The AI Debate: Are We Asking the Right Questions?
When the topic of artificial intelligence arises, discussions often devolve into polarized camps: those who see AI as a savior and those who see it as a destroyer. But what if both viewpoints miss the mark? What if the real challenge lies not in the technology itself, but in the opinions we cling to without fully understanding?
“Every time the topic of AI comes up, our team splits into two camps,” said one executive. “Those who believe that AI is the solution to all our problems, and those who believe that AI is the problem.”
Perhaps the most dangerous opinion is that AI automatically kills critical thinking.
The Illusion of Expert Opinion
An opinion piece in Inc. recently highlighted a Microsoft study suggesting that knowledge workers report reductions in cognitive effort when using generative AI. However, other research points to the opposite conclusion–that interaction between humans and AI actually enhances critical and reflective thinking.
So, where do you stand? Do you side with the expert using the Microsoft study to conclude that AI diminishes your critical thinking, or do you align with researchers who facilitate workshops on AI-augmented reasoning? Both camps can back up their opinions with scientific studies, leaving us to question if either fully understands the problem.
The Danger of Preconceived Notions
As the German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer wrote in his 1960 masterpiece, Truth and Method, “Opinion has a curious tendency to propagate itself. It would always like to be the general opinion.”
This observation suggests that we often shape our scientific arguments to support pre-existing opinions, rather than using scientific inquiry to inform our views. This approach means that our opinions shape our interpretation of data to support our pre-existing beliefs.
The danger of opinions is that they suppress questions, and the art of questioning is, in fact, the art of thinking.
Challenging Dominant Narratives
Gadamer’s mentor, Martin Heidegger, famously stated: “Science does not think.” He acknowledged the shocking nature of this statement, while also emphasizing that science does relate to thinking.
In my “3 Tips To Improve Critical Thinking In The Age Of AI” article, I shared Heidegger’s statement that, for centuries, humanity has acted too much and thought too little. He also acknowledged that the dominant opinion is the opposite, namely that “what is lacking is action, not thought.”
Why did Heidegger make such counterintuitive statements? Because he sought to challenge the dominant opinion. The goal was to prevent questions from being suppressed.
Embracing the Unknown
Science and technology focus on what we can know and control. Questioning, however, requires acknowledging what we don’t know. This admission of ignorance is essential for critical thinking.
The crucial question is not whether AI prevents or promotes critical thinking, but whether we are willing to question our opinions about AI.
The Responsibility of Inquiry
Instead of siding with one expert over another, we should approach the AI discussion by recognizing that science hasn’t lost its meaning. No one opinion necessarily rules over another. Neither science nor AI absolves us of our responsibility to explore the whys of our positions.
The Path Forward: Considering Opposites
Critical thinking, as described by Gadamer, involves “considering opposites.” Instead of defending our viewpoint at all costs, we should strive to uncover the strengths of different perspectives.
As the executive said, “I prefer to stay in the middle, where I can learn from both camps and make room for the knowledge we don’t have yet but which we need to discover and discuss to solve our problems.”
This is the second piece in a series on how to understand and unlock critical thinking in the age of AI. The first shares “3 Tips To Improve Your Critical Thinking Skills”, and in the next, you will learn “Why Critical Thinking Can’t Be Taught And How To Learn It Anyway.” Follow me here on Forbes to stay tuned.
