CT (Critical Thinking) is 'philosophy light'

[Marc L]

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.

Thanks, doc. I appreciate it.

Marc

 

[I less than three logic]

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.

I remember my high school Earth Science and Geology teacher Mr. Temple referred to the school curriculum as “information regurgitation”. He was probably my favorite teacher, although I can think of many I liked. I learned a lot about critical thinking and learning from him, but almost none of it was done during actual class time. I was a bit of a dork in school, however. I preferred spending my free time at school discussing different tangents on a variety of topics with my teachers, instead of gossiping with my peers.

 

[CapelDodger]

Not at all - but philosophy, like all pursuits, must be held within its limits. When it goes beyond that, of course it falls flat.

More or less bunk. It tends to exceed its usefulness by getting into a self-referential, autoerotic (than you, Tricky) spiral. There's much more to be learned about the human condition from watching chimps, or kids in a playground, than from philosophy - which is not say that there's nothing to be learned from philosophy. There's more to be learned about the universe from physics and maths than there is from philosophy.

I'm no doubt influenced by a rather cynical philosophy teacher, but my experience leads me to a category that encompasses philosophers, lawyers, politicians and sophists (amongst others). It's more or less the intersection of the "Clever" and "Wanker" categories.

 

[CapelDodger]

I remember my high school Earth Science and Geology teacher Mr. Temple referred to the school curriculum as “information regurgitation”. He was probably my favorite teacher, although I can think of many I liked.

My favourite teacher (History) used to race through the curriculum material; you knew he was done when he answered a question with "I'm not paid to teach you this, you know ...". Then put his feet up on the desk, lit his pipe and taught us something. When I say "us", I mean three or four of us up front that actually took an interest. He was the wise moderator of a discussion group (and also dead cool, he flew Spitfires in the war). I learnt a lot about thinking from him. Also that history was not (as per the curriculum) simply the self-reported narrative of This Island Nation.

 

[RandFan]

Philosophy is more or less bunk.

I don't agree. Philosophy, to me, is simply an attempt to understand the natural world (and even the unnatural world assuming that it exists and I think not) and our (humans) place in it. Science is actually a branch of philosophy though we don't often think of it that way today. There seems to be a number of areas of human endeavor or thought that the hard sciences do not easily or readily address. As much as I love science it doesn't really speak to aesthetics or ethics which is rather important to many of us.

FWIW: My favorite living philosopher is Daniel Dennett.

 

[JamesDillon]

I remember my high school Earth Science and Geology teacher Mr. Temple referred to the school curriculum as “information regurgitation”.

I often hear this criticism of the pre-university public school curriculum, and while it's probably true to a certain extent that students would benefit from being engaged in a more participatory form of education at an earlier age, isn't there also quite a bit of value in information regurgitation as well? Of course, the student's mind benefits from being forced to think independently and to go beyond the materials presented to find deeper connections, but it's necessary to understand the basics of language, mathematics, science, etc., before the student is ready for that step, and I'm not sure how all of that basic information could be conveyed other than by a process of rote memorization.

More or less bunk. It tends to exceed its usefulness by getting into a self-referential, autoerotic (than you, Tricky) spiral. There's much more to be learned about the human condition from watching chimps, or kids in a playground, than from philosophy - which is not say that there's nothing to be learned from philosophy. There's more to be learned about the universe from physics and maths than there is from philosophy.

I'm no doubt influenced by a rather cynical philosophy teacher, but my experience leads me to a category that encompasses philosophers, lawyers, politicians and sophists (amongst others). It's more or less the intersection of the "Clever" and "Wanker" categories.

Out of curiosity, have you studied philosophy to any substantial degree, or are you just making ignorant characterizations about a field regarding which you know next to nothing?

 

[Tricky]

I don't agree. Philosophy, to me, is simply an attempt to understand the natural world (and even the unnatural world assuming that it exists and I think not) and our (humans) place in it.

To me, philosophy is "thinking about thinking". It is the study of the way we view and interpret things, whether natural, imaginary, symbolic or whatever.

Science is actually a branch of philosophy though we don't often think of it that way today. There seems to be a number of areas of human endeavor or thought that the hard sciences do not easily or readily address. As much as I love science it doesn't really speak to aesthetics or ethics which is rather important to many of us.

The harder it is to get reliable evidence on a subject, the more difficult it is for science to address it, although it still tries. But such subjective things as aesthetics and ethics demand that evidence is more statistical than anything. Even medicine suffers from relying on statistics when it cannot nail down a physical reason why a certain treatment or drug works. Still, I regard all these things as "science" as long as the scientific method is applied to study them.

Even if you cannot determine exactly why more people aesthetically prefer the Mona Lisa to a statue of the Virgin Mary molded from feces, you can scientifically show that they do, given proper sampling techniqes.

FWIW: My favorite living philosopher is Daniel Dennett.

I've heard many good things about Consciousness Explained. I must put it on my reading list.

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't agree. Philosophy, to me, is simply an attempt to understand the natural world (and even the unnatural world assuming that it exists and I think not) and our (humans) place in it. Science is actually a branch of philosophy though we don't often think of it that way today.

As Hyver pointed out, useful fields of philosophy tend to bud off the main body of philosophy - science, for instance. The remaining core of philosophy is increasingly composed of the useless, and the navel-gazing. The important questions have been asked, and people have gone off to try and answer them. Others have lingered to ponder "What do we mean by 'question'?", "What do we mean by 'mean'?", "What do we mean by 'we'?" and so ad infinitum.

There seems to be a number of areas of human endeavor or thought that the hard sciences do not easily or readily address. As much as I love science it doesn't really speak to aesthetics or ethics which is rather important to many of us.

Neither does philosophy, since both seek objective foundations and inferences, whereas aesthetics and morality are subjective responses of our evolved human nature. From our point of view, of course, aesthetics and emotions are the stuff of life.

The really hard question is not about gods or the supernatural, but the question of consciousness. We know it exists - we all experience it, unlike the supernatural. And it's seriously freaky.

FWIW: My favorite living philosopher is Daniel Dennett.

Mine is Mark Twain.

 

[CapelDodger]

Out of curiosity, have you studied philosophy to any substantial degree, or are you just making ignorant characterizations about a field regarding which you know next to nothing?

More than the average degree I'd say. The Greeks at school, of course, and some modern stuff from aforementioned cynical teacher. Conversations with philosophers and some reading. More about the political philosophers, of course, who've had some impact on history. That's another useful (for good or ill) field that's gone it's own way.

 

[RandFan]

Mine is Mark Twain.

Do you think Dennett has much usefulness as a philosopher?

 

[RandFan]

As Hyver pointed out, useful fields of philosophy tend to bud off the main body of philosophy - science, for instance. The remaining core of philosophy is increasingly composed of the useless, and the navel-gazing. The important questions have been asked, and people have gone off to try and answer them. Others have lingered to ponder "What do we mean by 'question'?", "What do we mean by 'mean'?", "What do we mean by 'we'?" and so ad infinitum.

So, if I understand you correctly you see the core of philosophy today as bunk in that it is unlikely to generate any useful data or insight?

Neither does philosophy, since both seek objective foundations and inferences, whereas aesthetics and morality are subjective responses of our evolved human nature. From our point of view, of course, aesthetics and emotions are the stuff of life.

Philosophy, AIU, differs from science in that science is rooted in empiricism and philosophy, to a degree, is not. We can certainly explore aesthetics, morality and other subjective responses using objective means to draw inferences.

The really hard question is not about gods or the supernatural, but the question of consciousness. We know it exists - we all experience it, unlike the supernatural. And it's seriously freaky.

Agreed.

 

[CapelDodger]

So, if I understand you correctly you see the core of philosophy today as bunk in that it is unlikely to generate any useful data or insight?

Yup. Nice summation.

 

[JamesDillon]

More than the average degree I'd say. The Greeks at school, of course, and some modern stuff from aforementioned cynical teacher. Conversations with philosophers and some reading. More about the political philosophers, of course, who've had some impact on history. That's another useful (for good or ill) field that's gone it's own way.

Well, okay then. The points you're making sound like those more frequently suggested by people who have only the most superficial awareness of actual philosophical inquiry (as opposed to pop-culture stereotypes about stoned hippies debating the meaning of life), but it sounds as if your opinion is, at least, adequately informed. I disagree with it, but I've been drawn into several discussions of this issue in previous threads and just don't have it in me to engage in another one.

 

[RandFan]

Well, okay then. The points you're making sound like those more frequently suggested by people who have only the most superficial awareness of actual philosophical inquiry (as opposed to pop-culture stereotypes about stoned hippies debating the meaning of life), but it sounds as if your opinion is, at least, adequately informed. I disagree with it, but I've been drawn into several discussions of this issue in previous threads and just don't have it in me to engage in another one.

Exactly. Back when I thought I knew something I used to rail against what I believed were arrogant and self absorbed intellectuals and navel gazing philosophers. Then I looked more closely at philosophy and realized that I didn't know very much at all. I still don't, but now I recognize my limitations and I'm trying to educate myself. I see the giants of science and philosophy in such a clearer light and I realize that we are better off for them. Some are arrogant but hell, that is human nature.

Philosophy, for folks like me, is a great way to achieve a base line for belief. It puts you back at zero. Descartes makes a great argument for questioning everything (so did some of the early philosophers and others).

I can see how those who are already grounded in empiricism and science see philosophy as a sidetrack. Though to be honest I was surprised that so many were dismissive of it. It's kind of disconcerting to find a point of agreement between the religious and scientists though to be sure it isn't fair that both groups view philosophy equally as a waste of time.

 

[JamesDillon]

I can see how those who are already grounded in empiricism and science see philosophy as a sidetrack. Though to be honest I was surprised that so many were dismissive of it. It's kind of disconcerting to find a point of agreement between the religious and scientists though to be sure it isn't fair that both groups view philosophy equally as a waste of time.

I think there's often a misperception, even among some scientists, that science and philosophy are competing methodologies for probing the same set of truths. They aren't at all. There might be some gray areas in highly theoretical fields of science that venture into speculations beyond the immediately available empirical evidence (I have been told by people more knowledgeable about such things than I that the science of cosmology arguably falls into this category), but generally speaking, (properly done) science and (properly done) philosophy involve the application of the same set of logical principles to very different kinds of questions. They are in that sense complementary, and anyone who argues that exploration of the non-empirical questions that philosophy takes on is simply in denial, self- or otherwise.

 

[RandFan]

I think there's often a misperception, even among some scientists, that science and philosophy are competing methodologies for probing the same set of truths. They aren't at all. There might be some gray areas in highly theoretical fields of science that venture into speculations beyond the immediately available empirical evidence (I have been told by people more knowledgeable about such things than I that the science of cosmology arguably falls into this category), but generally speaking, (properly done) science and (properly done) philosophy involve the application of the same set of logical principles to very different kinds of questions. They are in that sense complementary, and anyone who argues that exploration of the non-empirical questions that philosophy takes on is simply in denial, self- or otherwise.

Thank you. Sounds right. I have a love of philosophy and I don't at all think it bunk.

I'll tell you that I was simply fascinated by Daniel Dennett at TAM. His thoughts on the mind and religion and his comparing religion to a virus was truly riveting. It made so much sense. For the first time I understood how humans are controlled by unconscious, unfeeling ancient ideas. These ideas cause their hosts to do their bidding to protect those hosts. I'm not sure how much of that was based on his work as a philosopher or if he was simply repeating what he had learned from science but I don't think that's bunk.

 

[JamesDillon]

Too late to edit, but I realized in rereading this post that I left out a few important words:

I think there's often a misperception, even among some scientists, that science and philosophy are competing methodologies for probing the same set of truths. They aren't at all. There might be some gray areas in highly theoretical fields of science that venture into speculations beyond the immediately available empirical evidence (I have been told by people more knowledgeable about such things than I that the science of cosmology arguably falls into this category), but generally speaking, (properly done) science and (properly done) philosophy involve the application of the same set of logical principles to very different kinds of questions. They are in that sense complementary, and anyone who argues that exploration of the non-empirical questions that philosophy takes on is useless or frivolous is simply in denial, self- or otherwise.

 

[Tricky]

I think there's often a misperception, even among some scientists, that science and philosophy are competing methodologies for probing the same set of truths. They aren't at all. There might be some gray areas in highly theoretical fields of science that venture into speculations beyond the immediately available empirical evidence (I have been told by people more knowledgeable about such things than I that the science of cosmology arguably falls into this category), but generally speaking, (properly done) science and (properly done) philosophy involve the application of the same set of logical principles to very different kinds of questions. They are in that sense complementary, and anyone who argues that exploration of the non-empirical questions that philosophy takes on is simply in denial, self- or otherwise.

I would say you are mostly correct. Both use logic to arrive at conclusions. What differs (sometimes) is the assumptions upon which that logic is based. There are some philosophical concepts which do deny science. One example would be the existence of qualia, a phenomenon which cannot even in theory be observed within the physical universe. This assumption that such a thing can exist goes against the philosophy of science, which (in my opinion) says that all real things have physical characteristics.

Philosophers like Dennett though, who dismiss qualia as unimportant since undefinable, rarely butt heads with physical scientists. Their assumptions are not incompatable.

 

[JamesDillon]

I would say you are mostly correct. Both use logic to arrive at conclusions. What differs (sometimes) is the assumptions upon which that logic is based. There are some philosophical concepts which do deny science. One example would be the existence of qualia, a phenomenon which cannot even in theory be observed within the physical universe. This assumption that such a thing can exist goes against the philosophy of science, which (in my opinion) says that all real things have physical characteristics.

Without taking a position on qualia, about which I know little more than what I read in some of Ian's long-winded posts in the past, I don't think it's quite true that all "real" things have physical characteristics. Do the rules of logic or mathematics exist physically? Does beauty or justice or morality? I tend to think not, but one would be hard-pressed to deny that the study of these subjects is legitimately valuable. Most areas of philosophy never come into contact with science at all, and while I think, for example, that Descartes's insight into the limits of empirical inquiry often provide fodder for all sorts of mystical nonsense (*coughcoughlifegazercough*), there is some value, I think, in recognizing the fact that there are possibly true propositions pertaining to the universe about which empirical investigation can tell us nothing. I don't intend that as a legitimization of the sorts of unfounded and irresponsible speculations that often invoke Descartes's recognition that solipsism cannot be empirically falsified (which is abused in certain circles almost as much as the theory of quantum mechianics), but rather as a reminder that awareness of the limitations of our investigative tools (such as empirical science) is itself a valuable piece of knowledge.

 

[RandFan]

Without taking a position on qualia, about which I know little more than what I read in some of Ian's long-winded posts in the past, I don't think it's quite true that all "real" things have physical characteristics. Do the rules of logic or mathematics exist physically? Does beauty or justice or morality? I tend to think not, but one would be hard-pressed to deny that the study of these subjects is legitimately valuable. Most areas of philosophy never come into contact with science at all, and while I think, for example, that Descartes's insight into the limits of empirical inquiry often provide fodder for all sorts of mystical nonsense (*coughcoughlifegazercough*), there is some value, I think, in recognizing the fact that there are possibly true propositions pertaining to the universe about which empirical investigation can tell us nothing. I don't intend that as a legitimization of the sorts of unfounded and irresponsible speculations that often invoke Descartes's recognition that solipsism cannot be empirically falsified (which is abused in certain circles almost as much as the theory of quantum mechianics), but rather as a reminder that awareness of the limitations of our investigative tools (such as empirical science) is itself a valuable piece of knowledge.

Good post. I'm inclined to be intrigued. As a former dualist who tried valiantly to defend qualia I can honestly say that it is one of those things that I can't get rid of intuitively. I understand what is meant by those who argue that there is an intrinsic quality of sensing red that does not exist in the physical world. In other words, I can't equate the subjective experience of seeing/experiencing/sensing/perceiving/? red to anything physical. However I have come to accept that "qualia" (if it exists at all) is an emergent property of the brain.

And hey, this is my uneducated explanation of what I understand so cut me some slack.

ETA: Perhaps a bad choice of words "intrinsic". Intrinsic to what? I don't know, The Unberable Lightness of Being, perhaps?