CT (Critical Thinking) is 'philosophy light'

[Jeff Corey]

...To put the matter into a nut shell...

That's one big horkin' nutshell. I've seen elephant turds smaller than that particular nutshell, But about as full of nutritious content. All organic, too.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Some of that was a long drawn out statement of "let's use the evidence to decide". Some of it obeyed sentence structure but still didn't actually manage to say anything. And, part of it was text fit for a motivational poster.

"The cat takes in all around it, the turtle hides from it." What are you talking about? And no, I don't want a drawn out explanation of what the cat "represents" or what the turtle "represents" or how we should all be cats. I mean, why on earth are you using stupid animal analogies to teach something utterly meaningless? I mean you might as well teach us that being good is good and being bad is bad. But, also include a story of defeating the jabberwocky with a vorpal blade and momerats outglaving.

 

[coberst]

How do we escape from the grasp of today’s ideologies, fads, rationalizations, and general enculturation? We must learn to read backwards to remove our self from today’s cultural container. As Archimedes observed we must find a platform outside of that reality which we wish to understand and to move.

Reading backwards is using our library card to borrow books that were written many years or many hundreds of years ago. Reading has another great advantage in that we can easily focus on books that have withstood the test of time. We can easily identify the ‘real thing’ insofar was worthy thinking is concerned.

We can read Churchill about the past one hundred years; we can read Marx, Darwin or Freud if we want to cover the 19th century, perhaps Paine, Jefferson and Hamilton on the 18th century, maybe Bacon, Chaucer, Aquinas and Plato going further back in history.

By reading backward we get a sense of the universal and the relative, the essential and the arbitrary. We can form the basis of reading critically with questions to act as our guide to understanding. We can learn to stop our general practice of sleep reading. We learned in our schooling to sleep read, sleep listen, and to become apathetic regarding all things intellectual. By reading backwards we can begin to comprehend the irrational impulses of our superficial consumer culture.

Our consumer culture through the schooling institutions has molded us into superficial creatures unable to withstand the inducements of our foolish value system.

Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth livng. This is a bit hyperbolic but in general I agree.

 

[Marc L]

Metaphysics can be interesting as an intellectual exercise, but yeah, it is certainly of very little value in any applicable sense.

Well, for that matter, art has no value in any applicable sense, either. It doesn't mean we should avoid it. I haven't studied any metaphysics, and have only very minorly dabbled in philosophy (ie, I know who Plato and Socrates were, but don't ask me to tell you anything about what they taught), so take what I say for what it's worth.


Marc

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

cob,

Very interesting, but how does this tie in to your belief that fish have human hands?

 

[StewartP]

Is Dr Adequate channelling the spirit of De Bunk?

 

[Sinisterdan]

How do we escape from the grasp of today’s ideologies, fads, rationalizations, and general enculturation? We must learn to read backwards to remove our self from today’s cultural container. As Archimedes observed we must find a platform outside of that reality which we wish to understand and to move.

And in order to not light myself on fire I must avoid playing with matches.

 

[Hyver]

I agree. Philosophy is so loosely defined that I would be hesitant to throw it all out as "mental masturbation". After all, science is a philosophy which is paired with a methodology for adhering to that philosophy. I think we are better for that philosophy.

Philosophy has a problem in that once something becomes usefull within the realm of philosophy it sort of gets kicked out and becomes it's own school. Science is a good example, linguistics is another.

Coberst. Nothing you say has any substance. You are a pretentious, vacuous twat.

 

[Tricky]

Philosophy has a problem in that once something becomes usefull within the realm of philosophy it sort of gets kicked out and becomes it's own school. Science is a good example, linguistics is another.

Hmm... I wouldn't have thought of linguistics as a philosophy, except perhaps as a subset of science. The philosophy of science can be roughly summed up as: "Evidence is the best way to determine what is true." What would you say is the philosophy of linguistics?

 

[Dark Jaguar]

How do we escape from the grasp of today’s ideologies, fads, rationalizations, and general enculturation? We must learn to read backwards to remove our self from today’s cultural container. As Archimedes observed we must find a platform outside of that reality which we wish to understand and to move.

....okay... So basically you are saying it's good to have an outside perspective and it's bad to be biased for our particular culture. Everyone already knows that, EVERYONE. I mean yeesh it's only taught to every last human being from childhood using sesame street. That's the first thing wrong with this statement. The second thing wrong is we don't need one particular outside perspective, they all add to our understanding of our culture. All you've shown is a bias for a certain era's books.

Reading backwards is using our library card to borrow books that were written many years or many hundreds of years ago. Reading has another great advantage in that we can easily focus on books that have withstood the test of time. We can easily identify the ‘real thing’ insofar was worthy thinking is concerned.

Oh yay, invent a new term and then say we must all live "reading backwards" as a life philosophy. That's drivel. There's no need for such an insulting and childish method. More accurate and directly, just say "ya know sometimes it's a good idea to read some books from the past to expand your horizens, so long as you take it with a grain of salt". Seriously, this inventing of a new term and defining it and "living it" thing gives me terrible flashbacks of church pastors doing this same thing during their sermon. "I ask the congragation, do you know what it means to be a backbiter? I'll explain what it is, and say that what you need to be is a sheepsheerer! A sheepsheerer does this, and that, and that's why you should buy my book." Just say what you mean. Don't insult us with stupid analogies that don't even make sense until you explain them and still sound silly. What, you want us to take some silly phrase to heart?

We can read Churchill about the past one hundred years; we can read Marx, Darwin or Freud if we want to cover the 19th century, perhaps Paine, Jefferson and Hamilton on the 18th century, maybe Bacon, Chaucer, Aquinas and Plato going further back in history.

Yes we can. It's helpful, but also important to understand these are specific people's views of things back then and there's more to understanding the era they lived in than that. Thanks for sharing something else everyone already knows though.

By reading backward we get a sense of the universal and the relative, the essential and the arbitrary. We can form the basis of reading critically with questions to act as our guide to understanding. We can learn to stop our general practice of sleep reading. We learned in our schooling to sleep read, sleep listen, and to become apathetic regarding all things intellectual. By reading backwards we can begin to comprehend the irrational impulses of our superficial consumer culture.

Well your little invented phrase makes a comeback, but it's still stupid. Other than that, you sure are making a lot of assumptions about our society here and are giving reading a bunch of books from the past a little too much power. It's all nonsense.

Our consumer culture through the schooling institutions has molded us into superficial creatures unable to withstand the inducements of our foolish value system.

Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth livng. This is a bit hyperbolic but in general I agree.

Ah, so I take it you'll be returning your computer after you are done telling us this? You are asking us to consume books. Nothing wrong with consumption. Also, what foolish value system do you mean? Different people value different things. Some people value an afterlife, or karma. Some people place more value in the people they know. I really can't think of anyone I've ever met that literally is a scrooge type who actually says "my posessions are the most important thing in my life".

Oh and, hyperbolic? Not sure what you mean there. I thought that was more of a mathematical thing or maybe relating to metabolism, not something to describe a sentence.

You've said a whole lot of nothing at all. Some of it is nonsense. Some of it makes blind and negative assumptions about the people in our world and silly claims about the "power" of reading old books. The majority though is saying stuff everyone already knows from childhood as though it is a startling revelation.

Here's another one. Combustion, the ignition of combustable materials, is an important aspect of human development. It has led to so much advancement, but how can we as a people who use it so much truly understand we are all stupids for not seeing the danger? Let me explain. Incinerating substances have an inherant instability about them. For all their uses, if you introduce the very people who use the flame to the flame, they will suddenly realize what I have known all along, that it can be a very damaging and harmful thing to contact, so then, what are we to do? When actually confronted with this "tool", it seems to actually hurt us. So is it helpful or harmful? I submit that our school systems so bent on teaching how helpful fire can be need to turn themselves to demonstrating ash, the remnants of the flame, and in examining this they can see for themselves the danger, the bipolar nature of this tool. It will be hard work *slap*

Sorry about that. What I mean to say is FIRE HOT. You can use it as a tool, but you should learn how to control it.

You see? I just said a very long winded statement that had a lot of nonsense and false claims and assumptions about my fellow man regarding a very obvious fact everyone already knows, fire can be dangerous!

 

[Hyver]

Hmm... I wouldn't have thought of linguistics as a philosophy, except perhaps as a subset of science. The philosophy of science can be roughly summed up as: "Evidence is the best way to determine what is true." What would you say is the philosophy of linguistics?

It's not so much "philosophy of linguistics" as linguistics was once more closely related to philosophy. A whole subsection of linguistics (semantics) is still considered a section of philosophy on it's own. If you go to university campuses you'll find most philosophy departments sharing space or just being tied together (as in department of linguistics and philosophy over at MIT) in a single unit. It's just part of the nature of philosophy, as something gets more focused it becomes more resonable to specialize in it, and as a result it will break off and become it's own field of study overtime. Philosophy today is what is left over (give or take some logic and critical thinking).

 

[coberst]

Why Study History?

Why study the struggles that humanity has engaged to arrive at this point in our journey?

History provides various interpretations of the journey.

History is a vital part of a liberal education, which provides depth and breadth of comprehension regarding what being human is about.

History places the struggles into a comprehensible context.

History helps us comprehend change and the dialectic of that change.

We live in the ‘effect’ of a ‘cause’ and we will become the cause of the effect which is the future. History places this cause and effect series into a pattern that facilitates comprehension.

History facilitates insight into human nature.

“History is essential to the traditional objectives of the liberal arts, the quest for wisdom and virtue.”

“There is another reason to study history: it's fun. History combines the excitement of exploration and discovery with the sense of reward born of successfully confronting and making sense of complex and challenging problems.”
--Frank Luttmer (1996) http://history.hanover.edu/why.html

 

[Sinisterdan]

Why Study History?

Why study the struggles that humanity has engaged to arrive at this point in our journey?

History provides various interpretations of the journey.

History is a vital part of a liberal education, which provides depth and breadth of comprehension regarding what being human is about.

History places the struggles into a comprehensible context.

History helps us comprehend change and the dialectic of that change.

We live in the ‘effect’ of a ‘cause’ and we will become the cause of the effect which is the future. History places this cause and effect series into a pattern that facilitates comprehension.

History facilitates insight into human nature.

“History is essential to the traditional objectives of the liberal arts, the quest for wisdom and virtue.”

“There is another reason to study history: it's fun. History combines the excitement of exploration and discovery with the sense of reward born of successfully confronting and making sense of complex and challenging problems.”
--Frank Luttmer (1996) http://history.hanover.edu/why.html

I don't mean to be disrespectful, coberst, but what is the point here? Is it simply that studying history is a good thing? Personally, I'd consider that to be axiomatic. I don't see a clear line of discourse in your posts that comes from all of these simple sayings, and I don't see the necessity of your conclusions as you draw them out.

 

[coberst]

I don't mean to be disrespectful, coberst, but what is the point here? Is it simply that studying history is a good thing? Personally, I'd consider that to be axiomatic. I don't see a clear line of discourse in your posts that comes from all of these simple sayings, and I don't see the necessity of your conclusions as you draw them out.

Very good question!


This thread is an attempt to focus attention on the meaning and importance of Critical Thinking. Almost everyone considers them self to be a critical thinker. I am trying to delineate some of the very important elements of CT so that the reader might become curious and engage in some study of this important domain of knowledge.

I think CT is like Chess. It is easy to learn the moves of the individual pieces but there is so much more beyond that initial accomplishment.

The neophyte learns the moves that each piece can make, plays a few games and wanders away bewildered as to why anyone could take this matter seriously.

Like chess Critical Thinking is an asset that can influence the judgments one makes in all matters in their life. It can be a strategic tool or a tactical tool—it can change ones world view. It gives in accordance to the investment made.

A very important component of CT is attitude.


The neophyte learns the moves that each piece can make, plays a few games and wanders away bewildered as to why anyone could take the matter seriously.

Like chess Critical Thinking is an asset that can influence the judgments one makes in all matters in their life. It can be a strategic tool or a tactical tool—it can change ones world view. It gives in accordance to the investment made.

The standard mode of education might be described in this way. A teacher with a pitcher of knowledge walks from desk to desk in the classroom pouring from her pitcher into a cup held by each student a portion of the knowledge in the teacher’s pitcher. Each student receives a small amount of knowledge at each class session. At the end of the day the student has a cup of knowledge and the student is expected to remember this knowledge or store it in some container at home for further consumption. The student is expected to consume this knowledge so that, at a later date, the teacher can test the student to determine if, in fact, the student has absorbed the information dispensed by the teacher.

From this scenario we see that the student is synonymous to an empty vessel that is filled with content by the teacher. The teacher has something valuable that is transmitted to the student. The student is a passive taker of knowledge dispensed by the teacher.

The standard mode of education throughout K-12 and throughout college is similar to that which I have portrayed in the above example.

This form of education is didactic in nature. It is a rote form of education. The student is a passive receptacle absorbing the knowledge the teacher has. There is little if any active participation by the student.

The standard mode of education is teaching by telling. The basic assumption in such a method is that knowledge can be absorbed and restated and that this restatement is indication that there exists understanding.

The standard teacher/pupil teaching technique accentuates the importance of acquiring knowledge. The Socratic technique accentuates the importance of understanding and Critical Thinking. Being knowledgeable of a matter and understanding a matter are very different categories of comprehension.

I think it is correct to assume that knowledge can be imparted by a teacher to an individual more quickly and efficiently using the standard technique whereas the Socratic technique, while developing understanding, is much less efficient in imparting knowledge. Here, as in everything else there is a trade off. In a set period of time more knowledge can be imparted using the standard mode.

The question then becomes: is it more important to have citizens with greater knowledge and less understanding or citizens with greater understanding and less knowledge?

I suspect that we must examine what we mean by “citizen”. Is the student being prepared for the role as “consumer”, as we so often hear our self labeled, or is the student being prepared for the role of responsible citizen in a liberal democracy as the ideal might dictate? There is a price to pay for which role we wish the student to eventually play. A more knowledgeable student will be one unaccustomed to dialogue wherein understanding is the major goal as opposed to accumulation of knowledge.

Our educational system is almost completely dedicated to rote teaching. Our system is almost totally a system of teaching by telling. Why is this so?

A didactic technique of educating young people is the most efficient way of inculcating facts into the memory of children. It seems to me that it is necessary to teach facts to children as quickly and as efficiently as possible during their early years. Examples of facts are such things as dates of battles, capital cities of states, the name and locations of states in the US, matters of facts regarding geography, history mathematics etc. Knowledge of facts is a fundamental and necessary component of any education system for young people.

Facts also include systems of discreet steps designed to accomplish a task. For example, the step by step processes for adding a column of numbers, or subtracting two numbers, or the multiplication or division of numbers. These step by step processes are called algorithms. Algorithms are used to program computers to perform tasks and algorithms are used to define the logic for building bridges, or doing bookkeeping tasks, or removing the appendix from a patient, or filling a decayed tooth, etc. Algorithms are the logical steps for accomplishing almost any task relating to the interaction between humans and matter. Algorithms define the patterns humans use to solve many of the problems encountered in life.

It is vital that we have knowledge of many and varied types of algorithms. The more our lives are controlled by technology the more algorithms we must know.

However, there are no known algorithms for many problems that we face daily. Where we fail to have algorithms we must find ways to facilitate understanding.

How does the Socratic technique, or as it is more often called the dialogue method, enhance understanding by a student?

A classroom that is focusing on a dialogue technique of instruction would be one wherein there would be the usual teacher and a number of pupils. A question or a matter of interest would be introduced and pupils would be asked to give their opinion on the matter. Each student voicing a point of view would be subject to questions by members of the class and the instructor and each would be expect to defend the opinion as best they can. Such a class program would require, in many cases that the students come to class well prepared and ready to become an active participant.

The subject might be the American war in Iraq, for example. One can imagine in such a case that there would be many different points of view. Some students might be from homes wherein varying political affiliations might be held. Some students may be Muslims or Jews of Protestants. Such a question would elicit many and strongly held views. The views of all students would be subjected to questions focusing upon the quality of the argument supporting a view and perhaps questions that might focus upon the biases exposed by the view. Assumptions would be examined and questioned. The whole process is directed toward establishing a critical habit of thought in all students.

William Graham Sumner, a distinguished anthropologist states the ideal:

“The critical habit of thought, if usual in a society, will pervade all it’s mores, because it is a way of taking up the problems of life.”

 

[Marc L]

History is a vital part of a liberal education,

Alright, I confess my cluelessness. What makes an education liberal as opposed to not liberal?*

*I'm tempted to say 'conservative' but I'm betting that's not what it's called.

Marc

 

[coberst]

Alright, I confess my cluelessness. What makes an education liberal as opposed to not liberal?*

*I'm tempted to say 'conservative' but I'm betting that's not what it's called.

Marc

Hey, I cut your meat up into bite size portions but I am not your mother, you are going to have to feed yourself.

 

[drkitten]

Alright, I confess my cluelessness. What makes an education liberal as opposed to not liberal?*

The term "liberal education" predates the political use of the term. The artes liberales were the cornerstone and crown jewel of the medieval education system, and today there is a college or school of liberal arts at nearly every university in the world.

The "liberal arts" are so-called because they "liberate" you, intellectualy, and spiritually, from the chains of the world. Rather than providing specialized and mundane job skills (in the Middle Ages, that might have been blacksmithing, and today it's probably information technology), they provide you with a "general education" and thinking skills.

At least, they're supposed to. We can, of course, discuss whether Marxist post-modern anti-colonial literature classes teach anything, but that's a whole different rant.

Historically, the seven liberal arts were : grammar, dialectic (logic), rhetoric, arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy. The servile arts were everything else, from medicine and law to wheelwrighting. Today there's no official list of the liberal arts, but literature, history, linguisics, theology, and of course philosophy are usually considered to be good examples.

 

[I less than three logic]

Hey, I cut your meat up into bite size portions but I am not your mother, you are going to have to feed yourself.

Nonsense still tastes awful no matter how you cut it.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Hey, I cut your meat up into bite size portions but I am not your mother, you are going to have to feed yourself.

That's not the first time you've used this snapply little rejoinder, is it? I believe the last time it inspired the same sort of reaction as I just had in reading it yet again. You will just have to use your superior logic and intellect to hear the wretching sound you have prompted,..... yet again. Marc L asked a legitimate question. You couldn't just respond with one tiny corner of that immense intellect?

Get over yourself, please! Every single one of your threads comes down to "Gee, I'm really clever for having read and understood philosophy. Why can't the world be like me? I'm certain it's necessary to posture and pose like this in order to become a fuller human being and worthwhile citizen."

You don't seem to get it, do you? We've all read varying amounts of philosophy, maybe found some of it interesting, dismissed some, ignored other parts entirely. But, perhaps we think there's more to life than rocking on the porch and thinking about how all the other people of the world would be better off if they could just think more like us.

Just because Wittgenstein admitted that his works were nonsensical does not mean you're in that league, Coberst. I knew Ludwig Wittgenstein, Senator, and you're no Ludwig Wittgenstein.

No, I think you're more like Andy Rooney after getting The Big Book of Philosophy for Christmas. "Didja ever wonder why styrofoam keeps hot things hot and cold things cold. Why doesn't it make a mistake and keep the cold things hot, sometimes? Back to you Mike..."

Thanks Doc A - I would have guessed that he'd at least posted in a couple of other threads, but I'll accept your research.

And I'd like Coberst to respond, please. I posit that there's something distinctly wrong with someone who is only interested in posting in response to his own brilliant enquiries. Do you really find nothing of interest or have nothing to say on any other topic? That is, other than the musings of your own mind?
(I started to say "fevered musings", but I realized that was just a cute turn of phrase. There's nothing fevered or even luke warm in these threads. They are cold and dry and dull.)

 

[Jerry_ex_machina]

Let us open a window and vent the fumes from this post.

Critical thinking is nothing more than a tool for inquiry which utilizes the rational precepts of observation, logic, and reason. It is not a discipline within itself. No one has yet issued me a paycheck for being a critical thinker, but I like to think I'm good at my job as a scholar because I have this tool in my tool kit.

Sadly, as this post seems to demonstrate, critical thinking is not well taught in schools. It's a beef of mine as an educator. The school system is designed for students to "sit down, shut up, and absorb." Not to question. From the lecturn to the pulpit this kind of "learning" is a very important key to social control in this country these days.

I remember being told in school, for instance, that Stephen F. Austin was the first person to bring settlers into Texas. I asked the teacher: "What about the indians, weren't they already here? And what about the Spanish and Mexico, didn't we just study them?" Shut up. The books says "first settlers," that's the way it's going to read on the test. Be quiet.

Of course we all know that's not true, but to this day it's still taught that way in Texas schools. And let's not start on evolution.

Critical thinking is a skill and I would argue we can never have enough of it. I'm not willing to take anything on faith - whether it's the pearly gates or WMD's in Iraq - I need to see the cards after you tell me you're holding a royal flush.