I do not know.

I would like to witness an increased air of humility in relation to issues of moral and political importance. Drawing conclusions about the allegiances or membership and representation of political groups, religious groups, or cultures can always be smeared or misinterpreted. If there be any moral or legal weight to a subject, the questions one must ask become more entrenched in the minefield of emotional bias.

Generalizations can easily be torn down with specifics no matter how accurate they may seem. Without facts, without specific names and evidence of connection or responsibility there is no case. The reason that we as political onlookers must grapple with upsetting, challenging thought experiments.

In the interest of intellectual integrity, I encourage every member of human society to exercise their intrinsic right to abstinence. If you do not sit on a throne of moral authority, refrain from passing judgment. The appropriate way to respond to the difficult questions we must all face in our lives is to ask more questions. When someone claims that an act was influence by a religious view but you cannot be sure: Ask more questions. When a garden is proposed in a meadow to honor and preserve the ecology and history of the place but you aren't sure of the impact: ask more questions.