Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
The Phantom Tollbooth: The Thread.
Well played, Milo! Well played...
The Phantom Tollbooth: The Thread.
You are claiming that the existence of the sun is a matter of sheer belief.
New record for most verbiage, least coherent explaination.
Take yourchit chatAd_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.
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."
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.
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...
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.
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,
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...
Take yourchit chatAd_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.
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?
As I already say, it may be impossible for some, but I have taken part in successfully changing the mind 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.
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.
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.
I guess you are saying that people would behave the same if indeed they were face to face sharing at the same table.
Perhaps because we have all seen how religious crankery borks civilisation.Perhaps the best way to find the answer to that is to ask yourself why you are doing it.
Because it is a worthwhile effort to stand up to worthless nonsense. Who else will do that?Are you doing it to try to change the minds of others or for some other reason?
I know I did. I cannot speak for anyone else.So did you use critical thinking in doing so and therefore are you now saying it is useful for changing the minds of others?
But you don't want that, do you? You want people to accept that your ouija boards and tarot cards are somehow real.Importantly, such a public space can allow for the opportunity to test ones theories and adjust accordingly.
Wrong.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.
Tarot and Ouija have been long since sunk. Yet here you are.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.
And why not? That actually works.You believe the universe is rational?![]()
Sure. One could simply disbelieve the theory of gravity and jump off a tall building. That would work. Not.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.
Or one could listen to Chopra talking utter bollocks. What's the difference?Sounds like a bollocky way to use language but what the hey!
Basically, you don't want discussion on a discussion forum, you want everyone in lock step with you. Wow.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.
No, I'm not saying that. As I thought we agreed the 'room' is not literal.
Hans
Perhaps because we have all seen how religious crankery borks civilisation.
Because it is a worthwhile effort to stand up to worthless nonsense. Who else will do that?
I know I did. I cannot speak for anyone else.
But you don't want that, do you? You want people to accept that your ouija boards and tarot cards are somehow real.
Wrong.
Tarot and Ouija have been long since sunk.
Yet here you are.
And why not? That actually works.
Sure. One could simply disbelieve the theory of gravity and jump off a tall building. That would work. Not.
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.
No thoughts or words are true, they are all models, some models are more valid than others.
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?
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.
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?
Now you're talking. "Truth" is always short-hand for "best fit to confirmed observations."
ETA: More to it, but see next post.
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
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.
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.
Truth exists only for philosophers, reality is never so neat!
![]()
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.
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.
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?
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.
Science is not one thing. It is a set of methods for getting objective knowledge from what is essentially subjective observations.
Hans
[you have] repeatedly condemned science
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.
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)
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 -
which is why some scientist will offer their services to morally dubious causes.
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?
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.
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.