The Critical Thinking section starts off with:<p>"Thinking logically is something we all can do. We find ourselves so often taken in by fallacious arguments, though. How can we identify them in others' arguments and our own thought?"<p>Well, I'd start with "Thinking logically is something we all can do."<p>If considered as a low-dimensional binary, it's true: we all <i>can</i> think logically, in that each individual can probably get <i>at least one answer correct</i> on a logic test. However, <i>stating that fact as</i> "Thinking logically is something we all can do" seems like it might run the risk of people not taking the time to consider the importance (or existence) of the variable: [<i>the degree to which</i> we can <i>consistently</i> think logically], which I think should include the ability to detect when the premises one is working on top of have potential imperfections contained within (such as in this example).<p>Might theories like this offer some explanation for why the rationalist approach seems to not produce the outcomes that one would "logically" expect, or why it's not much harder to find incorrect assertions in rationalist communities than it is in less intellectually rigorous communities?<p>It seems to me that sayings like "It Ain’t What You Don’t Know That Gets You Into Trouble. It’s What You Know for Sure That Just Ain’t So." are not just clever, but they also contain a lot of wisdom.