Ms. Martinez meditates and, upon analysis, a columnist’s critical thinking flunks out

In writing these pieces, it never occurs to me that I am going to be accused of critical thinking, either good or bad.

However, I have received a letter from Howard Holter, professor of history at Cal State Dominguez Hills, enclosing an analysis of my critical thinking by one of his students.

Holter explains: “I assigned my students the task of evaluating a piece of newspaper copy in terms of the formal evaluation of critical thinking. They were to use ‘fallacies in critical thinking’ listed in the textbook to apply to the piece in question.”

A student named Melanie Martinez chose to evaluate one of my columns, and Holter says her paper was one of the best. I didn’t come off too well.

Her paper criticizes a column I wrote about transcendental meditation as taught at Maharishi International University, Fairfield, Iowa. These folks believe, as you may remember, that if enough people meditate together, achieving a state of pure consciousness and connecting with the Unified Field, the basis of all life, they can actually alter events--lowering crime rates, quelling riots, easing international tension and even causing the Dow Jones average to rise.

The theme of my essay was that I did not believe this. However, my tone was irony, which, as we have often seen, is a risky tone to effect.

Ms. Martinez aims right at the heart.

“This article,” she begins, “contains many vague and ambiguous words and statements, as well as fallacies of presumption.”

I am reeling already.

Pinpointing my first fallacy of presumption, she quotes a paragraph:

“The meditators held a mass meditation . . . thereby raising the temperature and saving the Florida orange crop; lowering drunken driving arrests in Des Moines, influencing Fidel Castro to give up cigars, and causing the stock market to rally.”

Obviously, I hope, I am being ironic. I don’t for a moment believe that the meditation had any effect whatever on the events cited.

But Ms. Martinez comments:

“This is the Fallacy of False Cause, or thinking that because someone did one thing, something else happened as a result. The meditators may have believed that they were the reason for the temperature rise in Florida, but were probably wrongly justified. . . . “

My thought exactly.

Later, Ms. Martinez observes, while I question the validity of the meditations, I claim that I was the one who meditated the success of Corazon Aquino in her bid for the presidency of the Philippines.

“Not only is this also a Fallacy of False Cause, but this is also a Fallacy of Special Pleading. After denouncing meditation, he does that exact thing.”

Obviously, again, I was being ironic when I took credit for meditating Aquino into the presidency. I was merely showing how easy it is for anyone to claim the Maharishi Effect for himself.

Ms. Martinez also accuses me of the Fallacy of Bifurcation. Bifurcation does seem the sort of fallacy I might fall into, but let’s see.

She quotes me: “I do believe that if we could get millions of people all around the world to sit down and meditate, instead of shooting and bombing one another, conditions would improve.”

She says: “Here, the author is saying, ‘If we do one thing, this will happen.’ Actually, the opposite could happen: While the majority of people are sitting down meditating, a few of the people who aren’t participating in the meditation could take advantage and cause destruction.”

Alas, Ms. Martinez is all too close to the mark on that point. If we had thousands of people sitting around meditating, the barbarians might well say, “Hey, look at those crackpots meditating! Let’s kill ‘em!”

Or am I bifurcating?

She writes: “The author also included the phrase ‘I am out on a limb,’ which, according to critical thinking, means either he is standing on someone’s leg or arm, or he is standing on a tree branch. This is an ambiguous statement.”

Nothing ambiguous about “out on a limb.” It is an ancient metaphor, much honored in the use, which means, according to A Dictionary of American Idioms, “with your beliefs and opinions openly stated; in a dangerous position that can’t be changed.”

I am always out on a limb.

She also accuses me of ambiguity when I say “among numerous other good things. . . . “ She asks: “What is good? It could have many different meanings.”

That’s the trouble with the world today. Nobody knows what good is anymore.

As I say, though, irony is always hazardous. In writing recently of the annual Doublespeak Awards, I noted that Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III had won second prize for his statement on the Miranda rule, which requires police to advise suspects of their right to have a lawyer present when they are questioned.

I said I didn’t think Meese’s statement was doublespeak at all because it said quite clearly what he thinks--that the Miranda rule is unnecessary because innocent people don’t get arrested.

One reader denounced me for siding with Meese: “Do you set yourself up as judge and jury to decide whether or not people arrested are guilty or innocent?” demanded Eve Brodsky of Burbank. “Are you trying to tell me that police are perfect and never, never make a mistake in arresting a person?”

On the other hand, Richard K. Wilson of Palos Verdes chastised me for making fun of Meese. “Your attack on Atty. Gen. Meese . . . was very unfair. . . . Meese seems to have made an obvious point, that even without Miranda there would be no possibility of an innocent person admitting guilt and thereby being convicted. . . . “

Oh, yeah?