• 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

What's the first rule of critical thinking?

AmyStrange said:
That all makes sense, especially the last part.
Click to expand...

You have to be very careful about what "well-established knowledge" means in that context. That can be rather complex and is probably out of the scope of the question of what the first rule of critical thinking is. As I said, that leads into the deep philosophical weeds that are more complicated than the question raised for this discussion.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
You have to be very careful about what "well-established knowledge" means in that context. That can be rather complex and is probably out of the scope of the question of what the first rule of critical thinking is. As I said, that leads into the deep philosophical weeds that are more complicated than the question raised for this discussion.
Click to expand...
That's true and was clearly illustrated (in my opinion anyway) by the post before yours about the shape of the earth.

You could even argue that water wasn't really wet, but much of that argument would depend on perceptions, semantics, and a little bit of philosophy thrown in for good measure.

Thank you.
 
Venom said:
Second rule could be: Favor fallible expertise over armchair research.

Not trust experts over armchairs in every instance--they should be preferred. Nine out of 10 times, the opinion of people whose job it is to be good at their craft is worth more than your half-assed skeptical analysis on a Friday afternoon.
Click to expand...

I'm always mindful that Dunning–Kruger syndrome can apply to me!
 
In my world growing up under two opposed religious ideas yet there is only one god, or three in one, or something.....
A kid had to sort that out.
I became critical of both ideals and determined both cannot be right, possibly both are wrong.

But there has been no set result more than neither could ever prove claims fully. No need beyond that.

Most questions after that had been resolved with solid evidence one clam is most correct and others failed.

As to things that have no bearing on my regular life it's easy to not make any decisions on what to believe. Did dinosaurs exist? Yes. Were they warm or cold blooded? Umm, too many species and too much time frame to give one simple answer.

Forget the meaning of life questions. Or what happens in space out beyond our galaxy, even within it for the most part.
Others can ponder that and devise tests to see what they can find. I am still working on this " daily life" concept and trying to get to work on time.

Who has the time to resolve every mystery?
 
AmyStrange said:
Actually, there is a kind of structure to the scientific method. The first one (of course) is optional:

1) make sure no one else has done the work before you

2) formulate a theory

3) create experiments to test if the theory is correct

4) and finally, a review by your peers to see if your conclusions can be replicated
Click to expand...
Because its the internet and skeptics forum, some pederasty, pedantry:
1. Observe a phenomenum
2. See what others have done before you(even if they have done the work, replication is important.
3. Formulate an hypothesis.
4. create experiments that can falsify your hypothesis(in some case just observing things because actual experiments are impossible or unethical.)
5. Write it up for review by others.
6. Repeat(doesn't happen nearly enough)
7. After enough evidence you can call it a theory.
 
ahhell said:
Because its the internet and skeptics forum, some pederasty, pedantry:
1. Observe a phenomenum
2. See what others have done before you(even if they have done the work, replication is important.
3. Formulate an hypothesis.
4. create experiments that can falsify your hypothesis(in some case just observing things because actual experiments are impossible or unethical.)
5. Write it up for review by others.
6. Repeat(doesn't happen nearly enough)
7. After enough evidence you can call it a theory.
Click to expand...

Thank you for explaining it better than I did.
 
ahhell said:
Thank you for your graciousness.
Click to expand...

I think Bruto said it best:

bruto said:
I don't think even a critical thinker could make the morning coffee and shovel the driveway if they started with the proposition that one shouldn't make assumptions. Is there a paper in the box? Will the sun rise today? The boundary between inductive logic and assumption is a bit fuzzy, but in any case, we'd bog down intractably if we did not settle for assumption at times.

You don't need to discard your assumptions, only to remember that that's what they are, and be gracious when they turn out to be wrong.
Click to expand...
 
William Parcher said:
Is critical thinking much different than skeptical thinking?
Click to expand...

IMHO, in some ways it isn't, but in some ways it is, like when some people aren't skeptical of their own beliefs.

ETA: like p0lka posted above:

p0lka said:
Be critical of your own thinking first, everything should follow from there.
Click to expand...

Other folks have posted different versions also, but I think marting said it best:

marting said:
My first rule is to be more skeptical about anything I emotionally want to be true. My career was designing things that improved on the state of the art. This involves many ideas and some of the more compelling ones were dead ends. I learned early on to focus on the ways an approach could fail and design tests to uncover flaws in my understanding.

I evaluate other information based on how congruent it is with my math and science background. When evaluating things significantly out of my expertise, I evaluate those parts that I am knowledgeable about and make a risk estimate on the overall paper. If interesting, I look for other papers with a different take. Over time one builds up a base of what makes the most sense.

I don't seek agreement or winning arguments. Neither of those increases my understanding of the World.
Click to expand...

or as Darat added above:

Darat said:
I'm always mindful that Dunning–Kruger syndrome can apply to me!
Click to expand...

The Dunning Kruger syndrome or effect is characterized by the inability of some people to be aware of their incompetence or ineptitude. Is a Cognitive distortion By which a person who actually has little ability to perform an activity, thinks that he has a lot.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
Is critical thinking much different than skeptical thinking?
Click to expand...

How many people do you think can conclusively prove the Earth is round using just their own observations? Among those who can, how many can disprove all the alternative explanations for those observations?

The problem with skeptical thinking is that it implies that you need to personally understand everything from first principles and your own personal observations. No one can actually do this so under the covers people selectively pick and choose who and what they trust. These choice in turn determine what they are skeptical about. One set of choices may lead to doubting the supernatural while another may lead to doubting climate change or whether the earth is a sphere.


Critical thinking on the other hand doesn't just teach you to confirm things for yourself, it should teach you when and where you should trust things even though you can't personally confirm them.
 
lomiller said:
How many people do you think can conclusively prove the Earth is round using just their own observations? Among those who can, how many can disprove all the alternative explanations for those observations?

The problem with skeptical thinking is that it implies that you need to personally understand everything from first principles and your own personal observations. No one can actually do this so under the covers people selectively pick and choose who and what they trust. These choice in turn determine what they are skeptical about. One set of choices may lead to doubting the supernatural while another may lead to doubting climate change or whether the earth is a sphere.


Critical thinking on the other hand doesn't just teach you to confirm things for yourself, it should teach you when and where you should trust things even though you can't personally confirm them.
Click to expand...

Well said and thank you
 
I'm not sure at all that "skeptical thinking" requires that, but I feel like we're all on the same page even if the words are different.
 
gnome said:
I'm not sure at all that "skeptical thinking" requires that, but I feel like we're all on the same page even if the words are different.
Click to expand...

Many skeptical thinkers believe there as more to it than that and do practice those beliefs, but I've seen far to many crazy CT's based on being skeptical of the accepted facts to think such practice is the norm. The way most people practice it skeptical thinking is a net negative for science, society and pursuit of knowledge.

At one time it was common for people to believe things with little or no factual basis and skeptical thinking was a tool for combating this. Today, however, most of the problems are coming from people who refuse to believe things for which there is an abundance of evidence.
 
lomiller said:
Critical thinking on the other hand doesn't just teach you to confirm things for yourself, it should teach you when and where you should trust things even though you can't personally confirm them.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't.

Critical thinking is being aware that a foundational thing is only assumed to be true if you can't test it. It may be the "most likely to be true " thing but whatever follows can still be wrong.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
No it doesn't.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does.


psionl0 said:
Critical thinking is being aware that a foundational thing is only assumed to be true if you can't test it.
Click to expand...

Tests can't prove something is true. This would be committing the logic fallacy of Affirming the consequent.

Critical thinking is the process of examining evidence to make a judgement about what is most likely. Tests are one form of evidence, but there are others like expert opinion or observation.
 
lomiller said:
Today, however, most of the problems are coming from people who refuse to believe things for which there is an abundance of evidence.
Click to expand...
True, but their skepticism is peculiarly selective. Peculiar if you think it has to do with facts and logic, but not if you understand that the motivation is emotional, not logical. And that includes all of us.

That is why I said the first rule of critical thinking is to assume you aren't doing it. Do you believe something is true because there is an abundance of evidence and rational argument supporting it, or do you select evidence and rationalize what you want to be true? This forum is full of 'skeptics' doing the latter.
 
lomiller said:
Understanding and avoiding logic fallacies is an essential skill in critical thinking. You should learn this skill before commenting further.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you've raised this one.

Many people on discussion forums seem to think that they can close down discussions by naming a fallacy, while not understanding what it means.

Example:
1. All cats are black!
2. My cat is white!
3. That's the exception that proves the rule (herp-derp) it proves that all cats are black!
 
novaphile said:
I'm glad you've raised this one.

Many people on discussion forums seem to think that they can close down discussions by naming a fallacy, while not understanding what it means.

Example:
1. All cats are black!
2. My cat is white!
3. That's the exception that proves the rule (herp-derp) it proves that all cats are black!
Click to expand...

tHatS a StrAWMaN!
 
And again if you want to get up on a soapbox and make some big speechifing about the wrong way of thinking... you can't be wrong all the time about everything.

So when religious people, conspiracy theorists, and Republicans have opinions about other people thinking wrong... I don't care.
 
novaphile said:
I'm glad you've raised this one.

Many people on discussion forums seem to think that they can close down discussions by naming a fallacy, while not understanding what it means.

Example:
1. All cats are black!
2. My cat is white!
3. That's the exception that proves the rule (herp-derp) it proves that all cats are black!
Click to expand...

It would probably help (to some small degree), if people knew that "to prove" once meant "to subject to a test". Then the phrase "The exception proves the rule" makes sense. Homeopathic cures, for example, are "proved", but hardly "proven".

/pedant mode
 
Masque said:
It would probably help (to some small degree), if people knew that "to prove" once meant "to subject to a test". Then the phrase "The exception proves the rule" makes sense. Homeopathic cures, for example, are "proved", but hardly "proven".

/pedant mode
Click to expand...
To invoke /pedant square mode, I would point out that "testing" the rule is only one, and probably a secondary, meaning to the phrase. A more likely meaning is that an exception proves that a rule exists, since if there is no rule, no exception need be made specifically and named.

To say an exception tests a rule implies that a rule cannot have named exceptions, but in fact such things are quite common. If you see a sign on a store that says "No pets except for guide dogs" you've seen how a rule can have a defined exception.
 
Sorta kinda.

Only if you're talking in machine code.

For human beings in the real world a statement like "No mammals lay eggs" is true for 99% of statements in context and someone going "Ah yeah but whatabout the platypus and echidna?" is not necessary.

"Exceptions exist which are obviously outside the context of the discussion we are currently having and are implied and don't have to be specifically pointed out for no reason" is a thing, or at least should be.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
To invoke /pedant square mode, I would point out that "testing" the rule is only one, and probably a secondary, meaning to the phrase. A more likely meaning is that an exception proves that a rule exists, since if there is no rule, no exception need be made specifically and named.

To say an exception tests a rule implies that a rule cannot have named exceptions, but in fact such things are quite common. If you see a sign on a store that says "No pets except for guide dogs" you've seen how a rule can have a defined exception.
Click to expand...

Well, between us we've covered three of the several possible meanings of the phrase. While I would disagree that an exception testing a rule implies that the rule can have no defined exceptions, (to me, at least, the defined exception is merely a part of the rule), and proving the existence of a rule would probably arise more in a legal context, perhaps we can agree that one thing an exception to a rule does not do is provide evidence for the truth of the rule. It is in this latter way that I think the phrase is most often misused.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Sorta kinda.

Only if you're talking in machine code.

For human beings in the real world a statement like "All mammals lay eggs" is true for 99% of statements in context and someone going "Ah yeah but whatabout the platypus and echidna?" is not necessary.

"Exceptions exist which are obviously outside the context of the discussion we are currently having and are implied and don't have to be specifically pointed out for no reason" is a thing, or at least should be.
Click to expand...
Oh yes in real life I agree.

I was thinking about novaphiles post above that used syllogism about black cats.
In that case 'the exception proves the rule' just shows the premise is false.

edit: just noticed, you meant 'No mammals lay eggs', or was it a trick question heh.
 
Last edited:
Masque said:
Well, between us we've covered three of the several possible meanings of the phrase. While I would disagree that an exception testing a rule implies that the rule can have no defined exceptions, (to me, at least, the defined exception is merely a part of the rule), and proving the existence of a rule would probably arise more in a legal context, perhaps we can agree that one thing an exception to a rule does not do is provide evidence for the truth of the rule. It is in this latter way that I think the phrase is most often misused.
Click to expand...
One equals one, unless it doesn't?

edit:
"one thing an exception to a rule does not do is provide evidence for the truth of the rule. It is in this latter way that I think the phrase is most often misused."

I agree with you. It does more, it piddles on the rule.
 
Last edited:
p0lka said:
edit: just noticed, you meant 'No mammals lay eggs', or was it a trick question heh.
Click to expand...

No that was a typo, one my brain, I'm assuming just to sabotage me, has made twice now while I using that particular example.
 
Last edited:
One of the defining characteristics of Proudly Wrong is their belief that facts can be overridden on argumentative technicalities.

If Ted says all mammals give live birth and Bill says they all lay eggs, Bill pointing out that Ted didn't specifically mention the echidna and the platypus doesn't win the argument for Bill.

There's a quote from Isaac Asimov that approaches this, but from a slightly different angle.

If you say the Earth is flat. You are wrong.
If you say the Earth is a sphere. You are wrong.
If you say those statements are both equally wrong, you are wronger than wrong.

And that's sort of the same thing. Wrong people thinking if they can trip up the non-wrong people on some technical detail, if makes everyone equally wrong which in their twisted world view is the same thing as them being right.

The person who says the Earth revolves around the Sun is more correct then the person who says the Sun revolves around the Earth. Someone with that stupid, trolling, anti-intellectual, "I have to take the smart people down a peg" attitude running into to the discussion to point out that technically both the sun and the Earth orbit around the Barycenter, a gravitational point slightly offset from the center of the sun's mass (I don't remember if the sun-Earth's barycenter is outside of the sun's mass or not off the top of my head) has NOT shown both sides to be wrong.

Too Long, Didn't Read Version: Never give honest time to people who think proving the people who obviously know what they are talking about wrong about something, anything, is the same thing as honest discourse.
 
p0lka said:
'You're wrong therefore I am right',

Missing the middle ground allows Religions/cults/pray on the weak etc. They have been capitalising on that for ever.
Click to expand...

Yeah but it's getting worse. More and more it's "My methods, premise, arguments, cites, references, internal and external logic are all utterly bonkers... but here you used a semi-colon instead of a colon so we're basically equally wrong which through insane troll logic means I'm right."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom