What is Critical Thinking?

[Piscivore]

I told you to read the thread.

Indeed you did. You do often. Is that because you cannot answer a question directly? Try it some time. You'd look a heck of a lot less foolish if you did.

 

[slingblade]

OK, you are playing a game here. I have no idea why or what it is, but I am not wasting any time joining it.

I'm playing the game? I am?

Tell you what: the next time someone makes a good suggestion, try to refrain from casting it, needlessly, into the most harmful light you can imagine ("don't listen to him! That's a sure-fire way to die!"). What the heck were you trying to do: fear-monger? At TA's expense?

For shame.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm playing the game? I am?

Tell you what: the next time someone makes a good suggestion, try to refrain from casting it, needlessly, into the most harmful light you can imagine ("don't listen to him! That's a sure-fire way to die!"). What the heck were you trying to do: fear-monger? At TA's expense?

For shame.

Rubbish. I'm pointing out that TheAtheist's blanket dismissal of all knowledge is dangerous. You would not have any qualms if it were Sylvia Browne who did it.

Don't protect people from having their arguments evaluated, merely because they claim to be skeptics. Focus on the argument, whoever makes it.

 

[slingblade]

Rubbish. I'm pointing out that TheAtheist's blanket dismissal of all knowledge is dangerous.

Where did he do that, specifically?

Please be sure that what you quote directly and explicity states that knowledge should be dismissed.

 

[Dr H]

You are confusing "belief" with "faith".

No. I am not.

<shrug> OK, if you say so. Seems like you were, though.

I am talking about specific statements that were made, and the flaws in their logic.

The logic involved in a form of argument doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the precise meaning of individual terms, but again, OK.

Which is exactly my point: if there is already evidence for a thing, it isn't a belief. Your ignorance about it doesn't render the information less factual; it simply means you are still ignorant.

In this case, ignorance is irrelevant: it is just as possible to be ignorant of a fantasy as of a fact.

Were I to say "I believe the world is flat," you can and should say to me, "But there isn't any reason to merely believe that. There's a great deal of information about the earth that you can access. It's possible for you to know the shape of the earth, or at least know what scientists know about it."

True. And at that point you can either choose to believe the position suggested by the preponderance of physical evidence, or you can choose to continue to believe that the world is flat, in spite of the evidence. In the first case we call your belief "factual;" in the second we call it "faith." In either case, it is still a belief.

By the same token, were I to say "I know pink invisible unicorns exist," you'd want my evidence, my proof. You'd want to see how I know this. And when I can't produce anything that even remotely resembles evidence, you can then say to me: "This is a belief. If we someday find evidence for it, we will then consider it knowledge. It may, in fact, be knowledge right now. But since we can't access it, since we remain ignorant at this time, to us it is only a belief."

When you say "only a belief," that is where you are confusing "belief" with "faith". It is a belief supported only by faith. If you in fact had evidence, then it would be a belief supported by evidence. "Knowledge" is simply justified true belief.

One of the characteristics of critical thinking is that all conclusions are provisional. This is why scientific theories must be falsifiable in order to be considered valid theories.
A "fact" is simply a belief which happens to be validated the preponderance of physical evidence currently available. There is always the possibility, however, that additional evidence may become available which would falsify any of those particular beliefs.

That's largely correct, but I take slight exception to the statement that all facts are merely well-verified beliefs, any or all of which could change in the future. I can think of several simple facts which would not change due to discovery of additional evidence, especially if there is no additional evidence to discover.

You can never know that there is no additional evidence to discover. That is precisely the resaon why you cannot "prove" a negative. You can't prove, for example, that invisible pink unicorns do not exist. The preponderance of available evidence may indicate that their existence is extremely unlikely, but in order to prove their non-existence you would have to examine every corner of the universe and determine that no object corresponding to an "invisible pink unicorn" existed within it.

There are twelve inches in a standard U.S. foot. This is a simple fact.

Actually, no; it's just a convention that happens to be widely agreed upon.

The U.S. may choose to change its standards of measurement at some point in the future, but that is not "undiscovered evidence" that changes the length of a standard foot.

Perhaps not "undiscovered" in this case, but it certainly is new evidence. E.g., if next week someone were to ask you "how many inches are there in a standard U.S. foot" you would give them a different answer than you would have given last week. To give a complete answer you would have to provide them with two bits of information--evidence, if you will--: "Up until March 11th, 2008, there were 12 inches; as of that date, there are now 13."

I was graduated from high school on January 18, 1977. That's a fact. There is no additional evidence to uncover that will change it.

Indeed? Was George Washington born February 11th or February 22nd? Up to 1751, he was born on the 11th; after that year he was born on the 22nd. Social conventions are only "facts" to the extent that people agree to call them such; as such they are much more maleable than facts based on physical evidence. The date of your graduation is a social convention only in certain cultures: if you ask someone who uses the Julian calendar, or the Hebrew calendar; or the Mayan calendar they will give you a different date, which is as valid in their temporal context as 1/18/77 is in your context. A context which is arbitrary, and subject to change.

Look, I'm really not trying to give you a hard time, since I agree with the basic point of your post. But there is a certain carelessness of language that creeps into these discussions that can often undermine a critical examination of the main ideas.

If a person is cremated after death, pouring a glass of tap water on the ashes will not reconstitute the body and restore the person to life. This is a fact. Is there really a possiblity of undiscovered information that will render this untrue, or that could change this simple fact?

I agree that it would seem to be highly unlikely. In fact, I believe it to be impossible.

;-)

But none of this is really the point. When TA suggested another poster "toss out" his beliefs, he was urging the poster to verify his knowledge base, and stop relying on mere belief.

More to the point: he was suggesting that the poster stop relying on faith, and start relying on evidence.

If it is possible to know a thing, choose to know it. Find out what can be considered factual, and what must be relegated to belief. Know what you know.
I find that sound advice.

Sounder advice would be to base your beliefs upon solid evidence, and always be willing to examine those things you think you "know".

I am acquainted with plenty of religious people who "know" that God exists; who "know" that prayer is answered; who "know" that they're going to heaven, and I'm going to hell.

Words can be slippery things. If they're not used carefully, they will come back and bite you on the ass.

 

[Dr H]

Lack of knowledge about a thing does not mean the knowledge doesn't exist. It means you lack it. It also means you have an opportunity to gain this knowledge, if it already exists. And that you should try, whenever possible, to gain it, rather than rely on mere belief if you don't have to.

That is the key phrase you're missing: if you don't have to.

Replacing "belief" by "mere belief" is a step in the right direction, but what you really mean is still "faith".

And now you're confusing "information" with "knowledge".

 

[Dr H]

You may well be approaching this as more of a semantic argument, because Slingblade's poost is correct, in my view - beliefs are about things we don't already know from observation.

People frequently say "semantic argument" as if semantics were unimportant; they are of utmost importance, since they are the means by which we turn our grunts and chicken scratches into actual communication.

In any case, I am not approaching the discussion as a semantic argument, but I am bringing up an important semantic point. "Beliefs" are things which we think we know. We either think we know them because we have actual, objective, physical evidence that tends to confirm them as true, or we think we know them because we have faith that they are true.

In any discussion between a skeptic and a person with religious faith, the distinction is crucial, else you will forever be arguing at cross-purposes; using the same words but meaning different things.

While that sort of thing can be fun at times -- like when you're at work avoiding tackling a mundane, boring task -- most of the time I prefer more productive discussion.

Gravity, for instance, is usually discovered in infancy and repeated tests show that things fall to the floor from the cot or high chair every single time. Infants have no idea of the concept of gravity, but they know it works. They may believe an invisible giant is pushing things down to the floor, so the fact of gravity combines with a belief about how it works. The belief may change, but the fact never will.

Until they drop a helium-filled balloon.

That said, I believe I'll have a beer.

That I can agree to, without argument.

 

[CFLarsen]

Where did he do that, specifically?

Please be sure that what you quote directly and explicity states that knowledge should be dismissed.

TheAtheist doesn't distinguish between knowledge and belief.

That means that when he throws out all beliefs, he also throws out all knowledge.

You direct your criticism at the wrong person.

 

[Dr H]

The answer, in part, is that some of us don't. Some of us die before we get the chance, maybe by walking off that drop too high to survive. Some of us just get badly hurt, and retain that experience. Some of us don't retain it, because our brains don't function that way, and we die later from the same event, or one much like it.
[...]
The point is not whether or not we can learn. The point is whether or not we choose to.

I'm not sure I'd call Darwinian natural selection a "choice".

 

[CFLarsen]

People frequently say "semantic argument" as if semantics were unimportant; they are of utmost importance, since they are the means by which we turn our grunts and chicken scratches into actual communication.

Exactly.

Until they drop a helium-filled balloon.

Or, encounter a gust of wind.

 

[slingblade]

If they're not used carefully, they will come back and bite you on the ass.

Thanks. I appreciate your making me your personal pissing post. Friend of Larsen's are ya?

 

[CFLarsen]

Thanks. I appreciate your making me your personal pissing post. Friend of Larsen's are ya?

Chill.

OK?

 

[slingblade]

<shrug> OK, if you say so. Seems like you were, though.

Well, I wasn't.

The logic involved in a form of argument doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the precise meaning of individual terms, but again, OK.

You don't necessarily have anything to do with my argument, either.

In this case, ignorance is irrelevant: it is just as possible to be ignorant of a fantasy as of a fact.

The point is that the person to whom TA was speaking doesn't have to remain ignorant about what he merely believes to be true, in many cases. He can undertake to find out whatever he may about what he believes. In that exploration, he may exchange belief for knowledge. He may not. The key is to try.

True. And at that point you can either choose to believe the position suggested by the preponderance of physical evidence, or you can choose to continue to believe that the world is flat, in spite of the evidence. In the first case we call your belief "factual;" in the second we call it "faith." In either case, it is still a belief.

I don't agree. If you chose to continue to believe the world is flat, in spite of the preponderance of the evidence, it's not a matter of faith.

When you say "only a belief," that is where you are confusing "belief" with "faith". It is a belief supported only by faith. If you in fact had evidence, then it would be a belief supported by evidence. "Knowledge" is simply justified true belief.

I do not agree that the entirety of what I know, or of what humanity knows, is nothing more than belief.

You can never know that there is no additional evidence to discover. That is precisely the resaon why you cannot "prove" a negative. You can't prove, for example, that invisible pink unicorns do not exist. The preponderance of available evidence may indicate that their existence is extremely unlikely, but in order to prove their non-existence you would have to examine every corner of the universe and determine that no object corresponding to an "invisible pink unicorn" existed within it.

I know.

Actually, no; it's just a convention that happens to be widely agreed upon.

And is a simple fact.

Perhaps not "undiscovered" in this case, but it certainly is new evidence. E.g., if next week someone were to ask you "how many inches are there in a standard U.S. foot" you would give them a different answer than you would have given last week. To give a complete answer you would have to provide them with two bits of information--evidence, if you will--: "Up until March 11th, 2008, there were 12 inches; as of that date, there are now 13."

Neither of which would be a mere belief. By the same token, if the standard of measurement did change last week, the person who says they still "believe" it's 12 inches would be wrong.

Indeed? Was George Washington born February 11th or February 22nd? Up to 1751, he was born on the 11th; after that year he was born on the 22nd. Social conventions are only "facts" to the extent that people agree to call them such; as such they are much more maleable than facts based on physical evidence. The date of your graduation is a social convention only in certain cultures: if you ask someone who uses the Julian calendar, or the Hebrew calendar; or the Mayan calendar they will give you a different date, which is as valid in their temporal context as 1/18/77 is in your context. A context which is arbitrary, and subject to change.

And how do you know any of that? Did it come, fully blown, from your own head, or did you have to do any, oh...I don't know...reading, maybe? Any fact-verification? Any gathering of information from sources outside yourself?

Look, I'm really not trying to give you a hard time,

HOW MANY of my posts, and only my posts, did you rip apart in this manner? And you're not giving me a hard time? Really?

since I agree with the basic point of your post. But there is a certain carelessness of language that creeps into these discussions that can often undermine a critical examination of the main ideas.

I can tell you don't agree with me. Can you tell I don't care? Can you tell that the entire point is that:

If the poster to whom TA said to "toss out" his beliefs takes TA's advice, he will not surely die.

I agree that it would seem to be highly unlikely. In fact, I believe it to be impossible.

;-)

I stopped caring what you think the moment I saw scads of my posts shredded to bits, one after the other after the other, but not one word quoted from anyone else. I know an attack when I see it, even one so passive and nicey-nice eudite as this one.

More to the point: he was suggesting that the poster stop relying on faith, and start relying on evidence.

Yeah, That's what I said. That's exactly what I said.

Sounder advice would be to base your beliefs upon solid evidence, and always be willing to examine those things you think you "know".

Yeah. That's what I said.

I am acquainted with plenty of religious people who "know" that God exists; who "know" that prayer is answered; who "know" that they're going to heaven, and I'm going to hell.

And they're wrong. They do not know it. They only believe it, with no evidence whatsoever.

Words can be slippery things. If they're not used carefully, they will come back and bite you on the ass.

You'll find out, I'm sure.

 

[slingblade]

Replacing "belief" by "mere belief" is a step in the right direction, but what you really mean is still "faith".

You don't get to tell me what I mean.

And now you're confusing "information" with "knowledge".

No. I'm not.

 

[slingblade]

TheAtheist doesn't distinguish between knowledge and belief.

That means that when he throws out all beliefs, he also throws out all knowledge.

You direct your criticism at the wrong person.

No. I'm not.

 

[slingblade]

I'm not sure I'd call Darwinian natural selection a "choice".

Wasn't talking about Darwin or natural selection. Was talking about deliberately choosing to use the brains you've got, if you've got any to use.

 

[slingblade]

Chill.

No.

OK?

No.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Take the current events with the Chavez/Venezuela and Uribe/Colombia dispute for example.

On one side of the issue you have the claim Venezuela, Ecuador, and now Nicaragua are communist/leftist leaning governments.

Even though Chavez has publicly commented on his admiration for Castro, do you find the contention that he is "leftist" hard to swallow? Sure, it's a loaded term, but aligning one's self with a well known leftist leader, even if one is only espousing solidarity of a sort, hardly defuses the contention that Chavez is indeed a "leftist" as a political leader.

Me, I think leftist is an incorrect label, being imprecise, as his moves in the past few years look far more like a standard banana republic despot working to consolidate his own popularity and power. We shall see how it plays out in the next few years.

Whether or not Chavez being "leftist" is of major significance is another matter. Why not apply a test to Chavez himself: how much critical thinking does he display in his utterances and actions?

Is referring to Bush as the devil at the UN critical thinking in action?

Colombia was justified in crossing the border to kill terrorists (another trigger word or frame).

Nations have an interest in acting to support their own security. No one looks out after your affairs better than you do. Ecuadorian turning of a blind eye to the haven their magical line on the map provided for a FARC/Narco kingpin is hardly supportive of regional security.

Not only is critical thinking crucial here, it is darn hard to do. We all have filters for the information we receive, but in the case of politics and religion, I am confident there are many many skeptics here who don't even recognize that critical thinking comes into play on these matters, let alone actually practice that critical thinking when it comes to their beliefs and conclusions.

We agree. Try applying some critical thinking regarding Chavez. It will be a liberating experience.

DR

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

True. And at that point you can either choose to believe the position suggested by the preponderance of physical evidence, or you can choose to continue to believe that the world is flat, in spite of the evidence. In the first case we call your belief "factual;" in the second we call it "faith." In either case, it is still a belief.

I don't know. I think many people would call the second case "willful ignorance". Is that what faith is?

Faith seems to be important in realms where facts are in short supply. Believing something against a wealth of facts, without anything to support it doesn't seem to deserve the term "faith", though, of course the term can be applied. I think 'willful ignorance' works better there.

If I step off a 20 story building because I believe that I can float, do you say I have great faith or I'm nuts? Of course you can label it faith, but nuts must be associated with it somewhere. It's not just faith.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

What is Critical Thinking?

It's when you think critically.