Critical Thinking. What is it really?

[Navigator]

What steps in relation to critical thinking were made in order to come to that conclusion DD?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

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

Now you're talking. "Truth" is always short-hand for "best fit to confirmed observations."

ETA: More to it, but see next post.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

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?

It's humor section only for me this late at night over here. Tomorrow's another day!

 

[MRC_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.

But you don't, for better or worse, interact as if face to face. This has advantages: Nobody hits you, even if they find you obnoxious.

And its disadvantages: You can't expect the same level of restraint; instead you must take the flak.

Hans

 

[Dancing David]

What steps in relation to critical thinking were made in order to come to that conclusion DD?

All thoughts and human events are models created by an organic brain to approximate erality. They are no more reality that a map of Florida is Florida.

The critical thinking goes as follows

-sensations are interactions of a chemical nature by the sense organs
-nerve signals are sent by the sense organs to the brain and various areas of it
-the brain generates perceptions from the nerve signals sent by the sense organs

ergo perceptions are models of reality based upon the chemical actions of the sense organs, they are demonstrated to be fallible and approximate

language is a set of idiomatic self referencing set of symbols used by communicants, it too is an approximate model and is very limited in mapping reality

'thoughts' or verbal cognition are limited by the perceptions and the limited nature of language

ergo all thoughts, words and perceptions are maps, they are therefore inaccurate and approximate, as stated some can be shown to be more valid than other

 

[MRC_Hans]

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?

No, it is false. True things are true whether we know about it or not.
We should not accept a statement to be true until it can be shown to be true.

Hans

 

[Dancing David]

Now you're talking. "Truth" is always short-hand for "best fit to confirmed observations."

ETA: More to it, but see next post.

Truth exists only for philosophers, reality is never so neat!

 

[Hlafordlaes]

All thoughts and human events are models created by an organic brain to approximate erality. They are no more reality that a map of Florida is Florida.

The critical thinking goes as follows

-sensations are interactions of a chemical nature by the sense organs
-nerve signals are sent by the sense organs to the brain and various areas of it
-the brain generates perceptions from the nerve signals sent by the sense organs

ergo perceptions are models of reality based upon the chemical actions of the sense organs, they are demonstrated to be fallible and approximate

language is a set of idiomatic self referencing set of symbols used by communicants, it too is an approximate model and is very limited in mapping reality

'thoughts' or verbal cognition are limited by the perceptions and the limited nature of language

ergo all thoughts, words and perceptions are maps, they are therefore inaccurate and approximate, as stated some can be shown to be more valid than other

So nice you chose the examples you did. Perfectly meshes with instrumentalism (as I understand it): there is a 'there' there, but from that point forward, it's models. In better terms: the sense model you propose is in fact the scientific model that, for me, underlies my scientific realism, but given the rest of the argument, outside scientific approximations, I have nothing to say, except to share subjective impressions.

 

[Navigator]

But you don't, for better or worse, interact as if face to face. This has advantages: Nobody hits you, even if they find you obnoxious.

I agree with that, but sometimes we have to take that risk when face to face so it still requires self control...at least to the point where, no matter what or how someone says something to me, the urge to punch them in the face remains totally under control at all times.

We don;t have to be all pretense and PC because (as can be observed when people are face to face and all PC-like) not much that is REAL comes from the interactions...

so balance.

And its disadvantages: You can't expect the same level of restraint; instead you must take the flak.

As long as the flax doesn't contravene the forum rules. For example the complaint I made in this post where the remarks becaome personal attack.

If the complaint is not upheld then yes, its life as usual. I am comfortable in my own shoes.

 

[Navigator]

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

No, it is false. True things are true whether we know about it or not.

Best not assume then.

We should not accept a statement to be true until it can be shown to be true.

Therefore, the statement "Nothing is true until shown to be true." is not true until it is shown to be true.

 

[Navigator]

Truth exists only for philosophers, reality is never so neat!

I think therein why critical thinking in relation to other crucial forms of thought has to be applied in all given situations and consistently without remorse or backsliding into less than desirable forms of thought.

Reality can be seen as 'neat' depending on how you think about it.

 

[Navigator]

So nice you chose the examples you did. Perfectly meshes with instrumentalism (as I understand it): there is a 'there' there, but from that point forward, it's models. In better terms: the sense model you propose is in fact the scientific model that, for me, underlies my scientific realism, but given the rest of the argument, outside scientific approximations, I have nothing to say, except to share subjective impressions.

Subjective impressions are all that there are. Scientifically, subjective thinking of scientists together can approximate some kind of map related to what is being observed, and how to use that data but offers little else. Moral consideration not a thing of science but of philosophy...not to say scientists thus have no morals, but these derive from other types of thought and as with all things moral, are subject to...yep...subjective impressions - which is why some scientist will offer their services to morally dubious causes. Science can be used for immoral purpose.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Subjective impressions are all that there are. Scientifically, subjective thinking of scientists together can approximate some kind of map related to what is being observed, and how to use that data but offers little else. Moral consideration not a thing of science but of philosophy...not to say scientists thus have no morals, but these derive from other types of thought and as with all things moral, are subject to...yep...subjective impressions - which is why some scientist will offer their services to morally dubious causes. Science can be used for immoral purpose.

The solution to subjectivity is peer review and confirmation of observations. Ethics are not a science, and lie on the 'should' side of the equation, while science can only be about approximately what 'is' the case. Scientists, as humans, are, of course, human.

 

[Dancing David]

So nice you chose the examples you did. Perfectly meshes with instrumentalism (as I understand it): there is a 'there' there, but from that point forward, it's models. In better terms: the sense model you propose is in fact the scientific model that, for me, underlies my scientific realism, but given the rest of the argument, outside scientific approximations, I have nothing to say, except to share subjective impressions.

It is a consequence of being a philosophical 'naturalist'. That and having looked at language development and usage.

 

[Dancing David]

Subjective impressions are all that there are. Scientifically, subjective thinking of scientists together can approximate some kind of map related to what is being observed, and how to use that data but offers little else. Moral consideration not a thing of science but of philosophy...not to say scientists thus have no morals, but these derive from other types of thought and as with all things moral, are subject to...yep...subjective impressions - which is why some scientist will offer their services to morally dubious causes. Science can be used for immoral purpose.

Anything can be used for immoral purposes, you are just focusing on one thing.

 

[Navigator]

Anything can be used for immoral purposes, you are just focusing on one thing.

Yep...can you ascertain though why the focus is on that one thing?

 

[Dancing David]

Yep...can you ascertain though why the focus is on that one thing?

No not really technology drives science, you have it backwards and have repeatedly condemned science.

But please continue as you see fit.

If you want to rant about the perils of industrialization please do so.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yep...can you ascertain though why the focus is on that one thing?

Science is not one thing. It is a set of methods for getting objective knowledge from what is essentially subjective observations.

Hans

 

[Navigator]

No not really technology drives science, you have it backwards and have repeatedly condemned science.

But please continue as you see fit.

If you want to rant about the perils of industrialization please do so.

Science is not one thing. It is a set of methods for getting objective knowledge from what is essentially subjective observations.

Hans

Subjective impressions are all that there are.

(We seem to agree)

Scientifically, subjective thinking of scientists together can approximate some kind of map related to what is being observed, and how to use that data

(Still seem to agree)


but offers little else.


(unsure if we agree)

Moral consideration not a thing of science but of philosophy...

(Should agree because science isn't about dealing with such things)

not to say scientists thus have no morals, but these derive from other types of thought and as with all things moral, are subject to...yep...subjective impressions -

(Should still agree...)

which is why some scientist will offer their services to morally dubious causes.

(which is the case, we should agree)

Science can be used for immoral purpose.

(should agree)

So why is it that you both don;t agree? Perhaps because you completely over-rode your critical thinking processes in favor of an emotionally based response?

[you have] repeatedly condemned science

No. I have simply said that scientist are not beyond reproach and that science isn't always about bring good into the world. I have recognized this as part of the problem.

If you want to rant about the perils of industrialization please do so

Well it doesn't matter if we rant or turn a blind eye. The results are going to be the same as long as everyone chooses sides rather than finding a way to get on the same page and work on solutions.

That is what critical thinking processes should enable.

Science is not one thing. It is a set of methods for getting objective knowledge from what is essentially subjective observations.

Agree.

However, in that it doesn't really address what was said.

You are just saying that science is not about morality (which is what I said) it is about sorting objective knowledge from subjective observation (also what I said) but scientists and those who pay them are not necessarily using that knowledge to produce good things. (that is the bit you skipped) and so if you cannot agree to that, you are obviously in support of scientists and their owners doing whatever they want to do in the pursuit of profits and systems of disparity. (bad things) and on that, prevent getting on the same page as a starting point to solution.

At least that is how it appears.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Subjective impressions are all that there are.

(We seem to agree)

Formally, yes. Of course, there are impressions and impressions. The impression that it hurts to put your hand on a hot stove is, while formally subjective, pretty consistent. Most would be ready to hold it as a fact.

Scientifically, subjective thinking of scientists together can approximate some kind of map related to what is being observed, and how to use that data

(Still seem to agree)

No, that is not a correct description of the method of science. Science works by cross-checking observations. If they agree, then they are objective. (Very simplified)

Moral consideration not a thing of science but of philosophy...

(Should agree because science isn't about dealing with such things)

Morals is a product of culture, not science. However, science has something to say about culture.

not to say scientists thus have no morals, but these derive from other types of thought and as with all things moral, are subject to...yep...subjective impressions -

Scientist may or may not have agreeable morals (we all have morals), however, morals are not subjective as such. We can, scientifically, measure the morals of a given culture.

which is why some scientist will offer their services to morally dubious causes.

The main reason being that scientists are humans like everyone else.

Science can be used for immoral purpose.

(should agree)

Certainly.

So why is it that you both don;t agree? Perhaps because you completely over-rode your critical thinking processes in favor of an emotionally based response?

Who doesn't agree?

No. I have simply said that scientist are not beyond reproach and that science isn't always about bring good into the world. I have recognized this as part of the problem.

Which problem? Lack of morals is a problem with humans. Not science, not guns, not axes. If humans lack morals, they will use whatever is at their disposal.

Well it doesn't matter if we rant or turn a blind eye. The results are going to be the same as long as everyone chooses sides rather than finding a way to get on the same page and work on solutions.

That is what critical thinking processes should enable.

And they do.

Hans