Is Critical Thinking Epidemically Responsible?
Main Question: Is Michael Huemer’s argument for his main statement successful? [Your statement should make clear your main position on this question.]
Huemer argues that we should never rely on what he terms “critical thinking”
when it comes to forming beliefs about “publicly discussed issues.” Instead, we
should either suspend judgment on the issue or just follow the lead of the experts and believe whatever it is that they believe. Explain and evaluate Huemer’s argument for this statement.
In the explanation portion of your paper, you should:
(i) explain what Huemer means by “critical thinking;”
(ii) utilize some example of a “publicly discussed issue” in explaining his position, and
(iii) fully explain Huemer’s main argument for his statement, trying to make it seem as plausible as you can.
In the evaluation portion of the paper, you should:
(i) develop an objection to Huemer’s argument (be sure to state explicitly what aspect of his argument the objection targets);
(ii) evaluate your objection to Huemer’s argument (does it succeed? If so, consider what Huemer might say in response. If not, fully explain why not); and
(iii) restate your overall position on Huemer’s argument.
