• 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?

You are claiming that the existence of the sun is a matter of sheer belief.

No.

I am saying that the existence of the sun is not a matter of belief (sheer or otherwise) but of matter of fact which requires no belief at all. There it is.
 
Take your chit chat Ad_hominem elsewhere - if you are unable to get the gist of what is being said, the problem is with you and your lack of ability in that department.
 
Last edited:
Take your chit chat Ad_hominem elsewhere - if you are unable to get the gist of what is being said, the problem is with you and your lack of ability in that department.

The gist of what you are saying is wrong.

Critical thinking is not thinking about important subjects or being critical of someone's statements or arguments. Critical thinking involves the application of evidence to a statement or argument.
 
The gist of what you are saying is wrong.

Critical thinking is not thinking about important subjects or being critical of someone's statements or arguments. Critical thinking involves the application of evidence to a statement or argument.

Dear oh dear - that point has already been established and acknowledged further back in the thread. I have to say though that you are not correct in the hilited part of your statement.

Critical thinking involves the application of evidence to a statement or argument, important or not.

The Ad_hominem is not even about that. Why don't you focus on replying to my reply to your last post?
 
Last edited:
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?

I don't think that this was properly addressed by the person you were responding to, so I'll poke at it a little. Considering that one may or may not be wrong counts as a starting point of critical thinking, so that the differing opinions are put onto a fair playing field to start with before anything else comes into play. From there, one starts considering the relevant facts and arguments and what effect they have on the assessment of each.

Saying this a little differently, "I might be right" is there from the start, but "I might be wrong, so I will check and try to honestly see whether it's reasonable to accept that I am" would likely be a more accurate way to say it than just an "I might be wrong" or an "I might be right."
 
Last edited:
I don't think that this was properly addressed by the person you were responding to, so I'll poke at it a little. Considering that one may or may not be wrong counts as a starting point of critical thinking, so that the differing opinions are put onto a fair playing field to start with before anything else comes into play. From there, one starts considering the relevant facts and arguments and what effect they have on the assessment of each.

Saying this a little differently, "I might be right" is there from the start, but "I might be wrong, so I will check and try to honestly see whether it's reasonable to accept that I am" would likely be a more accurate way to say it than just an "I might be wrong" or an "I might be right."

Thanks for the feedback.

Sounds more the stuff of critical thinking.

Can thus be used to help ascertain position in regard to being right or wrong.
 
Sorry, I have been off-line for some days. Since you took the trouble to reply in detail, I shall do the same, even if the debate has otherwise moved on a bit:

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.

Critical thinking is about changing your own mind. To discuss critical thinking in public is to try to change the minds of others, why else do it?

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.

As I already say, it may be impossible for some, but I have taken part in successfully changing the mind of 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...

There are such people who might be better off by retaining their life dreams undisturbed, but if they air them in the public space, they must bear opposition.

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.

Only as far as I want to convince them of a rational universe. In which case I am indeed ready to provide or refer to a full body of evidence. However, then the term 'belief' is inappropriate. For rational discussions, that term is reserved for opinions with little or no evidence.

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.

In principle, a discussion can be about pure beliefs. I could try to convert you to another religion. I would probably not employ critical thinking for that, although many people trying to convert others to a religion do in fact try to make it appear like critical thinking. Just think of all the bogus science Creationists try to employ.

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.

Mmm, Afraid you lost me there...

See. I am informed that critical thinking involves the process of the willingness to inspect and test one's own belief structure.

You are correctly informed.

Fair enough! People have to be able to vent, but let us not pretend that venting is the same thing as critical thinking.

Who is pretending that?

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, nobody is perfect. Not even a critical thinker.

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.'

I already do, and I already have a chair. Have had it for a long time.

The actual chair you are sitting in is irrelevant in that context.

Obviously.:rolleyes:

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...

Well, the thing is, this is a room where everybody is invited, as long as they comply with some basic rules, like not peeing in the sofa and such (again, just to make sure you understand: I'm not meaning this literally). That means that if one wants to be here, one must also bear with those one may find less agreeable. There is no obligation to reply to them, however, or to even read their posts.

Hans
 
Take your chit chat Ad_hominem elsewhere - if you are unable to get the gist of what is being said, the problem is with you and your lack of ability in that department.

While complaining about language is basically irrelevant to most discussions, it may remind you that bolstering your position with sheer eloquence is also irrelevant and may actually be detrimental to your impact, especially if you don't master the language to a fair degree of perfection. .... Also, rigorous proof-reading can be recommended. ;)

Hans
 
Critical thinking is about changing your own mind. To discuss critical thinking in public is to try to change the minds of others, why else do it?

Perhaps the best way to find the answer to that is to ask yourself why you are doing it.

Are you doing it to try to change the minds of others or for some other reason?

As I already say, it may be impossible for some, but I have taken part in successfully changing the mind of others.

So did you use critical thinking in doing so and therefore are you now saying it is useful for changing the minds of others?

There are such people who might be better off by retaining their life dreams undisturbed, but if they air them in the public space, they must bear opposition.

Importantly, such a public space can allow for the opportunity to test ones theories and adjust accordingly.
No point in taking such ideas to any type of public forum where the likely outcome would be either no fault is found or something is found in which condemn you about. and neither findings employ critical thinking as part of the process.
The idea is to test the theory critically to see if any holes can be made in it to threaten to sink it. If you can then adjust accordingly, bring it back to the table, and repeat until either the theory has to be abandoned, or no more holes are made and it cannot be sunk.

Only as far as I want to convince them of a rational universe.

You believe the universe is rational? :D

In which case I am indeed ready to provide or refer to a full body of evidence. However, then the term 'belief' is inappropriate. For rational discussions, that term is reserved for opinions with little or no evidence.

Because it sounds better than 'I don't know' I suppose. :) Anyhow, as a member explained, the word faith is used in relation to belief based ideas. One can believe in a theory as being true, without having to put their faith in it.

Sounds like a bollocky way to use language but what the hey!


Well, the thing is, this is a room where everybody is invited, as long as they comply with some basic rules, like not peeing in the sofa and such (again, just to make sure you understand: I'm not meaning this literally). That means that if one wants to be here, one must also bear with those one may find less agreeable. There is no obligation to reply to them, however, or to even read their posts.

Sure.

I guess you are saying that people would behave the same if indeed they were face to face sharing at the same table. It would not be so easy to ignore some of them etc...I just think it might up the bar in relation to how forum interactions could happen and not to forget that while I do indeed have the option to ignore stupid one-liners, they are principle created to act like pooh in the doorway..."move along, nothing to hear in this room folks". Stink tactics...critical stinking...

Anyway, thanks for the reply.
 
Last edited:
I guess you are saying that people would behave the same if indeed they were face to face sharing at the same table.

No, I'm not saying that. As I thought we agreed the 'room' is not literal.

Hans
 
Perhaps the best way to find the answer to that is to ask yourself why you are doing it.
Perhaps because we have all seen how religious crankery borks civilisation.

Are you doing it to try to change the minds of others or for some other reason?
Because it is a worthwhile effort to stand up to worthless nonsense. Who else will do that?

So did you use critical thinking in doing so and therefore are you now saying it is useful for changing the minds of others?
I know I did. I cannot speak for anyone else.

Importantly, such a public space can allow for the opportunity to test ones theories and adjust accordingly.
But you don't want that, do you? You want people to accept that your ouija boards and tarot cards are somehow real.

No point in taking such ideas to any type of public forum where the likely outcome would be either no fault is found or something is found in which condemn you about. and neither findings employ critical thinking as part of the process.
Wrong.

The idea is to test the theory critically to see if any holes can be made in it to threaten to sink it. If you can then adjust accordingly, bring it back to the table, and repeat until either the theory has to be abandoned, or no more holes are made and it cannot be sunk.
Tarot and Ouija have been long since sunk. Yet here you are.

You believe the universe is rational? :D
And why not? That actually works.

Because it sounds better than 'I don't know' I suppose. :) Anyhow, as a member explained, the word faith is used in relation to belief based ideas. One can believe in a theory as being true, without having to put their faith in it.
Sure. One could simply disbelieve the theory of gravity and jump off a tall building. That would work. Not.

Sounds like a bollocky way to use language but what the hey!
Or one could listen to Chopra talking utter bollocks. What's the difference?

Sure.

I guess you are saying that people would behave the same if indeed they were face to face sharing at the same table. It would not be so easy to ignore some of them etc...I just think it might up the bar in relation to how forum interactions could happen and not to forget that while I do indeed have the option to ignore stupid one-liners, they are principle created to act like pooh in the doorway..."move along, nothing to hear in this room folks". Stink tactics...critical stinking...

Anyway, thanks for the reply.
Basically, you don't want discussion on a discussion forum, you want everyone in lock step with you. Wow.
 
Last edited:
No, I'm not saying that. As I thought we agreed the 'room' is not literal.

Hans

Ah I see. No more literal than a 'thread' - but the analogy is more for the purpose of learning how to interact in cyber-space in a similar way as one would when face to face...in this case, sharing the same room/table etc...

No biggy...I find it helps but each to their own.
 
Perhaps because we have all seen how religious crankery borks civilisation.

Do you also apply the same to everything else involved with the controlling influences of civilization?

Because it is a worthwhile effort to stand up to worthless nonsense. Who else will do that?

Is the objective even something that can be realistically be achieved? Have you applied critical thinking to that question? Have you even asked yourself that question?

I know I did. I cannot speak for anyone else.

That is true. You cannot even speak for me.

But you don't want that, do you? You want people to accept that your ouija boards and tarot cards are somehow real.

There ya go. Immediately speaking for someone else. Immediately after you claimed that you cannot speak for anyone else.

See?

You got me wrong. I think CT needs to be part of each and every expression - it is a discipline so requires dedication and continuous self evaluation. That's what Ouija and Tarot also assist me with, but that is because both are useful in relation to the true self tempering the ego (false self). It is called "introspection" and cannot be ignored without personal cost of a negative nature. Your expressions toward me abaddon are more often than not expressions of the ego.


Making a one word exclamation is not in itself any argument or rebuttal abaddon. How about engaging the deeper thinking modes...explain why your claim 'wrong' is in fact the right conclusion to assume.

Tarot and Ouija have been long since sunk.

So you claim.

Yet here you are.

Yet here I am. If I didn't know that they are useful device perhaps I could agree with your presumption could be correct.


And why not? That actually works.

In what way...you don't say. What is meant by that phrase? "the universe is rational"
To me it seems to imply that the universe has meaning and purpose and that these show rationality of the universe existing...
It also implies that a rational person can move with relative freedom in relation to rationality.
But your statement 'it works' isn't accompanied by even one rational reason why or one example of 'it' working.

And even if you were to give a working example, I could sink that quickly enough by giving examples where to show what it has negative impact on other things, or where other things have negative impact on it, to show why 'it' obviously isn't really working.

Sure. One could simply disbelieve the theory of gravity and jump off a tall building. That would work. Not.

Of course. We could google youtube and find evidence of this. WE don't even need to put faith in it NOT being the case anyway, because it is rational and people don't do that because it is known way deep in the psyche that to do so ordinarily means death.

However, where the line is drawn is in death. To have faith in something based on conclusions drawn in this reality - Consciousness can be seen to interact in conjunction with the brain therefore it is necessary to believe that the brain created consciousness therefore when you die, that is the end of you, therefore there is no afterlife experience to be had - all is oblivion...you no longer exist and thus are oblivious to anything that does exist.

Thus the belief morphs into faith and bypassing rationality. It simple refuses to take into account any possibility of that not being the case.

Dogmatism.

See? Critical thinking has to be applied throughout the process, not stop at the walls of faith. If you only use it as a tool to support one particular world view, you are like the person who uses Tarot only as a fortune telling application or Ouija only as a way of talking with those who have passed on.

The vessel of argument sinks.
 
Snipped...

See? Critical thinking has to be applied throughout the process, not stop at the walls of faith. If you only use it as a tool to support one particular world view, you are like the person who uses Tarot only as a fortune telling application or Ouija only as a way of talking with those who have passed on.

The vessel of argument sinks.

Am I to assume that you in your magnificent universe of philosophical excellence have a use for the Tarot other than clipping the cards to the wheel of a bicycle? Is the Quija a method of anything other than wasting time and amusing stoners?
 
@OP

Nothing is true until shown to be true. Question everything. And as needed, examine the nature of claims and of knowledge to know their domain of application. Test. Best sign of a critical thinker: can and will identify the weaknesses to own argument without losing all notion.

Never, ever be content with received opinion. Question the integrity and ideas of everyone, including priests, cops, nurses, soldiers... and people behind you on subway platforms. Understand any heartfelt devotion to "mamá, paella, and país" is not grounded on fact or logic; the intimately familiar world from childhood has a sheen of legitimacy born of custom alone, like favorite old slippers, and requires guts and dedication to process objectively. Oh, sorry, that's "Mom, apple pie, and America."
 
Am I to assume that you in your magnificent universe of philosophical excellence have a use for the Tarot other than clipping the cards to the wheel of a bicycle? Is the Quija a method of anything other than wasting time and amusing stoners?

No. My advice to you is not to assume.
 
@OP

Nothing is true until shown to be true. Question everything.

Okay well lets us both together question this then.

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

How can this be answered through critical thinking processes?
 
What steps in relation to critical thinking were made in order to come to that conclusion DD?
 
Okay well lets us both together question this then.

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

How can this be answered through critical thinking processes?

It's humor section only for me this late at night over here. Tomorrow's another day!
 
Ah I see. No more literal than a 'thread' - but the analogy is more for the purpose of learning how to interact in cyber-space in a similar way as one would when face to face...in this case, sharing the same room/table etc...

No biggy...I find it helps but each to their own.

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

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

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

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

The critical thinking goes as follows

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

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

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

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

ergo all thoughts, words and perceptions are maps, they are therefore inaccurate and approximate, as stated some can be shown to be more valid than other
 
Okay well lets us both together question this then.

Q: Is the statement "Nothing is true until shown to be true." actually true?
How can this be answered through critical thinking processes?

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

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

The critical thinking goes as follows

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

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

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

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

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

So nice you chose the examples you did. Perfectly meshes with instrumentalism (as I understand it): there is a 'there' there, but from that point forward, it's models. In better terms: the sense model you propose is in fact the scientific model that, for me, underlies my scientific realism, but given the rest of the argument, outside scientific approximations, I have nothing to say, except to share subjective impressions.
 
But you don't, for better or worse, interact as if face to face. This has advantages: Nobody hits you, even if they find you obnoxious.

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

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

so balance.

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

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

If the complaint is not upheld then yes, its life as usual. I am comfortable in my own shoes.
 
Last edited:
Q: Is the statement "Nothing is true until shown to be true." actually true?

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

Best not assume then. :)


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

Therefore, the statement "Nothing is true until shown to be true." is not true until it is shown to be true.
 
Truth exists only for philosophers, reality is never so neat!

:D

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

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

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

The solution to subjectivity is peer review and confirmation of observations. Ethics are not a science, and lie on the 'should' side of the equation, while science can only be about approximately what 'is' the case. Scientists, as humans, are, of course, human.
 
So nice you chose the examples you did. Perfectly meshes with instrumentalism (as I understand it): there is a 'there' there, but from that point forward, it's models. In better terms: the sense model you propose is in fact the scientific model that, for me, underlies my scientific realism, but given the rest of the argument, outside scientific approximations, I have nothing to say, except to share subjective impressions.

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

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

Anything can be used for immoral purposes, you are just focusing on one thing.
 
Yep...can you ascertain though why the focus is on that one thing?

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

But please continue as you see fit.

If you want to rant about the perils of industrialization please do so.
 
Yep...can you ascertain though why the focus is on that one thing?

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

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

But please continue as you see fit.

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

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

Hans

Subjective impressions are all that there are.

(We seem to agree)

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

(Still seem to agree)


but offers little else.


(unsure if we agree)

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

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

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

(Should still agree...)

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

(which is the case, we should agree)

Science can be used for immoral purpose.

(should agree)

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

[you have] repeatedly condemned science

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

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

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

That is what critical thinking processes should enable.


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

Agree.

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

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

At least that is how it appears.
 
Subjective impressions are all that there are.

(We seem to agree)

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

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

(Still seem to agree)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Science can be used for immoral purpose.

(should agree)

Certainly.

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

Who doesn't agree?

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

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

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

That is what critical thinking processes should enable.

And they do.

Hans
 
Back
Top Bottom