Analysis Of Peter Elbow's 'The Doubting Game And The Believing Game'

“Highly unlikely, but not outside the realm of possibility”-David Duchovny. This familiar phrase from the popular nineties television show “The X-Files” manifested itself in my mind when reading the article that profoundly influenced the University of Central Arkansas’ Honors Program, Peter Elbow’s abridged version of “The Doubting Game and the Believing Game—An Analysis of the Intellectual Enterprise (Excerpts)”. Though on a much more theatrical and improbable level, this show relates to the Honors curriculum and Elbow’s paper with the same basic, parallel theme: doubt verses belief. In keeping this mindset, we can see: how Elbow’s proposal differs from “critical thinking” today, what can be assumed about the nature of truth and human intellectual …show more content…
To see how his proposal differs, we must first reiterate the term “critical thinking”. Critical thinking can best be defined in the dictionary as “the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment”. The key component in this phrase is “objective” meaning you do not depend solely on the mind for existence, but rather facts. In this case, your mind and feelings play minuet roles. Emotions are closeted in order to make a non-biased and correct judgment. In Elbow’s theory; however, emotions are encouraged. The doubting game, though seemingly similar to critical thinking, is indeed contrasting. When using this form of thinking, you are asked to look for error and essentially “doubt” a situation’s truth. In like manner, the believing game requires you to explore all possible assertions without limitations or “believe” that other possibilities are plausible. Though either thought process will produce success, Elbows proposals differ in the fact that they stimulate the thinker on a logical and psychological level while critical thinking emphasizes logical thinking …show more content…
One idea that fervently sticks out in my mind is when I participated in Lincoln Douglas debate, specifically on a case that questioned whether or not national security should increase within the United States. I, being at the time on the side of negative debate, heard my opponent’s case. I listened intently and pondered each of the points made, not disproving but simply imagining each and heard her side to the debate. I came to the realization that her case was persuasive and logical. Only after I had given the opposed a chance could I then truly find the fatal flaw and stand assured in mine. I had the option at the time to use Elbow’s “doubting game” in that scenario, like so many young debaters do. I could in a sense put blinders on and look for only error within the case. This process, though it may be triumphant elsewhere, is a weak form of attack in the debate realm. By choosing to use methodical belief, I ended up winning that particular round. I surmise that had I decided on the doubting game, the same results would not be probable. It is from cases like this one and many others that methodical belief has taught me to always keep an open mind to another individual’s ideas, a way of thinking that has carried over into my everyday