ATP 2-33.4, page 25

Analytic Skills Intellectual Autonomy 2-31. Intellectual autonomy is thinking for oneself while adhering to standards of rationality. It means thinking through issues using one’s own thinking rather than uncritically accepting the viewpoints of others. Questions that foster intellectual autonomy include— e@ = To what extent am I a conformist? e@ Do think through issues on my own or do I merely accept the views of others? e Having thought through an issue from a rational perspective, am I willing to stand alone despite the irrational criticisms of others? AVOIDING ANALYTICAL PITFALLS 2-32. Critical thinking is a mental process that is subject to numerous influences. Intelligence analysts involved in analyzing complex situations and making conclusions are prone to the influences that shape and mold their view of the world and their ability to reason. These influences are referred to as analytical pitfalls. The elements of thought, intelligence standards, and intellectual traits aid analysts in recognizing these pitfalls in their own analysis and the analysis performed by others. Logic fallacies and biases are two general categories of analytical pitfalls. LOGIC FALLACIES 2-33. Logic fallacies are errors in the reasoning process caused by the failure to apply sound logic. Although usually committed unintentionally, these fallacies are sometimes used deliberately to persuade, convince, or deceive. An analyst must be able to recognize logic fallacies so a false line of reasoning will not distract them and lead to poor conclusions. This chapter discusses the fallacies of relevance, omission, and assumption. Fallacies of Relevance 2-34. These fallacies appeal to evidence or examples that are irrelevant to the argument at hand. © Appeal to force: (Argumentum ad Baculum, or the “Might-Makes-Right” Fallacy): This argument uses force, the threat of force, or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion. It commonly appears as a last resort when evidence or rational arguments fail to convince. Logically, this consideration has nothing to do with the merits of the points under consideration. e@ Genetic fallacy: The genetic fallacy is the claim that, because an idea, product, or person must be wrong because of its origin. For example, “That car can't possibly be any good! It was made in Japan!” Or, “Why should I listen to her argument? She comes from California, and we all know those people are flakes.” This type of fallacy is closely related to the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, below. e Argumentum ad hominem (literally “Argument to the Man”; also called “poisoning the well” and “personal attack”): This fallacy seeks to discount evidence before it is presented, most often by discrediting the source. For example, an ardent spokesman against the value of strategic bombing states: “You can’t trust that man’s testimony regarding the effectiveness of strategic bombing; he’s employed by the Air Force.” The speaker is trying to discredit contrary evidence by creating the specific impression that the testimony is biased because the testifier represents a certain organization. There are two subcategories: = Abusive: To argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because of an irrational psychological transference with the originator (that is, Christians or Muslims). = Circumstantial: To argue that opponents should accept or refute an argument only because of circumstances in their lives is a fallacy. If one’s threat is an imam, suggesting that he should accept a particular argument because not to do so would be incompatible with the Koran is a circumstantial fallacy. The opponent’s special circumstances do not affect the truth or untruth of a specific contention. The speaker or writer must find additional evidence beyond that to make a strong case. 18 August 2014 ATP 2-33.4 2-9 Analytic Skills 18 August 2014 ATP 2-33.4 2-9 Intellectual Autonomy 2-31. Intellectual autonomy is thinking for oneself while adhering to standards of rationality. It means thinking through issues using one’s own thinking rather than uncritically accepting the viewpoints of others. Questions that foster intellectual autonomy include—  To what extent am I a conformist?  Do I think through issues on my own or do I merely accept the views of others?  Having thought through an issue from a rational perspective, am I willing to stand alone despite the irrational criticisms of others? AVOIDING ANALYTICAL PITFALLS 2-32. Critical thinking is a mental process that is subject to numerous influences. Intelligence analysts involved in analyzing complex situations and making conclusions are prone to the influences that shape and mold their view of the world and their ability to reason. These influences are referred to as analytical pitfalls. The elements of thought, intelligence standards, and intellectual traits aid analysts in recognizing these pitfalls in their own analysis and the analysis performed by others. Logic fallacies and biases are two general categories of analytical pitfalls. LOGIC FALLACIES 2-33. Logic fallacies are errors in the reasoning process caused by the failure to apply sound logic. Although usually committed unintentionally, these fallacies are sometimes used deliberately to persuade, convince, or deceive. An analyst must be able to recognize logic fallacies so a false line of reasoning will not distract them and lead to poor conclusions. This chapter discusses the fallacies of relevance, omission, and assumption. Fallacies of Relevance 2-34. These fallacies appeal to evidence or examples that are irrelevant to the argument at hand.  Appeal to force: (Argumentum ad Baculum, or the “Might-Makes-Right” Fallacy): This argument uses force, the threat of force, or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion. It commonly appears as a last resort when evidence or rational arguments fail to convince. Logically, this consideration has nothing to do with the merits of the points under consideration.  Genetic fallacy: The genetic fallacy is the claim that, because an idea, product, or person must be wrong because of its origin. For example, “That car can't possibly be any good! It was made in Japan!” Or, “Why should I listen to her argument? She comes from California, and we all know those people are flakes.” This type of fallacy is closely related to the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, below.  Argumentum ad hominem (literally “Argument to the Man”; also called “poisoning the well” and “personal attack”): This fallacy seeks to discount evidence before it is presented, most often by discrediting the source. For example, an ardent spokesman against the value of strategic bombing states: “You can’t trust that man’s testimony regarding the effectiveness of strategic bombing; he’s employed by the Air Force.” The speaker is trying to discredit contrary evidence by creating the specific impression that the testimony is biased because the testifier represents a certain organization. There are two subcategories:  Abusive: To argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because of an irrational psychological transference with the originator (that is, Christians or Muslims).  Circumstantial: To argue that opponents should accept or refute an argument only because of circumstances in their lives is a fallacy. If one’s threat is an imam, suggesting that he should accept a particular argument because not to do so would be incompatible with the Koran is a circumstantial fallacy. The opponent’s special circumstances do not affect the truth or untruth of a specific contention. The speaker or writer must find additional evidence beyond that to make a strong case.