Critical Thinking. What is it really?

[Slowvehicle]

The Phantom Tollbooth: The Thread.

Well played, Milo! Well played...

 

[Navigator]

You are claiming that the existence of the sun is a matter of sheer belief.

No.

I am saying that the existence of the sun is not a matter of belief (sheer or otherwise) but of matter of fact which requires no belief at all. There it is.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

New record for most verbiage, least coherent explaination.

I am hoping English is not a first language, because the prose is abysmal.

 

[Navigator]

Take your chit chat Ad_hominem elsewhere - if you are unable to get the gist of what is being said, the problem is with you and your lack of ability in that department.

 

[Border Reiver]

Take your chit chat Ad_hominem elsewhere - if you are unable to get the gist of what is being said, the problem is with you and your lack of ability in that department.

The gist of what you are saying is wrong.

Critical thinking is not thinking about important subjects or being critical of someone's statements or arguments. Critical thinking involves the application of evidence to a statement or argument.

 

[Navigator]

The gist of what you are saying is wrong.

Critical thinking is not thinking about important subjects or being critical of someone's statements or arguments. Critical thinking involves the application of evidence to a statement or argument.

Dear oh dear - that point has already been established and acknowledged further back in the thread. I have to say though that you are not correct in the hilited part of your statement.

Critical thinking involves the application of evidence to a statement or argument, important or not.

The Ad_hominem is not even about that. Why don't you focus on replying to my reply to your last post?

 

[Aridas]

Indeed, I might be wrong and the pastor might be right...is this the approach? Where does the "I might be right" some into it? If CT is about thinking I might be wrong, is it unable to be used as a tool to discover I might be right?

Or is it really not about either?

I don't think that this was properly addressed by the person you were responding to, so I'll poke at it a little. Considering that one may or may not be wrong counts as a starting point of critical thinking, so that the differing opinions are put onto a fair playing field to start with before anything else comes into play. From there, one starts considering the relevant facts and arguments and what effect they have on the assessment of each.

Saying this a little differently, "I might be right" is there from the start, but "I might be wrong, so I will check and try to honestly see whether it's reasonable to accept that I am" would likely be a more accurate way to say it than just an "I might be wrong" or an "I might be right."

 

[Navigator]

I don't think that this was properly addressed by the person you were responding to, so I'll poke at it a little. Considering that one may or may not be wrong counts as a starting point of critical thinking, so that the differing opinions are put onto a fair playing field to start with before anything else comes into play. From there, one starts considering the relevant facts and arguments and what effect they have on the assessment of each.

Saying this a little differently, "I might be right" is there from the start, but "I might be wrong, so I will check and try to honestly see whether it's reasonable to accept that I am" would likely be a more accurate way to say it than just an "I might be wrong" or an "I might be right."

Thanks for the feedback.

Sounds more the stuff of critical thinking.

Can thus be used to help ascertain position in regard to being right or wrong.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Sorry, I have been off-line for some days. Since you took the trouble to reply in detail, I shall do the same, even if the debate has otherwise moved on a bit:

I have to agree. As has been pointed out to me, critical thinking is not of itself about changing anyone's mind. That is a different - although not unrelated mode of thinking/doing.

Critical thinking is about changing your own mind. To discuss critical thinking in public is to try to change the minds of others, why else do it?

And even so, it seems impossible and indeed might even be able to be shown WHY it is impossible, but not through critical thinking alone. Other types of thinking also have to be applied.

As I already say, it may be impossible for some, but I have taken part in successfully changing the mind of others.

This has to of course be attached to desired outcome - what is the motive for doing so? Is the motive right? What alternatives are being offered? Are those alternatives fair for all concerned of is their still some form of disparity, inequality, etc...

There are such people who might be better off by retaining their life dreams undisturbed, but if they air them in the public space, they must bear opposition.

But no on its own, it would appear. It is all about the outcomes, and if say, you were trying to convince someone to drop their beliefs and adopt your own, of even t deflect them from forming such beliefs in favor of your won, you will need to provide adequate evidence that your beliefs are the right ones - and do so within the continuity of critical thinking...that is to say, don't neglect to use the full force of critical thinking when applying that to your own beliefs.

Only as far as I want to convince them of a rational universe. In which case I am indeed ready to provide or refer to a full body of evidence. However, then the term 'belief' is inappropriate. For rational discussions, that term is reserved for opinions with little or no evidence.

If you neglect to do so, you will only attract the shallow who are likewise not interested in critically examining their own beliefs, and you will have zero success with attracting anyone who has no belief, and certainly will continue to find that those who have already developed in their beliefs will be impossible to convince otherwise.

In principle, a discussion can be about pure beliefs. I could try to convert you to another religion. I would probably not employ critical thinking for that, although many people trying to convert others to a religion do in fact try to make it appear like critical thinking. Just think of all the bogus science Creationists try to employ.

That is no fine line though, is it. There is clear difference between someone who offers facts etc and is ignored for that, and those who just carry on wasting time in senseless argument for the sake of being entertained.
Such people need to be consistently reprimanded for using the pretense of critical thinking simply for shallow entertainment. More often than not, no such voice is ever heard...which leads to the assumption that those who should be reprimanding the misuse of critical thinking are getting some entertainment out of it even if not directly involving themselves in it.

The key in that ^ is that to purposefully ignore something obviously non conducive to even critical thinking, just because it comes from the same 'side' which your own beliefs are most focused.

Mmm, Afraid you lost me there...

See. I am informed that critical thinking involves the process of the willingness to inspect and test one's own belief structure.

You are correctly informed.

Fair enough! People have to be able to vent, but let us not pretend that venting is the same thing as critical thinking.

Who is pretending that?

Verily, it is the proverbial 'take the speck out of your own eye before trying to take it out of someone elses eye.' Others, hypocrisy rules rather than actual critical thinking,

Well, nobody is perfect. Not even a critical thinker.

All I am saying is, 'treat this as a room and a round table to which there is a seat for you if you want.'

I already do, and I already have a chair. Have had it for a long time.

The actual chair you are sitting in is irrelevant in that context.

Obviously.

Your response in the 'room', at the 'table' is the relative, and for that, imagining we (who are posting in this thread) are altogether sharing a situation which can be likened to being together in a room at a table, is not inappropriate and might even assist the proces of critical thinking - in conjunction with those other types of thinking crucial to mature conversation...with the possibility of agreement being a good objective to support.

A grown ups room rather than a rumpus room, a wrestling ring, a political house etc...

Well, the thing is, this is a room where everybody is invited, as long as they comply with some basic rules, like not peeing in the sofa and such (again, just to make sure you understand: I'm not meaning this literally). That means that if one wants to be here, one must also bear with those one may find less agreeable. There is no obligation to reply to them, however, or to even read their posts.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Take your chit chat Ad_hominem elsewhere - if you are unable to get the gist of what is being said, the problem is with you and your lack of ability in that department.

While complaining about language is basically irrelevant to most discussions, it may remind you that bolstering your position with sheer eloquence is also irrelevant and may actually be detrimental to your impact, especially if you don't master the language to a fair degree of perfection. .... Also, rigorous proof-reading can be recommended.

Hans

 

[Navigator]

Critical thinking is about changing your own mind. To discuss critical thinking in public is to try to change the minds of others, why else do it?

Perhaps the best way to find the answer to that is to ask yourself why you are doing it.

Are you doing it to try to change the minds of others or for some other reason?

As I already say, it may be impossible for some, but I have taken part in successfully changing the mind of others.

So did you use critical thinking in doing so and therefore are you now saying it is useful for changing the minds of others?

There are such people who might be better off by retaining their life dreams undisturbed, but if they air them in the public space, they must bear opposition.

Importantly, such a public space can allow for the opportunity to test ones theories and adjust accordingly.
No point in taking such ideas to any type of public forum where the likely outcome would be either no fault is found or something is found in which condemn you about. and neither findings employ critical thinking as part of the process.
The idea is to test the theory critically to see if any holes can be made in it to threaten to sink it. If you can then adjust accordingly, bring it back to the table, and repeat until either the theory has to be abandoned, or no more holes are made and it cannot be sunk.

Only as far as I want to convince them of a rational universe.

You believe the universe is rational?

In which case I am indeed ready to provide or refer to a full body of evidence. However, then the term 'belief' is inappropriate. For rational discussions, that term is reserved for opinions with little or no evidence.

Because it sounds better than 'I don't know' I suppose. Anyhow, as a member explained, the word faith is used in relation to belief based ideas. One can believe in a theory as being true, without having to put their faith in it.

Sounds like a bollocky way to use language but what the hey!

Well, the thing is, this is a room where everybody is invited, as long as they comply with some basic rules, like not peeing in the sofa and such (again, just to make sure you understand: I'm not meaning this literally). That means that if one wants to be here, one must also bear with those one may find less agreeable. There is no obligation to reply to them, however, or to even read their posts.

Sure.

I guess you are saying that people would behave the same if indeed they were face to face sharing at the same table. It would not be so easy to ignore some of them etc...I just think it might up the bar in relation to how forum interactions could happen and not to forget that while I do indeed have the option to ignore stupid one-liners, they are principle created to act like pooh in the doorway..."move along, nothing to hear in this room folks". Stink tactics...critical stinking...

Anyway, thanks for the reply.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I guess you are saying that people would behave the same if indeed they were face to face sharing at the same table.

No, I'm not saying that. As I thought we agreed the 'room' is not literal.

Hans

 

[abaddon]

Perhaps the best way to find the answer to that is to ask yourself why you are doing it.

Perhaps because we have all seen how religious crankery borks civilisation.

Are you doing it to try to change the minds of others or for some other reason?

Because it is a worthwhile effort to stand up to worthless nonsense. Who else will do that?

So did you use critical thinking in doing so and therefore are you now saying it is useful for changing the minds of others?

I know I did. I cannot speak for anyone else.

Importantly, such a public space can allow for the opportunity to test ones theories and adjust accordingly.

But you don't want that, do you? You want people to accept that your ouija boards and tarot cards are somehow real.

No point in taking such ideas to any type of public forum where the likely outcome would be either no fault is found or something is found in which condemn you about. and neither findings employ critical thinking as part of the process.

Wrong.

The idea is to test the theory critically to see if any holes can be made in it to threaten to sink it. If you can then adjust accordingly, bring it back to the table, and repeat until either the theory has to be abandoned, or no more holes are made and it cannot be sunk.

Tarot and Ouija have been long since sunk. Yet here you are.

You believe the universe is rational?

And why not? That actually works.

Because it sounds better than 'I don't know' I suppose. Anyhow, as a member explained, the word faith is used in relation to belief based ideas. One can believe in a theory as being true, without having to put their faith in it.

Sure. One could simply disbelieve the theory of gravity and jump off a tall building. That would work. Not.

Sounds like a bollocky way to use language but what the hey!

Or one could listen to Chopra talking utter bollocks. What's the difference?

Sure.

I guess you are saying that people would behave the same if indeed they were face to face sharing at the same table. It would not be so easy to ignore some of them etc...I just think it might up the bar in relation to how forum interactions could happen and not to forget that while I do indeed have the option to ignore stupid one-liners, they are principle created to act like pooh in the doorway..."move along, nothing to hear in this room folks". Stink tactics...critical stinking...

Anyway, thanks for the reply.

Basically, you don't want discussion on a discussion forum, you want everyone in lock step with you. Wow.

 

[Navigator]

No, I'm not saying that. As I thought we agreed the 'room' is not literal.

Hans

Ah I see. No more literal than a 'thread' - but the analogy is more for the purpose of learning how to interact in cyber-space in a similar way as one would when face to face...in this case, sharing the same room/table etc...

No biggy...I find it helps but each to their own.

 

[Navigator]

Perhaps because we have all seen how religious crankery borks civilisation.

Do you also apply the same to everything else involved with the controlling influences of civilization?

Because it is a worthwhile effort to stand up to worthless nonsense. Who else will do that?

Is the objective even something that can be realistically be achieved? Have you applied critical thinking to that question? Have you even asked yourself that question?

I know I did. I cannot speak for anyone else.

That is true. You cannot even speak for me.

But you don't want that, do you? You want people to accept that your ouija boards and tarot cards are somehow real.

There ya go. Immediately speaking for someone else. Immediately after you claimed that you cannot speak for anyone else.

See?

You got me wrong. I think CT needs to be part of each and every expression - it is a discipline so requires dedication and continuous self evaluation. That's what Ouija and Tarot also assist me with, but that is because both are useful in relation to the true self tempering the ego (false self). It is called "introspection" and cannot be ignored without personal cost of a negative nature. Your expressions toward me abaddon are more often than not expressions of the ego.

Wrong.

Making a one word exclamation is not in itself any argument or rebuttal abaddon. How about engaging the deeper thinking modes...explain why your claim 'wrong' is in fact the right conclusion to assume.

Tarot and Ouija have been long since sunk.

So you claim.

Yet here you are.

Yet here I am. If I didn't know that they are useful device perhaps I could agree with your presumption could be correct.

And why not? That actually works.

In what way...you don't say. What is meant by that phrase? "the universe is rational"
To me it seems to imply that the universe has meaning and purpose and that these show rationality of the universe existing...
It also implies that a rational person can move with relative freedom in relation to rationality.
But your statement 'it works' isn't accompanied by even one rational reason why or one example of 'it' working.

And even if you were to give a working example, I could sink that quickly enough by giving examples where to show what it has negative impact on other things, or where other things have negative impact on it, to show why 'it' obviously isn't really working.

Sure. One could simply disbelieve the theory of gravity and jump off a tall building. That would work. Not.

Of course. We could google youtube and find evidence of this. WE don't even need to put faith in it NOT being the case anyway, because it is rational and people don't do that because it is known way deep in the psyche that to do so ordinarily means death.

However, where the line is drawn is in death. To have faith in something based on conclusions drawn in this reality - Consciousness can be seen to interact in conjunction with the brain therefore it is necessary to believe that the brain created consciousness therefore when you die, that is the end of you, therefore there is no afterlife experience to be had - all is oblivion...you no longer exist and thus are oblivious to anything that does exist.

Thus the belief morphs into faith and bypassing rationality. It simple refuses to take into account any possibility of that not being the case.

Dogmatism.

See? Critical thinking has to be applied throughout the process, not stop at the walls of faith. If you only use it as a tool to support one particular world view, you are like the person who uses Tarot only as a fortune telling application or Ouija only as a way of talking with those who have passed on.

The vessel of argument sinks.

 

[BStrong]

Snipped...

See? Critical thinking has to be applied throughout the process, not stop at the walls of faith. If you only use it as a tool to support one particular world view, you are like the person who uses Tarot only as a fortune telling application or Ouija only as a way of talking with those who have passed on.

The vessel of argument sinks.

Am I to assume that you in your magnificent universe of philosophical excellence have a use for the Tarot other than clipping the cards to the wheel of a bicycle? Is the Quija a method of anything other than wasting time and amusing stoners?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

@OP

Nothing is true until shown to be true. Question everything. And as needed, examine the nature of claims and of knowledge to know their domain of application. Test. Best sign of a critical thinker: can and will identify the weaknesses to own argument without losing all notion.

Never, ever be content with received opinion. Question the integrity and ideas of everyone, including priests, cops, nurses, soldiers... and people behind you on subway platforms. Understand any heartfelt devotion to "mamá, paella, and país" is not grounded on fact or logic; the intimately familiar world from childhood has a sheen of legitimacy born of custom alone, like favorite old slippers, and requires guts and dedication to process objectively. Oh, sorry, that's "Mom, apple pie, and America."

 

[Navigator]

Am I to assume that you in your magnificent universe of philosophical excellence have a use for the Tarot other than clipping the cards to the wheel of a bicycle? Is the Quija a method of anything other than wasting time and amusing stoners?

No. My advice to you is not to assume.

 

[Navigator]

@OP

Nothing is true until shown to be true. Question everything.

Okay well lets us both together question this then.

Q: Is the statement "Nothing is true until shown to be true." actually true?

How can this be answered through critical thinking processes?

 

[Dancing David]

No thoughts or words are true, they are all models, some models are more valid than others.