• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Critical Thinking. What is it really?

Navigator

Philosopher
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
6,810
Critical Thinking.

This implies that there are thoughts which are not critical, and thus should be categorized as such and then discarded as relevant to anything critical.

Open of course to subjective interpretation, but by and large the subjective can be criticized through the process of show and tell (evidence).

Most importantly, the object focused upon in relation to deciding what is critical and what is not has to be of critical importance in relation to individual subjectivity and collective objectivity - how the collective 'sees' the objective and goes about getting there.

As example of critical thinking in response to one recent item of data off the net...

New Zealand pastor blames gays for earthquakes

How do I approach this event critically?

I ask myself.

Q: Is this critical in relation to the objective?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: Because it is petty. It lacks substance and can be understood to be a symptom of the situation.
By that I mean to say, I understand the pastors beliefs but they are not critical to the situation as they offer no direct human made solution. It is simply an opinion, but one which contributes to the threat against solution.

So it is not discarded either. It still affects the critical.

Q: What else do i know about the pastor?

A: He is influenced by Christian morality. It is also and Islamic morality as well, as can be seen on the net.
Also the pastor is of Maori decent and thus will carry those traditions of belief with him in some way...related to the god of the Earth and her being a living conscious entity.

This of course has all transferred to the G-d of Abraham - probably the most influential phantom of the whole planet.

Q: How do I reconcile that with the critical objective when the two seem to be poles apart?

A: I cannot easily but am working on finding ways. All I can do is remain focused upon the critical objective and try to reason with anybody as to why they would be best to do the same...once of course we all agree on what that objective is.

Q: Is that which can be criticized therefore in opposition to the critical objective?

A: Yes - but that does not mean of course that it will overcome the critical objective.

Q: Is there a funny side to any of this?

A: Well I was wondering if the pastor meant that the two plates which were rubbing together were both male...I thought that was funny anyhoo...

Do you agree with my interpretation of critical thinking processes. There is a seat at my table.
 
1. I think you miss the meaning of critical thinking.

Or;

There is no particular meaning - it is just a phrase used to creat smoke and mirrors.

Anyway, I am open to reading what you personally think critical thinking actually is.


2. Brian Tamaki is an egotistical two faced knobhead. Being critical.

Yes, there is no doubt he is being critical. Or are you saying that you are being critical?

Is being critical all that is required to be a critical thinker then?

I don't think so, but I have already given my take on that. Did you just poke your head through the door to give an opinion (so to speak) or do you want to sit at the table and discuss it some more?
 
I don't think so, but I have already given my take on that. Did you just poke your head through the door to give an opinion (so to speak) or do you want to sit at the table and discuss it some more?

Such a disastrous beginning but with that much effort in it already, I guess you felt you had to keep running with it.

You're in the weeds, the tall grass... c'mon back now. :rolleyes:
 
These are the basic definitions of what is meant by "critical thinking." I find them to useful.

From the link said:
Critical thinking is described by Richard Paul as a movement in two waves (1994).[1] The "first wave" of critical thinking is often referred to as a 'critical analysis' that is clear, rational thinking involving critique. Its details vary amongst those who define it. According to Barry K. Beyer (1995), critical thinking means making clear, reasoned judgments. During the process of critical thinking, ideas should be reasoned, well thought out, and judged.[2] The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking[3] defines critical thinking as the "intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.

Pretty much the same as I have offered in my opening post.

CT is not just about the focus on one particular subject/discipline. If one is unable to include all aspects of any given subject in relation to everything else, you are not applying CT to the fullest extent.

Indeed, CT properly used, should do away with belief altogether as something surplus to requirement.

It should also argue against the use of words which are used habitually interchangeably such as 'belief' and 'know'. :)
 
Pretty much the same as I have offered in my opening post.

CT is not just about the focus on one particular subject/discipline. If one is unable to include all aspects of any given subject in relation to everything else, you are not applying CT to the fullest extent.

Indeed, CT properly used, should do away with belief altogether as something surplus to requirement.

It should also argue against the use of words which are used habitually interchangeably such as 'belief' and 'know'. :)


What the hell dude... three strikes, you're out (and that's just this one post). :rolleyes:


No... it is not what you said in the OP. The "critical" in critical thinking is NOT a description of the subject matter, but rather a word form variant of "critique". The serious or otherwise nature of the topic is irrelevant.

I'll ignore the entire middle graph as it's well... silly.

Second... there's no religion involved or associated. Stop trying to force it.

I hope you don't try playing that CT abbreviation elsewhere. It has a well defined meaning to most nowadays (as you're quite aware), it's not going to mean Critical Thinking outside of this context (and barely within).


And... who the hell habitually interchanges belief believe and know? You perhaps? Feels like that religion creeping back in.

There's nothing wrong with struggling with your English skills.
But when you're corrected, don't triple down... stridently.
 
Last edited:
You do understand don't you, that using language as a means of deflecting from the gist of what is being said is not a relevant form of argument. It is a way of avoiding having to agree with the argument without actually addressing the argument. It is not relevant to critical thinking processes to do so.

It is really more about remaining within feigned ignorance and arguing from that position - like 'You no speaka my language so I no have to try and understand what you are saying even though it is clear enough.' - it is wiggle room punctuated with personal slight against the OP. It is a common enough practice of a number of members which is part of the reason why I started the thread because such practice is so not what critical thinking is about. Critical thinkers do not let the use of language interfere with their ability to think critically or be distracted to the point of immature responses which have nothing to do with truthful argument, debate, or discussion.

Your comment regarding religion also has no relevance to the topic, any more than my abbreviating critical thinking to CT within the context of the thread subject does. It is besides the point.

The subject is as stated, so either contribute or go away.
 
You would be mistaken... entirely.

I don't need critical thinking to see that you latched onto an alternate, and inappropriate definition of "critical" and strove to create a thesis applying it to "critical thinking.

Your premise is flawed... end of discussion.
Or take it to Philosophy where all the mental masturbation belongs. :rolleyes:

Continue to play with yourself, your games don't interest me. Buh bye.
 
The subject is as stated, so either contribute or go away.


I don't think anything you've said in this thread is even in the same universe as correct. It's not wrong, either. It's like I asked you what color your car is, and you answered, "Left."
 
Thinking is the tip of the iceberg that we see above the water line. The iceberg includes all functions of the human brain; thinking is what we're aware of.

Critical means ... important, crucial, relevant, germane, on point, apropos ... and what is critical depends upon context. How useful is a given detail, in terms of solving a problem or predicting an outcome.

All things being equal, whether the overnight low temperature is 35 degrees or 40 degrees Fahrenheit (say, 2 to 5 degrees Celsius) is somewhat important in deciding what clothes to wear.

But knowing it will be 32F or 0 Celsius is critical to driving safely or preserving plant life. You will feel only little bit colder, but water will freeze, forming ice on roads and possibly killing many plants.

I guess to make it more abstract, basically you are taking a variety of inputs and sorting them out, based on what you know, separating the strands into those of greater and lesser impact, always questioning whether your background knowledge and your tools of reason are valid.
 
Critical Thinking.

This implies that there are thoughts which are not critical,

There certainly are, given the nature of what critical thinking actually is. As was pointed out to you already with the wikipedia page, critical thinking refers to a distinct subset of "thoughts," to the extent that it's even reasonable to invoke "thoughts" in the first place.

and thus should be categorized as such and then discarded as relevant to anything critical.

This is nonsense that very strongly suggests that you're starting from your own personal definition for critical thinking that has fairly little to do with the commonly accepted nature and usage.

Open of course to subjective interpretation, but by and large the subjective can be criticized through the process of show and tell (evidence).

Sure, such can frequently be done, depending on the subject and starting premises.

Most importantly, the object focused upon in relation to deciding what is critical and what is not has to be of critical importance in relation to individual subjectivity and collective objectivity - how the collective 'sees' the objective and goes about getting there.

Your attempt to convey concepts here is, at best, extremely difficult to understand in the first place, let alone in relation to the commonly accepted usage of critical thinking, much as the attempts that I've made to decipher it seem to all point at you trying to emphasize irrelevant things to critical thinking. If it's important to you, you could try to restate it in a clearer manner.

As example of critical thinking in response to one recent item of data off the net...

New Zealand pastor blames gays for earthquakes

How do I approach this event critically?

I ask myself.

Q: Is this critical in relation to the objective?

A: No.

Which objective? In what way would "critical" apply? Even beyond that, this seems to be a very, very loose way to start.

Q: Why not?

A: Because it is petty. It lacks substance and can be understood to be a symptom of the situation.

Yeah, this seems like a very, very poor way to start. A notably better way to specifically start would be to identify what the actual argument being made and the premises of the argument, then evaluate those.

The actual argument, for example, seems to come down to "God is causing the earthquakes specifically as punishment for of the sin of homosexuality."

A few of the premises where that statement is in notable dispute by various groups are, for example -

- A god exists.
- That particular person's word on the matter is sufficient to accept the claim, given that his justification and reasoning seems largely unstated. It could be added in addition to that, here, based on various similar cases, it seems very likely to be extremely untrustworthy.
- Homosexuality is a sin.
- That "God" pointedly engages in causing indiscriminate disasters to punish groups for the sins of a few members of that group, harming both faithful and unfaithful.

Quite a few more could be pointed out, but that's enough to make the point I think. That it's "petty" or "lacks substance" comes after or as part of the evaluation of the identified premises.

By that I mean to say, I understand the pastors beliefs but they are not critical to the situation as they offer no direct human made solution.

Whether there is or is not a direct human made solution would be and is entirely and completely irrelevant when what's in question is identifying a cause. Furthermore, you are very obviously wrong, given that if the problem is God punishing a group for some among them committing acts of homosexuality, there are several fairly obvious potential human solutions, depending on the "God" in question. Stopping the acts of homosexuality, banishing the sinners, and punishing or killing the sinners would all be direct potential solutions employable by the people.

It is simply an opinion, but one which contributes to the threat against solution.

So it is not discarded either. It still affects the critical.

It certainly deserves to be treated as an unsubstantiated opinion, yes, but the rest of this is nonsense. As was just noted, providing a solution is entirely irrelevant when the claim at hand is simply claiming to identify the root problem in the first place.

Q: What else do i know about the pastor?

A: He is influenced by Christian morality. It is also and Islamic morality as well, as can be seen on the net.
Also the pastor is of Maori decent and thus will carry those traditions of belief with him in some way...related to the god of the Earth and her being a living conscious entity.

Of note, there is distinctly limited usage in judging claims based on the one who's made the claim. It's certainly not useless, but all of the relevant information that can be obtained will be indirect and reflect solely on the general credibility of the person, rather than directly on whether the specific claim is credible.


Q: How do I reconcile that with the critical objective when the two seem to be poles apart?

A: I cannot easily but am working on finding ways. All I can do is remain focused upon the critical objective and try to reason with anybody as to why they would be best to do the same...once of course we all agree on what that objective is.

Quite seriously, what is there to actually reconcile in the first place here?

When evaluating a particular claim, like in this example, evaluating that particular claim is the only thing that should be of real importance, not evaluating lots of other tangential or irrelevant claims and trying to twist them into relevance.


Q: Is that which can be criticized therefore in opposition to the critical objective?

A: Yes - but that does not mean of course that it will overcome the critical objective.

If I'm interpreting this correctly, this seems like a really awkward way to say that reason to doubt is not the same as reason to conclude a particular thing, which is true.

Reason to doubt is still reason to doubt, though, and especially so when a claimant is unable to provide anything more substantial than "it's possible" because it's unfalsifiable.


Q: Is there a funny side to any of this?

A: Well I was wondering if the pastor meant that the two plates which were rubbing together were both male...I thought that was funny anyhoo...

This is not really critical thinking. It is somewhat amusing, though.

Do you agree with my interpretation of critical thinking processes. There is a seat at my table.

As has been pointed out already in this post, no, I certainly do not agree with your interpretation or practice of "critical thinking." Hopefully, though, you'll learn a little, or at least be able to make a coherent and relevant response to communicate in what ways you think that I'm mistaken.
 
Last edited:
Q: Is this critical in relation to the objective?

I don't understand the question, but it doesn't seem related to my understanding of critical thinking.

Critical thinking is related to the analysis of information and arguments and largely revolves around concepts such as validity and soundness, cognitive biases, and formal and informal fallacies. At least that's what my lectures for that module were about.

If we started with "New Zealand pastor blames gays for earthquakes" we might begin by considering the evidence for whether any such pastor said that. We would consider whether this is at face value a reasonable concept, and then delve into the specifics of what was said and the validity or soundness of any arguments contained within.

I have no idea what you mean by a "critical objective" or what it would mean to overcome it.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much the same as I have offered in my opening post.

CT is not just about the focus on one particular subject/discipline. If one is unable to include all aspects of any given subject in relation to everything else, you are not applying CT to the fullest extent.

Indeed, CT properly used, should do away with belief altogether as something surplus to requirement.

It should also argue against the use of words which are used habitually interchangeably such as 'belief' and 'know'. :)

Have you abandoned your other thread in CT to start another go-nowhere pseudo-intellectual cluster?

Out of respect for the MA I'll not go too far with this, but there was a pretty decent hardcore punk band back in the day who was named for the group activity that best describes your current threads.
 
I don't understand the question, but it doesn't seem related to my understanding of critical thinking.

Critical thinking is related to the analysis of information and arguments and largely revolves around concepts such as validity and soundness, cognitive biases, and formal and informal fallacies. At least that's what my lectures for that module were about.

If we started with "New Zealand pastor blames gays for earthquakes" we might begin by considering the evidence for whether any such pastor said that. We would consider whether this is at face value a reasonable concept, and then delve into the specifics of what was said and the validity or soundness of any arguments contained within.

I have no idea what you mean by a "critical objective" or what it would mean to overcome it.
I can't say for sure, but it seems to me that our proponent is defining critical thinking in much the same way as a film critic, that is, as a film critic makes a critical review of a given film based on subjectivity, preference and taste, so a critical thinker is operating on the very same principles, criticising a given idea or notion on the basis of subjectivity, preference and taste.

I could be wrong, but that is how it appears.

It remains for the proponent to clarify what exactly it might be that they think "critical thinking" actually is. Absent such clarification, we are simply left guessing what it might be intended to mean or be interpreted as.
 
When the OP says something like "I understand the pastors beliefs but they are not critical to the situation as they offer no direct human made solution" then it appears that they mean critical in the sense of being or relating to an illness or condition involving danger of death as opposed to meaning exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/critical?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld)

Hence fallacy of equivocation, the OP is arguing against "critical thinking" by using a meaning (or meanings) of the word "critical" that isn't germane to the phrase "critical thinking", which involves a different meaning of the word "critical".
 
Last edited:
Thinking is the tip of the iceberg that we see above the water line. The iceberg includes all functions of the human brain; thinking is what we're aware of.

Critical means ... important, crucial, relevant, germane, on point, apropos ... and what is critical depends upon context. How useful is a given detail, in terms of solving a problem or predicting an outcome.

All things being equal, whether the overnight low temperature is 35 degrees or 40 degrees Fahrenheit (say, 2 to 5 degrees Celsius) is somewhat important in deciding what clothes to wear.

But knowing it will be 32F or 0 Celsius is critical to driving safely or preserving plant life. You will feel only little bit colder, but water will freeze, forming ice on roads and possibly killing many plants.

I guess to make it more abstract, basically you are taking a variety of inputs and sorting them out, based on what you know, separating the strands into those of greater and lesser impact, always questioning whether your background knowledge and your tools of reason are valid.

^This.

It is reasonable to determine what is involved in actual Critical Thinking rather than what subject matter is or isn't worthy of the effort.

The thing being, no subject should be outside the influence of Critical Thinking Processes and all subject should be inclusive to actual Critical Thinking rather than something less than that, parading as the real thing.

Thus, the OP subject. 'What is Critical Thinking?' As a subject in itself, Critical Thinking need be applied in order to get to the heart of the matter in relation to the answer to that question.
 
Critical Thinking.

This implies that there are thoughts which are not critical, and thus should be categorized as such and then discarded as relevant to anything critical.

Open of course to subjective interpretation, but by and large the subjective can be criticized through the process of show and tell (evidence).

Most importantly, the object focused upon in relation to deciding what is critical and what is not has to be of critical importance in relation to individual subjectivity and collective objectivity - how the collective 'sees' the objective and goes about getting there.

As example of critical thinking in response to one recent item of data off the net...

New Zealand pastor blames gays for earthquakes

How do I approach this event critically?

I ask myself.

Q: Is this critical in relation to the objective?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: Because it is petty. It lacks substance and can be understood to be a symptom of the situation.
By that I mean to say, I understand the pastors beliefs but they are not critical to the situation as they offer no direct human made solution. It is simply an opinion, but one which contributes to the threat against solution.

So it is not discarded either. It still affects the critical.

Q: What else do i know about the pastor?

A: He is influenced by Christian morality. It is also and Islamic morality as well, as can be seen on the net.
Also the pastor is of Maori decent and thus will carry those traditions of belief with him in some way...related to the god of the Earth and her being a living conscious entity.

This of course has all transferred to the G-d of Abraham - probably the most influential phantom of the whole planet.

Q: How do I reconcile that with the critical objective when the two seem to be poles apart?

A: I cannot easily but am working on finding ways. All I can do is remain focused upon the critical objective and try to reason with anybody as to why they would be best to do the same...once of course we all agree on what that objective is.

Q: Is that which can be criticized therefore in opposition to the critical objective?

A: Yes - but that does not mean of course that it will overcome the critical objective.

Q: Is there a funny side to any of this?

A: Well I was wondering if the pastor meant that the two plates which were rubbing together were both male...I thought that was funny anyhoo...

Do you agree with my interpretation of critical thinking processes. There is a seat at my table.

Critical thinking can also be surmising why to good pastor does this. I suggest he is so blinded by his prejudices that he is simply willing to ascribe anything bad to homosexuals, without any logic or common sense involved.

Hans

ETA, as for a seat at your table, what are you serving?
 
Last edited:
Which objective? In what way would "critical" apply? Even beyond that, this seems to be a very, very loose way to start.

Critical Thinking can be applied to any subject but overall there is little use for it if it cannot be applied to the direction human beings are currently going as a species. Therefore the overall import of Critical Thinking has to have to do with that objective, for without that, it remains only criticism... just another tool for segregation.

The idea is that Critical Thinking is crucial to that objective otherwise it is simply mundane criticism involved in the separate postures of human disagreements.


The example I chose as one subject is to take that as one such separate posture and move that through a series of questions in order to evaluate through Critical Thinking...


Whether there is or is not a direct human made solution would be and is entirely and completely irrelevant when what's in question is identifying a cause.

There is no point in critical thinking if solution is not the objective. Finding solution is an extremely good reason for using Critical Thinking Processes.

Even if the solution is not accepted by the separatist groups does not mean that Critical Thinking is therefore pointless...objectives which cannot be reached due to the separatism do not in themselves render Critical Thinking objectives somehow besides the point.



Furthermore, you are very obviously wrong, given that if the problem is God punishing a group for some among them committing acts of homosexuality, there are several fairly obvious potential human solutions, depending on the "God" in question. Stopping the acts of homosexuality, banishing the sinners, and punishing or killing the sinners would all be direct potential solutions employable by the people.



It certainly deserves to be treated as an unsubstantiated opinion, yes, but the rest of this is nonsense. As was just noted, providing a solution is entirely irrelevant when the claim at hand is simply claiming to identify the root problem in the first place.

To be fair, it has to be recognized that correct Critical Thinking can and will offer solution but that does not mean that the solution will be acceptable in relation to the root problem. This does not mean therefore that Critical Thinking is at fault or needs to be abandoned.

What it does mean is that the refusal to acknowledge the problem source BY the problem source in relation to Critical Thinking show that the problem source is that way because of the lack of Critical Thinking on the part of the problem source.

Since the particular subject involves the variable you mention in more detail, one can ascertain through the process of Critical Thinking that it is a waste of time, effort, energy etc to even argue with such folk regarding their belief systems - especially when in doing so, all that happens is that such activity increases the likelihood of resistance and strengthens resolve of the believer through such reasoning as "persecution complex".

This is where criticism becomes the focus rather than actual Critical Thinking...one is confused for the other as it were.


Of note, there is distinctly limited usage in judging claims based on the one who's made the claim. It's certainly not useless, but all of the relevant information that can be obtained will be indirect and reflect solely on the general credibility of the person, rather than directly on whether the specific claim is credible.

It is still a crucial aspect of Critical Thinking as a tool to develop better understanding to sort the relevant data accordingly.
To understand something is not in itself agreeing with whatever that something is.

Understanding does however offer an open door to any reconciling which - given the chance - may occur as a result.

In the case of this pastor, I understand his position. I do not however, agree with his position, but the more data I can find related to that position, the better I am able to understand and react according to Critical Thinking (not criticism).

It is important therefore, to understand the Maori aspect in relation to beliefs because it is culturally accepted that the earth is a living entity and thus easier to believe that an earthquake is an intelligent entities judgment and penalty.

That my personal bias might think this reasoning to be absurd is besides the point and a potential stumbling block to finding solution as is the real objective of Critical Thinking Processes.


Quite seriously, what is there to actually reconcile in the first place here?

When evaluating a particular claim, like in this example, evaluating that particular claim is the only thing that should be of real importance, not evaluating lots of other tangential or irrelevant claims and trying to twist them into relevance.

Critical Thinking Processes have to include all things relevent. That I think a persons beliefs systems are irrelevant is besides the point because the beliefs are relevant to the person and thus, that fact has to be included in the process of Critical Thinking. Otherwise, as I have pointed out, it simply becomes criticism - which is different.

Indeed, if we look at the pastors opinion, we can see plainly that it is about criticism rather than Critical Thinking. Thus, to reply with the same, we are not using Critical Thinking, but rather, we are just being critical, same as that which we criticize as being criticism (be that based in bias, belief, bigotry, ect et al) and we get nowhere because the objective is only that and no more and so accomplishes nothing other than feeding the same beast, so to speak.


If I'm interpreting this correctly, this seems like a really awkward way to say that reason to doubt is not the same as reason to conclude a particular thing, which is true.

Reason to doubt is still reason to doubt, though, and especially so when a claimant is unable to provide anything more substantial than "it's possible" because it's unfalsifiable.

What I said was;
Q: Is that which can be criticized therefore in opposition to the critical objective?

A: Yes - but that does not mean of course that it will overcome the critical objective.


The critical objective is to find solution (to all problems) therefore anything in opposition to that main objective (the natural course of actual Critical Thinking Processes) is not a product of Critical Thinking (but only criticism) and works against the main objective but will not overcome or otherwise prevent that main objective from happening.

This was of course - in the context of self questions and self answers and my understanding of what the main objective of Critical Thinking is.

It is my understanding that there must be an element of humanity which has already got its **** together and dropped the criticism in favor of Critical Thinking Processes, and are in the process of finding solution. One cannot be too cynical in relation to that being a possibility.



This is not really critical thinking. It is somewhat amusing, though.

It is very important that humor is seen to be naturally enough part of the Critical Thinking Process. NOT taking ourselves too seriously.
Because humans have essentially been in the position of making things up as we go along and so yes, we have, and are continuing to make mistakes and it is essential to acknowledge that and humor is the best way forward through that...otherwise egos will forbid us from acknowledging stupidity whilst we continue to be blind to it - humor offers levity as the balance in all things taken seriously...and the way forward, eyes wide open.





As has been pointed out already in this post, no, I certainly do not agree with your interpretation or practice of "critical thinking." Hopefully, though, you'll learn a little, or at least be able to make a coherent and relevant response to communicate in what ways you think that I'm mistaken.

Well I regard that as more a criticism than an expression of Critical Thinking but lets us see if my reply here can help change the way you respond next.
 
Critical thinking can also be surmising why to good pastor does this. I suggest he is so blinded by his prejudices that he is simply willing to ascribe anything bad to homosexuals, without any logic or common sense involved.

This observation has to be agreed with by anyone using actual Critical Thinking Processes.

However, it has to be acknowledged also that the pastor believes he is being both logical and using common sense.

In doing so, possible practical solution can be discussed. How is one to convince the pastor that he is mistaken in his logic and common sense?
How important is that in relation to everything else going on. over in and on the planet?
iow "is it worth the time and effort?" and if not, then why bother with it at all, even to waste time criticizing it? iow is there something more productive we can do with that time?

Point being, some amount of time needs to be given for actual Critical Thinking Processes in order to even answer these questions adequately/truthfully because therein is the next step of direction in the path.

A clear example of that would be a change in the way the forum is presently used, especially in relation to CTers and radical religious belief systems...how much of it is a waste of time criticizing, how many 'hits' of successful accounts of changing those type of minds have occurred here and to what degree are the members motivated in the clarity of Critical Thinking Processes rather than simply being lead by the addiction of criticizing and its accompanying false feelings of superiority and one-up-man-ship?

ETA, as for a seat at your table, what are you serving?

A chair and an opportunity for mature reasoning and response as if indeed we were actually at a table! ...lets make it a round one yes? :)
 
This observation has to be agreed with by anyone using actual Critical Thinking Processes.

However, it has to be acknowledged also that the pastor believes he is being both logical and using common sense.

In doing so, possible practical solution can be discussed. How is one to convince the pastor that he is mistaken in his logic and common sense?
How important is that in relation to everything else going on. over in and on the planet?
iow "is it worth the time and effort?" and if not, then why bother with it at all, even to waste time criticizing it? iow is there something more productive we can do with that time?

Point being, some amount of time needs to be given for actual Critical Thinking Processes in order to even answer these questions adequately/truthfully because therein is the next step of direction in the path.

A clear example of that would be a change in the way the forum is presently used, especially in relation to CTers and radical religious belief systems...how much of it is a waste of time criticizing, how many 'hits' of successful accounts of changing those type of minds have occurred here and to what degree are the members motivated in the clarity of Critical Thinking Processes rather than simply being lead by the addiction of criticizing and its accompanying false feelings of superiority and one-up-man-ship?



A chair and an opportunity for mature reasoning and response as if indeed we were actually at a table! ...lets make it a round one yes? :)

Ho Lee <bleep>.

Your proposal is that "critical thinking" is bad for your particular premise, therefore "critical thinking" should be abandoned so that your particular brand of woo get's a pass without examination.

And you somehow think that is being "open minded".
 
Critical Thinking can be applied to any subject but overall there is little use for it if it cannot be applied to the direction human beings are currently going as a species.

This is completely off base. Critical thinking deals, first and foremost, with the validity and soundness of what's in question. Talking about the direction that human beings are currently going as a species points at you deeply misunderstanding the nature and purpose.

Therefore the overall import of Critical Thinking has to have to do with that objective, for without that, it remains only criticism... just another tool for segregation.

You say that like segregation and acknowledging that things do have differences in reality is inherently bad and untrue, a position that you've referenced repeatedly in a number of threads and utterly failed to defend in any way that I've seen. It's to the point where I may as well ask why, exactly, you have a problem with being able to distinguish and acknowledge the differences between a tuna fish and a campfire and that they are not the same thing, even if they are parts of the same larger reality?

Critical thinking is meant to objectively help distinguish how strong, trustworthy, or useful an argument or claim is. It is unmistakably a tool for segregation... and that's a good thing.

The idea is that Critical Thinking is crucial to that objective otherwise it is simply mundane criticism involved in the separate postures of human disagreements.

Being able to neutrally assess the quality, usefulness, and meaningfulness of the arguments and claims presented does tend to be quite useful to actually achieving whichever objective, though. Your complaint here is analogous to the Creationist argument about how the Theory of Biological Evolution doesn't answer where life began as an attempt to dispute the validity of the theory itself. It's entirely irrelevant in the first place and thus completely off base as a basis to argue against it.

The example I chose as one subject is to take that as one such separate posture and move that through a series of questions in order to evaluate through Critical Thinking...

And the result of your attempt to redefine the nature of critical thinking was? Going by your example, it was nothing more than an entirely inconclusive exercise in futility, from which little to nothing of value to the subject could be meaningfully addressed.


There is no point in critical thinking if solution is not the objective. Finding solution is an extremely good reason for using Critical Thinking Processes.

Heh. If you're trying this here, aren't you arrogantly ignoring that solutions can be simply finding the answer to a mystery, however slight that mystery may be? Not all solutions are courses of action to solve problems of behavior, after all.

Even if the solution is not accepted by the separatist groups does not mean that Critical Thinking is therefore pointless...

That you even try to implicitly condemn mysterious "separatist groups" for supposed crimes is a mark of your credibility, quite frankly. Very simply, from what you claimed, you demonstrated that 1) you're trying to make up a new, personal version of critical thinking and 2) that the version that you're trying to push is largely worthless, poorly thought through, and completely undeserving of being described as critical thinking, even in the version of critical that you're trying to redefine it to use.

objectives which cannot be reached due to the separatism do not in themselves render Critical Thinking objectives somehow besides the point.

Of course. That has nothing to do with the actual points and objections made, though.


To be fair, it has to be recognized that correct Critical Thinking can and will offer solution but that does not mean that the solution will be acceptable in relation to the root problem. This does not mean therefore that Critical Thinking is at fault or needs to be abandoned.

It sounds more than a little like you want to be talking about something notably closer to lateral thinking than critical thinking, by this point. Critical Thinking is inherently not about producing solutions. Period. It's about analyzing and evaluating the merits and flaws of proposed things in an objective manner. Trying to demand that it include things that are notably outside its scope from the start is little more than an effort to break it and remove its value, regardless of whether it's witting or unwitting. Just like science cannot and does not provide answers to unfalsifiable propositions and demanding that it do so would require significantly deviating from it in spirit and principle.


What it does mean is that the refusal to acknowledge the problem source BY the problem source in relation to Critical Thinking show that the problem source is that way because of the lack of Critical Thinking on the part of the problem source.

Since the particular subject involves the variable you mention in more detail, one can ascertain through the process of Critical Thinking that it is a waste of time, effort, energy etc to even argue with such folk regarding their belief systems - especially when in doing so, all that happens is that such activity increases the likelihood of resistance and strengthens resolve of the believer through such reasoning as "persecution complex".

This is where criticism becomes the focus rather than actual Critical Thinking...one is confused for the other as it were.

To be clear, are you really just trying to argue that "Because a person did not use a particular tool that they didn't feel like using or used it poorly, we should change the tool entirely for everyone in hopes that maybe, just maybe, that person would use the new form?" If so, I quite firmly oppose your sentiments. A damp sponge is generally dramatically better a tool to clean up spilled milk than a hammer and fairly useless at beating a nail into a wooden board compared to a hammer. Given the nature of the tasks, changing the damp sponge into a different tool that's better at beating nails into a wooden board will fairly certainly make it much worse at cleaning up spilled milk. Tools have their place and proper usage and trying to change how they work in a dramatic fashion because some people chose not to use them in the first place or to misuse them can only rarely be made into a compelling case.


It is still a crucial aspect of Critical Thinking as a tool to develop better understanding to sort the relevant data accordingly.
To understand something is not in itself agreeing with whatever that something is.

Sure, understanding is important, in general, and is not in itself agreement with whatever thing is receiving attention. That, I will agree with. That doesn't make all tangentially related information directly relevant to things. The claim itself is "separate" from the claimant. Understanding the claimant can only give background about the context that the claim was made in. This background information adds to the picture, sure, but it can only be of direct value when the claim is about that information anyways. "I am a millionaire" would be a claim where that information would be relevant in determining whether it should be believed. "This red ball will fit through this blue hole" would be a claim where the background information about the speaker is of no direct merit in evaluating it, outside of helping to roughly establish how generally credible they are.

Understanding does however offer an open door to any reconciling which - given the chance - may occur as a result.

In the case of this pastor, I understand his position. I do not however, agree with his position, but the more data I can find related to that position, the better I am able to understand and react according to Critical Thinking (not criticism).

It is important therefore, to understand the Maori aspect in relation to beliefs because it is culturally accepted that the earth is a living entity and thus easier to believe that an earthquake is an intelligent entities judgment and penalty.

That my personal bias might think this reasoning to be absurd is besides the point and a potential stumbling block to finding solution as is the real objective of Critical Thinking Processes.

And if we're talking about a Christian version of their god, whether the earth is a living entity or not is largely irrelevant compared to the part where it has sufficient power to do so. Understanding where a person's coming from is good practice in general, but is not part of critical thinking, which is specifically about objectively analyzing and evaluating the claims and arguments in question. Combining both of those can make for a notable improvement when trying to figure out ways to persuade a person to think more objectively, which is a notably different thing than applying critical thinking to evaluate something for oneself.


Critical Thinking Processes have to include all things relevent. That I think a persons beliefs systems are irrelevant is besides the point because the beliefs are relevant to the person and thus, that fact has to be included in the process of Critical Thinking. Otherwise, as I have pointed out, it simply becomes criticism - which is different.

Criticism is different, true, in that criticism is not required to be objective or even relevant to qualify as "criticism" and is generally considered to be negative. Critical thinking, as has been pointed out multiple times, deals with objectively analyzing and evaluating things and is generally considered to be neutral. Critical thinking is far more about testing in concept than it is about claiming that something's wrong.

What I said was;
Q: Is that which can be criticized therefore in opposition to the critical objective?

A: Yes - but that does not mean of course that it will overcome the critical objective.


The critical objective is to find solution (to all problems) therefore anything in opposition to that main objective (the natural course of actual Critical Thinking Processes) is not a product of Critical Thinking (but only criticism) and works against the main objective but will not overcome or otherwise prevent that main objective from happening.

This was of course - in the context of self questions and self answers and my understanding of what the main objective of Critical Thinking is.

Your understanding about the main objective of critical thinking is fairly clearly wrong, then, as has been pointed out. Trying to specifically find solutions to problems is a good thing, yes, it's just not what critical thinking deals with directly. Rather, critical thinking helps separate better solutions from worse and irrelevant/useless ones in that context. It has an important role, but is not the totality of the process.

It is very important that humor is seen to be naturally enough part of the Critical Thinking Process. NOT taking ourselves too seriously.
Because humans have essentially been in the position of making things up as we go along and so yes, we have, and are continuing to make mistakes and it is essential to acknowledge that and humor is the best way forward through that...otherwise egos will forbid us from acknowledging stupidity whilst we continue to be blind to it - humor offers levity as the balance in all things taken seriously...and the way forward, eyes wide open.

I quite disagree here. Humor certainly has its place and uses, but not in any objective assessment. It can certainly be used in the communication and understanding of the results of an objective assessment, but not the assessment itself, thus, it has no place in critical thinking.

Well I regard that as more a criticism than an expression of Critical Thinking but lets us see if my reply here can help change the way you respond next.

The quoted itself was actually not really criticism, though. Rather, it simply expressed disagreement and referred to points made elsewhere. Criticism refers to the actual reasons for dispute, good or bad. As for the increased focus on persuasiveness that you seem to be advocating in general, some general advice for anyone seeking to do so is "Pay attention to your audience."
 
Last edited:
Critical thinking, what it is really, for laymen

Think of an opinion or belief you have. Now imagine you are wrong about it. I know you don't think you're wrong about it, but bear with me. Imagine you're wrong.

Now take your being wrong to its logical conclusion. How could you tell? The world isn't going to be any different just because you're wrong, so what would be right instead? If you're wrong about this, what else are you wrong about? Is there a basic assumption underlying it all that would be the thing you'd really have to be wrong about, to be wrong about this downstream conclusion?

There's a lot more to critical thinking but this is the core of it all: the willingness to inspect and test one's own belief structure.
 
This observation has to be agreed with by anyone using actual Critical Thinking Processes.

However, it has to be acknowledged also that the pastor believes he is being both logical and using common sense.

Well, I can't count the number of people I have met on the internet who believed that about themselves, but were, to all sensible appearances, wrong.

In doing so, possible practical solution can be discussed. How is one to convince the pastor that he is mistaken in his logic and common sense?

In my experience, changing the mind of such people is very nearly impossible.

How important is that in relation to everything else going on. over in and on the planet?

iow "is it worth the time and effort?" and if not, then why bother with it at all, even to waste time criticizing it? iow is there something more productive we can do with that time?

It is always important to counter irrational claims, at least when they are pressed on other people. Even if you cannot convince the person in question, you can provide for a counterpoint by which others may better form their own opinion. IOW, while we may not convince the pastor, we might keep him from convincing others.

Point being, some amount of time needs to be given for actual Critical Thinking Processes in order to even answer these questions adequately/truthfully because therein is the next step of direction in the path.

Critical thinking is always worth the time it takes.

A clear example of that would be a change in the way the forum is presently used, especially in relation to CTers and radical religious belief systems...how much of it is a waste of time criticizing, how many 'hits' of successful accounts of changing those type of minds have occurred here and to what degree are the members motivated in the clarity of Critical Thinking Processes rather than simply being lead by the addiction of criticizing and its accompanying false feelings of superiority and one-up-man-ship?

It is always important to maintain objectivity. While the individual CTer or other radical believer may not be worth the time, the process of making sure that objectivity is available is.

A chair and an opportunity for mature reasoning and response as if indeed we were actually at a table! ...lets make it a round one yes? :)

Well, I believe I am already engaged in mature reasoning. You are, of course, welcome to challenge me. As for a chair, I appreciate the offer, but I find nothing wrong with the chair I already have.

Hans
 
This is completely off base. Critical thinking deals, first and foremost, with the validity and soundness of what's in question. Talking about the direction that human beings are currently going as a species points at you deeply misunderstanding the nature and purpose.

Okay so you are saying that critical thinking is not something which can be applied to the direction humanity is going in.


You say that like segregation and acknowledging that things do have differences in reality is inherently bad and untrue, a position that you've referenced repeatedly in a number of threads and utterly failed to defend in any way that I've seen. It's to the point where I may as well ask why, exactly, you have a problem with being able to distinguish and acknowledge the differences between a tuna fish and a campfire and that they are not the same thing, even if they are parts of the same larger reality?

Your statement there isn't actually applying critical thinking as part of your thinking processes in relation to it be useful as a tool to not only acknowledge segregation but to understand it and through understanding it, find ways in which to - at the very least, avoid contributing to it.

Critical thinking is meant to objectively help distinguish how strong, trustworthy, or useful an argument or claim is. It is unmistakably a tool for segregation... and that's a good thing.

Aside from the fact that critical thinking can be used for far broader things, discriminating against good over bad arguments should only segregate one from contributing to the bad. If it does not, then it is not critical thinking.

Hypocrisy, for example, is bad. For example, criticizing a religious practice which involves support of disparity, whilst ignoring a political system which also involves support of disparity does not actually involve critical thinking processes, because it is hypocrisy.

Being able to neutrally assess the quality, usefulness, and meaningfulness of the arguments and claims presented does tend to be quite useful to actually achieving whichever objective, though. Your complaint here is analogous to the Creationist argument about how the Theory of Biological Evolution doesn't answer where life began as an attempt to dispute the validity of the theory itself. It's entirely irrelevant in the first place and thus completely off base as a basis to argue against it.

How are usefulness and meaningfulness determined through being neutral?

And the result of your attempt to redefine the nature of critical thinking was?

Excuse me? What has that statement to do with my own?

I said:

The example (the pastors claims) I chose as one subject is to take that as one such separate posture and move that through a series of questions in order to evaluate through Critical Thinking...

Going by your example, it was nothing more than an entirely inconclusive exercise in futility, from which little to nothing of value to the subject could be meaningfully addressed.

According to you who obviously have a different understanding of what critical thinking is about. You prefer being critical in your thinking (and subsequently are of the opinion that critical thinking is only about criticism) and see nothing crucial in the other points that I made in relation to the pastor.

How are you supposed to understand anyone if you cannot bridge that gap? Why do you suppose that understanding others (no matter if you agree with them or not) is something which (your version of) critical thinking can do without?

Heh. If you're trying this here, aren't you arrogantly ignoring that solutions can be simply finding the answer to a mystery, however slight that mystery may be? Not all solutions are courses of action to solve problems of behavior, after all.

My example in this case is one of human behavior. Obviously my focus is on critical thinking in relation to understanding human behavior. I haven't claimed that critical thinking cannot be applied to other things as well. so don't see the relevance in your statement there. It seems to say nothing at all in answer to what I said, which was:

There is no point in critical thinking if solution is not the objective. Finding solution is an extremely good reason for using Critical Thinking Processes.

'Solution' (not just ones involving human behavior) was the key word in that sentence.

That you even try to implicitly condemn mysterious "separatist groups" for supposed crimes is a mark of your credibility, quite frankly.

What the **** are you talking about? What I said was this;

Even if the solution is not accepted by the separatist groups does not mean that Critical Thinking is therefore pointless...

Let me break that down for you as example.

You have the opportunity to speak with this pastor (who represents a group) and using critical thinking correctly you point out the obvious flaws in his beliefs but also acknowledge that you understand where he is coming from and why where he is coming from is not conducive to good.

The pastor in turn responds with criticism, and an obvious lack in understanding or even the need to want to understand your position, and simply finds something to fault you with as a way of not having to bother trying to see how you see things.

This does not of itself signify that Critical Thinking is therefore pointless...



Very simply, from what you claimed, you demonstrated that 1) you're trying to make up a new, personal version of critical thinking and 2) that the version that you're trying to push is largely worthless, poorly thought through, and completely undeserving of being described as critical thinking, even in the version of critical that you're trying to redefine it to use.

While that is obviously very harsh criticism on your part, you forget even the name of the thread.

"Critical Thinking. What is it really?"

So you are arguing really that critical thinking is just plain old everyday criticism. That's it.

So of course, assuming you are correct about that, critical thinking is therefore nothing useful for anything other than as a tool for supporting intentional segregation.

Therefore, I am mistaken in what I think actual critical thinking is, and am actually talking about something quite different from that.

I am talking about crucial thinking.

The difference then, between critical thinking and crucial thinking, can be likened to the difference between gossip and knowledge.

And since thinking propels expression/action, then the expressions/actions of critical thinkers are going to be noticeably different from the expression/action of crucial thinkers.

That explains a lot.






It sounds more than a little like you want to be talking about something notably closer to lateral thinking than critical thinking, by this point. Critical Thinking is inherently not about producing solutions. Period. It's about analyzing and evaluating the merits and flaws of proposed things in an objective manner.

Oxymoron

Trying to demand that it include things that are notably outside its scope from the start is little more than an effort to break it and remove its value, regardless of whether it's witting or unwitting.

Its 'value' is not crucial. No more crucial of value than gossip.

Just like science cannot and does not provide answers to unfalsifiable propositions and demanding that it do so would require significantly deviating from it in spirit and principle.

Oh - there is no point in demanding anything from critical thinkers. They do not think critically for the purpose of anything crucial. That explains the arguments between such factions as theism and atheism. The arguments are not crucial. They serve at best as instruments designed to relieve bordom and are addictive at that.




To be clear, are you really just trying to argue that "Because a person did not use a particular tool that they didn't feel like using or used it poorly, we should change the tool entirely for everyone in hopes that maybe, just maybe, that person would use the new form?"

Eliminate non crucial thought (and its accompanying behaviors) in favor of an agree upon crucial outcome. Sounds smart and worthwhile thinking about possibly doing. Yep.


If so, I quite firmly oppose your sentiments.

That is quite understandable. You do not strike me as someone who cares about anything crucial and have in relation to me always being critical...but now I understand far better why that is.

Perhaps the understanding might serve to change the way we both behave toward one another.


A damp sponge is generally dramatically better a tool to clean up spilled milk than a hammer and fairly useless at beating a nail into a wooden board compared to a hammer. Given the nature of the tasks, changing the damp sponge into a different tool that's better at beating nails into a wooden board will fairly certainly make it much worse at cleaning up spilled milk. Tools have their place and proper usage and trying to change how they work in a dramatic fashion because some people chose not to use them in the first place or to misuse them can only rarely be made into a compelling case.

Gotcha. Your efforts to help me understand are well appreciated Aridas. I am now educated as to what critical thinking is about. Thank you for that. Your focus is the critical and mine is the crucial. We might as well be on different planets, but since that in not the case, at least with this clearer understanding I can appreciate WHY so many members here are into critical thinking and WHAT that actually means.

This is crucial information.


Sure, understanding is important, in general, and is not in itself agreement with whatever thing is receiving attention. That, I will agree with. That doesn't make all tangentially related information directly relevant to things. The claim itself is "separate" from the claimant. Understanding the claimant can only give background about the context that the claim was made in. This background information adds to the picture, sure, but it can only be of direct value when the claim is about that information anyways. "I am a millionaire" would be a claim where that information would be relevant in determining whether it should be believed. "This red ball will fit through this blue hole" would be a claim where the background information about the speaker is of no direct merit in evaluating it, outside of helping to roughly establish how generally credible they are.

Is the above an example of critical thinking or does it belong in the more crucial 'lateral thinking dept.?

And if we're talking about a Christian version of their god, whether the earth is a living entity or not is largely irrelevant compared to the part where it has sufficient power to do so. Understanding where a person's coming from is good practice in general, but is not part of critical thinking, which is specifically about objectively analyzing and evaluating the claims and arguments in question. Combining both of those can make for a notable improvement when trying to figure out ways to persuade a person to think more objectively, which is a notably different thing than applying critical thinking to evaluate something for oneself.

Yep - as I said, thanks for the lesson here. I asked (in the thread title), gave my own understanding, argued with some of the counter arguments, and am now been informed that critical thinking is not as I understood it nor what I am arguing for...


Criticism is different, true, in that criticism is not required to be objective or even relevant to qualify as "criticism" and is generally considered to be negative. Critical thinking, as has been pointed out multiple times, deals with objectively analyzing and evaluating things and is generally considered to be neutral. Critical thinking is far more about testing in concept than it is about claiming that something's wrong.

Gotcha.

Your understanding about the main objective of critical thinking is fairly clearly wrong, then, as has been pointed out. Trying to specifically find solutions to problems is a good thing, yes, it's just not what critical thinking deals with directly. Rather, critical thinking helps separate better solutions from worse and irrelevant/useless ones in that context. It has an important role, but is not the totality of the process.

So then, I am not altogether incorrect in regards to my understanding of critical thinking processes, but only in that I have identified it as THE process when it is really only PART of that process (= to understand and to find solutions) - it has its place, but is not of itself all that is involved with crucial thinking processes.

As such, as PART of that process, it is crucial, but on its own, not and never can be, crucial at all


I quite disagree here. Humor certainly has its place and uses, but not in any objective assessment.

Perhaps not in any neutral objective assessment. But I doubt that there is such a thing.
Emotion (which is where humor, derives) is simply part of the deal. Subjectivity always rules over the objective because the objective does not THINK, it merely/amazingly exists.


It can certainly be used in the communication and understanding of the results of an objective assessment, but not the assessment itself, thus, it has no place in critical thinking.

Critical thinking on its own, seems a pointless enough device. Pointless as in, non crucial to anything relative (subjective within objective) . It only derives its crucial-ness in congregate with other forms of thinking which ARE crucial, (even, perhaps, on their own).
As such critical thinking is not really able to be used on its own and must be used in conjunction with other types of thinking. Even as you claim, it is a tool specific to segregation, it cannot be segregated from other forms of thinking and, by that, shown to be of any crucial use. It does not stand on its own merits. It requires other types of thinking as well.

The quoted itself was actually not really criticism, though. Rather, it simply expressed disagreement and referred to points made elsewhere. Criticism refers to the actual reasons for dispute, good or bad. As for the increased focus on persuasiveness that you seem to be advocating in general, some general advice for anyone seeking to do so is "Pay attention to your audience."

I hope that you notice that I do. :)
 
Critical thinking, what it is really, for laymen

Think of an opinion or belief you have. Now imagine you are wrong about it. I know you don't think you're wrong about it, but bear with me. Imagine you're wrong.

Now take your being wrong to its logical conclusion. How could you tell? The world isn't going to be any different just because you're wrong, so what would be right instead? If you're wrong about this, what else are you wrong about? Is there a basic assumption underlying it all that would be the thing you'd really have to be wrong about, to be wrong about this downstream conclusion?

There's a lot more to critical thinking but this is the core of it all: the willingness to inspect and test one's own belief structure.

Sounds reasonable but alone I do not think critical thinking can deliver the goods.

What can critical thinking - on its own - do to give me an answer as to "am I right to think (as the example given) that the pastor is wrong?"

See?

Critical thinking - on its own - gives me no solution to that problem/no right answer to that question.

What it does - on its own - is give me a platform in which I can believe that I am right and the pastor is wrong. Belief in itself is pointless. So if critical thinking is about having 'the willingness to inspect and test one's own belief structure' as you said, then it requires belief systems only. Belief systems may in fact be pointless and wrong, but critical thinking - on its own - is merely about beliefs systems and does not appear to be able to go beyond belief systems to that point of even critically thinking that beliefs systems are indeed, pointless.

Oh - and before you might be a tempted to throw in the old 'language and its many different meanings argumentation' - by 'beliefs' I am not referring to things which are actually known to be true. If they are known to be true, then they do not fall under the category of beliefs and are therefore not anything which requires one to believe in them. The are matters of fact.
 
Last edited:
In my experience, changing the mind of such people is very nearly impossible.

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.

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.

It is always important to counter irrational claims, at least when they are pressed on other people. Even if you cannot convince the person in question, you can provide for a counterpoint by which others may better form their own opinion. IOW, while we may not convince the pastor, we might keep him from convincing 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...

Critical thinking is always worth the time it takes.

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.

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.


It is always important to maintain objectivity. While the individual CTer or other radical believer may not be worth the time, the process of making sure that objectivity is available is.

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.

See. I am informed that critical thinking involves the process of the willingness to inspect and test one's own belief structure. Fair enough! People have to be able to vent, but let us not pretend that venting is the same thing as critical thinking.

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, I believe I am already engaged in mature reasoning. You are, of course, welcome to challenge me. As for a chair, I appreciate the offer, but I find nothing wrong with the chair I already have.

Hans

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.'

The actual chair you are sitting in is irrelevant in that context. 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...
 
New record for most verbiage, least coherent explaination.

^ 'door to room opens slightly, head pops in, mouth opens, nothing of any consequence relative to the topic is forthcoming in the words offered from open mouth, door shuts. *whatever.* :rolleyes:

Perhaps 'security' can erase that pointless intrusion?
 
"Critical", in "critical thinking", doesn't refer to something particularly important, but, broadly speaking, to being careful in the way we think.

Similarly, a sharp knife is not an intelligent knife.

But, hey, let's talk about sharp knives:

Where did they study? What do they usually score in IQ tests? Are they good at music? Mathematics? Science and technology? Do they tend to be nerds?
 
What it does - on its own - is give me a platform in which I can believe that I am right and the pastor is wrong.
It doesn't take any thinking at all to believe that you're right. The thinking comes in considering that you might be wrong.

by 'beliefs' I am not referring to things which are actually known to be true. If they are known to be true, then they do not fall under the category of beliefs and are therefore not anything which requires one to believe in them. The are matters of fact.
No, they're still beliefs. You can disbelieve in something despite it being true, and be wrong about something you'd attest to "know."

The word you're looking for is "faith." Belief without evidence is faith.
 
^ 'door to room opens slightly, head pops in, mouth opens, nothing of any consequence relative to the topic is forthcoming in the words offered from open mouth, door shuts. *whatever.* :rolleyes:

Perhaps 'security' can erase that pointless intrusion?

My comment stands.

So far, you're incapable of a simple declarative statement.

If you get around to doing so you might be taken a little more seriously, or not, depending on your ability to communicate your ideas to other ISF members.
 
Okay so you are saying that critical thinking is not something which can be applied to the direction humanity is going in.

Rather, I'm saying that trying to directly apply it to the direction humanity is going is like picking the number "green" on a scale from 1 to 10. It's missing the point and nature of it quite obviously.

Your statement there isn't actually applying critical thinking as part of your thinking processes in relation to it be useful as a tool to not only acknowledge segregation but to understand it and through understanding it, find ways in which to - at the very least, avoid contributing to it.

*sigh* I find your statement there to remain quite unconvincing. What you've designated as segregation or separation and treated as it is thus being automatically bad in multiple threads has indiscriminately included both forms of distinction that are useful and necessary for all practical purposes and forms that would be better to reduce to make the world's society happier and more productive.

Aside from the fact that critical thinking can be used for far broader things, discriminating against good over bad arguments should only segregate one from contributing to the bad. If it does not, then it is not critical thinking.

Half-true. Critical thinking really doesn't have any other use, in and of itself. It tests ideas and claims, it does not provide them. It is very fit to combine with various means of idea and claim generation, though. Also half-true in your statement is that applying critical thinking in practice serves more as a filter. There are not always any actually good arguments in play in the first place to test and both a lack of relevant knowledge and sufficiently checking the premises can still lead to bad conclusions, especially if there is urgency involved in selecting a course of action.

Hypocrisy, for example, is bad. For example, criticizing a religious practice which involves support of disparity, whilst ignoring a political system which also involves support of disparity does not actually involve critical thinking processes, because it is hypocrisy.

Shall I assume that you have a specific example or few in mind? I suspect that it's extremely likely that you're overgeneralizing "disparity" yet again as a pretext to conflate various issues and trying to condemn all disparity again without regards to whether the effects of it are positive or negative. One can very certainly oppose forms of disparity with negative overall effects without being a hypocrite at all when they support forms of disparity that have positive effects overall. One can certainly even support and oppose different forms of disparity being promoted by a single religion or single government without being a hypocrite.

How are usefulness and meaningfulness determined through being neutral?

In this case, neutral is very much referring to "not employing biased or 'special' standards in an assessment just because one wants something to be true or wants it to be false." This keeps the playing field even, so that the assessment can far more reliably determine a variety of things.

Excuse me? What has that statement to do with my own?

I said:

The example (the pastors claims) I chose as one subject is to take that as one such separate posture and move that through a series of questions in order to evaluate through Critical Thinking...

Are you trying to claim that your set of questions, as well as your entire OP and much of your following posting, wasn't an attempt to redefine the nature of critical thinking to make it serve your purposes? Just in case you misunderstood there, I was not ascribing the pastor's claim to you. Either way, this seems to have largely become moot by the end of this post of yours.

According to you who obviously have a different understanding of what critical thinking is about. You prefer being critical in your thinking (and subsequently are of the opinion that critical thinking is only about criticism) and see nothing crucial in the other points that I made in relation to the pastor.

When your assessment of it with your questions provided little information worth working with when it came to actually evaluating the claim itself and no meaningful conclusion after all that, it's quite hard to rate it as any better than an entirely inclusive exercise in futility when it comes to the critical thinking that you were supposedly trying to invoke.

How are you supposed to understand anyone if you cannot bridge that gap? Why do you suppose that understanding others (no matter if you agree with them or not) is something which (your version of) critical thinking can do without?

Critical thinking is just one part of many when it comes to matters relating to socialization and communication, if it's even in play at all. It can be a part of the whole that should be both included and not be neglected, but is far from the entirety of what's in play even when included.

My example in this case is one of human behavior. Obviously my focus is on critical thinking in relation to understanding human behavior. I haven't claimed that critical thinking cannot be applied to other things as well. so don't see the relevance in your statement there. It seems to say nothing at all in answer to what I said, which was:

There is no point in critical thinking if solution is not the objective. Finding solution is an extremely good reason for using Critical Thinking Processes.

'Solution' (not just ones involving human behavior) was the key word in that sentence.

And, as was rather indicated by the word "here" and the response, following that thread of the conversation back a little further shows something rather different than what you're trying to claim here. Still, we can leave that in the past for now, if you choose not to continue to push it.


What the **** are you talking about? What I said was this;

Even if the solution is not accepted by the separatist groups does not mean that Critical Thinking is therefore pointless...

Let me break that down for you as example.

You have the opportunity to speak with this pastor (who represents a group) and using critical thinking correctly you point out the obvious flaws in his beliefs but also acknowledge that you understand where he is coming from and why where he is coming from is not conducive to good.

The pastor in turn responds with criticism, and an obvious lack in understanding or even the need to want to understand your position, and simply finds something to fault you with as a way of not having to bother trying to see how you see things.

This does not of itself signify that Critical Thinking is therefore pointless...

And "separatist groups" is supposed to be a good description of this? It sounds like trying to call this that would be far more along the lines of obscuring the more important things going on.

While that is obviously very harsh criticism on your part, you forget even the name of the thread.

"Critical Thinking. What is it really?"

So you are arguing really that critical thinking is just plain old everyday criticism. That's it.

More specifically, the version that you put forth can be reasonably treated as such. You pretty much skipped any real assessment of the claim in question beyond just dismissing it on superficial grounds, decided to highlight information that's not directly relevant to assessing the claim, and then came to no real conclusion after. What counts as critical thinking under normal standards tends to work notably differently.

So of course, assuming you are correct about that, critical thinking is therefore nothing useful for anything other than as a tool for supporting intentional segregation.

Therefore, I am mistaken in what I think actual critical thinking is, and am actually talking about something quite different from that.

I am talking about crucial thinking.

The difference then, between critical thinking and crucial thinking, can be likened to the difference between gossip and knowledge.

And since thinking propels expression/action, then the expressions/actions of critical thinkers are going to be noticeably different from the expression/action of crucial thinkers.

That explains a lot.

If you want to change what you're trying to call what you're doing to "crucial thinking," I'm not going to demand that you live up to the criteria of the already rather well-established "critical thinking" or similar. However, with that said, your assessment of the difference between the two is rather off base. Once again, critical thinking is a means to objectively test claims. It helps to uphold the application of standards of reason and logic. What you're pushing is something with notably different aims and methods.



Hardly. Actual fallacies tend to objectively be fallacies, as an easy example. Things can quite certainly be evaluated using objective standards.

Its 'value' is not crucial. No more crucial of value than gossip.

Given how frequently you've made fallacious statements and been challenged about them, it's hard to treat this as anything more than wishful thinking on your part.

Oh - there is no point in demanding anything from critical thinkers. They do not think critically for the purpose of anything crucial. That explains the arguments between such factions as theism and atheism. The arguments are not crucial. They serve at best as instruments designed to relieve bordom and are addictive at that.

It's amazing what conclusions one can reach by simply ignoring the vast majority of the picture, eh? Thanks for providing yet another example.

Eliminate non crucial thought (and its accompanying behaviors) in favor of an agree upon crucial outcome. Sounds smart and worthwhile thinking about possibly doing. Yep.

Heh. Smart and worthwhile until one seriously considers the results of carrying it out.

That is quite understandable. You do not strike me as someone who cares about anything crucial and have in relation to me always being critical...but now I understand far better why that is.

Perhaps the understanding might serve to change the way we both behave toward one another.


Gotcha. Your efforts to help me understand are well appreciated Aridas. I am now educated as to what critical thinking is about. Thank you for that. Your focus is the critical and mine is the crucial. We might as well be on different planets, but since that in not the case, at least with this clearer understanding I can appreciate WHY so many members here are into critical thinking and WHAT that actually means.

This is crucial information.

One of the distinct issues with your practice of "crucial thinking" seems to be a tendency to make hasty generalizations.


Is the above an example of critical thinking or does it belong in the more crucial 'lateral thinking dept.?

Quite frankly, it should be in both, unless you're intent on making your "crucial thinking" even more unreliable than how you've represented it. Understanding how things relate to each other tends to be "crucial" to working with them to good effect, does it not?

Yep - as I said, thanks for the lesson here. I asked (in the thread title), gave my own understanding, argued with some of the counter arguments, and am now been informed that critical thinking is not as I understood it nor what I am arguing for...

And what you're arguing for isn't all bad, certainly. Thinking about and learning about good ways to persuade others has been one of the ongoing challenges in the societies that humanity has created, after all. Of some note here, though, effective communication and persuasion require different skills than critical thinking does. A person can certainly be skillful in both areas, but frequently will not be. One of the things about skeptical-based communities like these forums is that more openly displaying the critical thinking process being employed tends to be more highly valued by the people who gather here, though. I'm certainly not going to claim that anywhere close to all criticism on these forums would reasonably qualify as well thought out using critical thinking, though.



So then, I am not altogether incorrect in regards to my understanding of critical thinking processes, but only in that I have identified it as THE process when it is really only PART of that process (= to understand and to find solutions) - it has its place, but is not of itself all that is involved with crucial thinking processes.

As such, as PART of that process, it is crucial, but on its own, not and never can be, crucial at all

If we want to get even more specific, the main thing that it's crucial for is upholding higher quality in the reason and logic of arguments that one accepts, whether from oneself or others. Still, this is notably more correct than your previous statements tended to be.

Perhaps not in any neutral objective assessment. But I doubt that there is such a thing.
Emotion (which is where humor, derives) is simply part of the deal. Subjectivity always rules over the objective because the objective does not THINK, it merely/amazingly exists.

Well... given that there are a number of objective standards that can be used to test a statement or claim, your doubt is rather unfounded. What one actually does with the results can be quite subjective, certainly, but that, as had been partially noted right after what you had quoted here, is a slightly different matter.


Critical thinking on its own, seems a pointless enough device. Pointless as in, non crucial to anything relative (subjective within objective) . It only derives its crucial-ness in congregate with other forms of thinking which ARE crucial, (even, perhaps, on their own).
As such critical thinking is not really able to be used on its own and must be used in conjunction with other types of thinking. Even as you claim, it is a tool specific to segregation, it cannot be segregated from other forms of thinking and, by that, shown to be of any crucial use. It does not stand on its own merits. It requires other types of thinking as well.

Critical thinking on its own is just fine for assessing presented claims, arguments, and ideas for oneself and can generally be fairly easily distinguished from the other types of thought that it's being used in conjunction with, when it's being used in conjunction with other things. Still, as I've pointed out elsewhere, I consider diversity something to be promoted, very much included in presented ideas, even if the ideas fare poorly when given a fair assessment.

I hope that you notice that I do. :)

Sometimes, at least, even if we have had a few too many cases of unpleasantness related to at least one or both of us failing to properly do so.
 
Last edited:
"Critical", in "critical thinking", doesn't refer to something particularly important, but, broadly speaking, to being careful in the way we think.

Similarly, a sharp knife is not an intelligent knife.

But, hey, let's talk about sharp knives:

Where did they study? What do they usually score in IQ tests? Are they good at music? Mathematics? Science and technology? Do they tend to be nerds?

The Phantom Tollbooth: The Thread.
 
It doesn't take any thinking at all to believe that you're right.

^ I think the statement is far to sweeping to be considered a product of Critical Thinking.

The thinking comes in considering that you might be wrong.

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?


No, they're still beliefs.

You are claiming that things which are known to be true, are still beliefs?

Like...'The sun exists." is therefore a belief...because...?


You can disbelieve in something despite it being true,

"The sun does not exist", would still be belief...how would CT allow one to verify the truth of the matter?


and be wrong about something you'd attest to "know."

"The sun exists." ...how would CT allow one to verify the truth of the matter?

( I ask mainly so that we don't veer too far away from the subject of Critical Thinking (CT) and into the distracting subject of words with different meanings being used interchangeably)

The word you're looking for is "faith." Belief without evidence is faith.

Belief with evidence is irrational. Critically think about that. What is the point of the word KNOW, if belief will do? Belief infers doubt. Knowledge infers certainty.

The sun exist. No belief is necessary when you know this...unless you want to argue that the sun does not really exist...I don't get the impression that you do...but folk who prefer to use the word 'belief' rather than KNOW give me the impression they are not sure at all...maybe that is the impression they want me to have, but then "why' would that be the case? :)
 
Last edited:
^ I think the statement is far to sweeping to be considered a product of Critical Thinking.



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?




You are claiming that things which are known to be true, are still beliefs?

Like...'The sun exists." is therefore a belief...because...?




"The sun does not exist", would still be belief...how would CT allow one to verify the truth of the matter?




"The sun exists." ...how would CT allow one to verify the truth of the matter?

( I ask mainly so that we don't veer too far away from the subject of Critical Thinking (CT) and into the distracting subject of words with different meanings being used interchangeably)



Belief with evidence is irrational. Critically think about that. What is the point of the word KNOW, if belief will do? Belief infers doubt. Knowledge infers certainty.

The sun exist. No belief is necessary when you know this...unless you want to argue that the sun does not really exist...I don't get the impression that you do...but folk who prefer to use the word 'belief' rather than KNOW give me the impression they are not sure at all...maybe that is the impression they want me to have, but then "why' would that be the case? :)
You are claiming that the existence of the sun is a matter of sheer belief.

Right.

What will happen to me if I wander off into the middle of the Sahara? Will my belief that there is no Sun protect me from the Sun? Or will I die a grim death?
 
Back
Top Bottom