Logical Mcinery, D.Q. (2005). Being

¶ … Logical McInery, D.Q. (2005). Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking. Random House.

Why, in this age of Internet information, media blitz, and access to data at the drop of a hat, would one need a book on "thinking logically?" Within 30 seconds and a good Internet connection, a person anywhere in the world can find data, opinions, "facts," and analysis about almost everything, Perhaps, though, that is the real issue -- modern society is so overrun with information, individuals rarely take the time (or the effort) to critically analyze that information for its robustness and veracity.

Too, over the past 4-5 decades our public school curriculum has changed to the point where critical thinking, logic, and courses that require a deeper analysis are no longer the norm. In fact, a recent report from major business executives found that most college graduates were unprepared for the basics of analysis and critical thinking required for many entry-level managerial jobs; and over 75% of High School graduates deficient in writing (including grammar and spelling) ("Most Young People," 2006).

"Being logical presupposes our having a sensitivity to language and a knack for its effective use, for logical and language are inseparable" (3). So begins a fresh look at the path toward rethinking everything around us, and perhaps the very heart of the issue from Professor D.Q. McInerny, a long time professor of logic, scholar of Thomas Merton, and holding two PhD's.

In Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking, McInerny attempts to correct some of the flaws in critical thinking in the same way grammarians attempt to correct misusages in proper English. The book is not written in a scholarly style, McInerny probably understanding that his audience would be limited at best, but it a lively style designed for the layperson in almost any field of interest.

From decades of teaching, though, McInerny has correctly deduced that while logic is a vast, deep, varied field that has an impact on every aspect of human life, it requires a set of intellectual disciplines, expression, and knowledge of basic terms and ideas that are somewhat lacking in current society.

For example, 100 years ago, the Classics were part of the everyday curriculum of most schools that we would term "secondary schools." Latin and Greek were staples of the educated person, as were the readings (in the original languages) of most of the standard works of European society. Was this necessary to prepare students for the world of the 19th and early 20th centuries? Was it necessary to know Plato's "Allegory of the Cave," to perform a job? Decidedly no -- but was that really the point of a Classical education.

Instead, the mental discipline of learning Latin (and/or Greek) combined with the translation and critical thinking arising from debating the ancient texts provided a framework of analysis, vocabulary development, and indeed the rubric of high standards in sourcing and understanding primary texts without the benefit of "talking heads" explaining life, the universe, and everything (apologies to Douglas Adams) to us 24/7. This is nowhere more prevalent in America's lack of passion for foreign films -- U.S.

movies are exported all over the world, but only a small percentage of Americans (and American theaters) covet foreign films -- too difficult? Language barriers? (what about subtitles?), or is it that most foreign films presume a basic level of philosophical and analytical skill and rarely "spoon feed" plot and symbol development to the audience ("Why Does the World," 2009).

McInerny is a patient taskmaster, and while neither as gruff and uncompromising as Professor Kingston in "The Paper Chase," neither is he as benevolent a Dean of Dogma as Professor Albus Percival Dumbledore of Hogwarth's Academy. Instead, from the very outset, Professor McInerny (and it is important to understand that this advice is coming from a professor) insists that the reader participate in the adventure: "Be attentive" he says, for we often misread events by skimming or assuming.

Check our facts -- yes, it takes time, and one must rely on a basic understanding of sourcing (askyahoo.com vs. Questia research, for instance); understand your source material (bias, their own issues); what words are being used and why; how reasonable and effective is the interpretation? So, what does all that "homework do?" Well, according to McInerny, it "prepares" the mind for logic. Once the mind is ready, it is now time to put the principles into the logical matrix: relevancy, argumentation, rhetoric, comparisons, and reasoning.

By utilizing this matrix, one avoids the trap of illogical thinking, and the premise that one needs someone "external" to provide answers to events, interpretations, and even the answer, to current and past events. It is our own, individual responsibility, to understand our world, and while the process may not be as quick as a "sound bite," it is certainly more satisfying.

Finally, by analyzing the patterns of illogical thinking, we can avoid being led down the "rosy" path and make the types of decisions so vital in a modern democracy. One very entertaining, yet poignant example, is the preponderance of using "so-called" experts to help us understand our world, what medicines to take, what candidates to support, even what food to eat. What do movie stars, with the exception of the dialog their screenwriters provide, know about arthritis prevention, diabetes, pain relief, international relations, or the newest bill before Congress.

Imagine, if you will, that rather than Sally Field espousing the benefits of osteoporosis drug "Boniva," a professor of osteology from a major university talked about the long-term benefits of the drug in clinical trials. Would more people rush out and "ask their doctor" about Boniva? That being said, while it is important that the bar be raised in school, the workplace, and indeed the populace regarding understanding how to form and analyze an argument, it is unrealistic to posit that everyone should analyze everything all the time.

There are important distinctions -- disbelieving all your coworkers in favor of critiquing their argument is neither appropriate nor realistic. We can all appreciate Professor McInerny's wonderful vocabulary and turn of a phrase, but there are times for graphic novels.