What is Critical Thinking?

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

On one side of the issue you have the claim Venezuela, Ecuador, and now Nicaragua are communist/leftist leaning governments. That is being used by the US and Colombian government supporters as some evil thing and a knee jerk reflex occurs in many when those trigger words or frames are used. Colombia was justified in crossing the border to kill terrorists (another trigger word or frame).

On the other side, you have a number of Latin American countries that view the US as an outside military power that is keeping a military base in Colombia and will be mounting efforts to topple their governments. And there is a history of this very thing, they have reason to believe that whether it is true or not.

You have Americans getting the story filtered by the media and you have a longstanding belief many Americans have that their country is the good guy.

I could go on and on with the immense number of issues here. If I were looking at the 'why' and the 'right and wrong' then the most important thing I need is critical thinking skills to actually make my assessment on facts. I would even go so far as to say critical thinking skills are much more important here.

Using evidence and critical thinking skills are so straight forward when it comes to ghosts, psychics and homeopathy. Evidence is easily identifiable. Sorting out fact from fiction is a matter of following the scientific process and the rules of logic.

Theists suspend critical thinking skills when looking at their religious beliefs. There are a couple of recent threads this is discussed in depth so let's leave that out for the moment.

But take the political topics. Political points of view involve some philosophical positions one could argue are not subject to scientific analysis as they are moral and value related philosophies. While this may be true, I propose those values are so influenced on how one assesses the evidence that critical thinking skills couldn't be more important.

In the case above regarding the Venezuela Colombia dispute, how can you make a moral decision if you are unaware that you are being influenced by the media's framing of the conflict? How can you make a moral decision if you are unaware of your false underlying premise the US is always the good guy? How can you make a moral decision if you think Ecuador supported the FARC leader on philosophical grounds when in reality, it might be that FARC pays off corrupt local authorities in Ecuador?

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

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'll give you another example. Whether or not you lean toward Libertarian or regulated capitalism depends on how you view the facts about those economic systems. If we paid more attention to critical thinking here, there are underlying truths. Either one system works better or the other does. One needs critical thinking skills to know if people are basically corrupt and need regulating or if people are basically good and will do the right thing on their own. You need critical thinking skills to know if monopolies really do die on their own because they are inefficient or whether it is really a concentration of wealth that is the problem, not the monopoly and that situation has been rectified by revolutions throughout history.

There is a tiny bit of moral values here that may not be part of the critical thinking. You might think unsuccessful people are not the responsibility of those who are successful. Or you might think society should take care of its weakest members. But if you don't use critical thinking to determine how many people are really homeless, how many people are freeloading off welfare, how much the individual is/was responsible for that failure or what could they really do about it, then your moral viewpoint on responsibility might be based on false underlying premises.

 

[Piscivore]

As you will see, I already said in the first post I made that you don't need to know why.

You are incredibly dangerous if you tell people that. Because that is a sure fire way to die.

If you toss out the belief that

Stepping off a cliff will kill you
Putting a gun to your head and pull the trigger will kill you
Playing in traffic will kill you
Eating lots of those pills in your mother's medicine cabinet will kill you

you will die, long before you have learned how to distinguish between what will harm you, and what won't.

Sometimes, it is OK to believe what your parents told you.

There is nothing about "why" I can see in that.

However, if you have to learn this yourself, you won't survive.

Nope. Not all cliffs are high enough to kill you, just to begin with.

Or, of course, you build your knowledge on other people falling off cliffs.

You just really need to believe that no one learns anything unless someone else teaches it to them, it seems. Why?

 

[blutoski]

Thanks for sharing, Stone. The thing about critical thinking is that you have to pace yourself.

google "Love is a Fallacy" by Max Shulman

Excerpt:

With an immense effort of will, I modulated my voice. “All right,” I said. “You’re a logician. Let’s look at this logically. How could you choose Petey Burch over me? Look at me – a brilliant student, a tremendous intellectual, a man with an assured future. Look at Petey – a knothead, a jitterbug, a guy who’ll never know where his next meal is coming from. Can you give me one logical reason why you should go steady with Petey Burch?”

 

[CFLarsen]

No.

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

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

The advice to make discovery about your own knowledge base is the basis of skepticism, of critical thought. That's the very thing critical thought does: am I sure of that? Can I find out? If I do find out, can I be willing to exchange my belief for this knowledge? Can I make this into even a provisional fact, instead of an open-ended, unprovisional belief?

TA was simply saying: don't settle for belief. Find out if you can know. Yes, of course, if it's something you can't know, that no one can know, you have to relegate it to belief. But if you can know, and safely, of course, then why not choose to know?

Let me ask you this:

How do you discover the difference between something you believe and something you know?

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

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

But things don't always fall to the floor every single time. Balloons - a fixture of childhood - float. Birds fly. Clouds fly. Bugs fly.

Magicians are popular with kids because they can do what kids dream of doing: Totally controlling the universe, and make it do what seems impossible: Make rabbits appear. Get balls to float in mid-air.

There is nothing about "why" I can see in that.

Exactly.

Nope. Not all cliffs are high enough to kill you, just to begin with.

And how do you come by that fact? You test it yourself, until you find a cliff that does?

You just really need to believe that no one learns anything unless someone else teaches it to them, it seems. Why?

I don't.

 

[Piscivore]

Exactly.

So "As you will see, I already said in the first post I made that you don't need to know why." was a lie. You left the subject of "why" completely unaddressed. That is not the same thing as saying "you don't need to know why".

And how do you come by that fact? You test it yourself, until you find a cliff that does?

No, you fall down a cliff that doesn't kill you, but hurts you enough to notice. You do know about making inferences, right? Your whole argument seems to be predicated on the idea that information must be obtained only through direct experience or taught by someone else.

Why?

 

[CFLarsen]

So "As you will see, I already said in the first post I made that you don't need to know why." was a lie. You left the subject of "why" completely unaddressed. That is not the same thing as saying "you don't need to know why".

Huh? I didn't lie. I gave examples of when you don't need to know why - just rely on what your parents told you.

No, you fall down a cliff that doesn't kill you, but hurts you enough to notice.

How do you know it doesn't kill you?

You do know about making inferences, right? Your whole argument seems to be predicated on the idea that information must be obtained only through direct experience or taught by someone else.

Why?

I don't.

You seem very intent on making me argue what I don't. Why don't you go with what I argue instead?

 

[Piscivore]

How do you know it doesn't kill you?

Um... you land hard at the bottom and you don't die?

I don't.

Then please tell me any other method you think we gain knowledge apart from direct experience or taught by someone else. Your statement "Likewise, did you wait until you were taught the scientific explanation of why things fall down, before you decided to stay away from the cliff? No, you relied on knowledge gained from other people. " seems to only consider those two possibilities. Are there no others?

You seem very intent on making me argue what I don't. Why don't you go with what I argue instead?

I'm trying to clarify what you are arguing. Your use of language is often equivocal and your stated views seem excessivly narrow. I'm trying to limit the resultant ambiguity.

 

[slingblade]

Let me ask you this:

How do you discover the difference between something you believe and something you know?

Ah, this is an attempt at a Clever Trick Question, isn't it? Okay: let's see if I can avoid your fiendish pitfall, or if I clumsily step right into a puddle of your brilliance, shall we?

I read. I investigate. I compare my knowledge to the collected knowledge of others. I compare new information to that which I've experienced before. I use my memory; I extrapolate from what's come before.

But most of all, I try to distinguish between that which can be known, and that which cannot, at least at this time. I don't know everything, and I know I don't know everything. I know there are some things none of us know, yet. So some information I simply hold in abeyance, within my mind. I catalogue it as something like "unconfirmed," and I wait for anything which may provide positive or negative input. Whenever such comes along, if it ever does, I weigh it like everything else.

In the end, I may occasionally make mistakes, and still think I know something that isn't actually so. When I come across these wee beasties, I use my Baloney Detection Kit on them. If someone says to me, "Hey, Sling, you know that isn't true, don't you?" then I go to other sources and see what's being said about it, and then I use all those tools I mentioned above.

And sometimes I still get it wrong. You see, I don't yet know if everything I think I know is actually so. It's a process, and one that I expect never to complete.

The point is not how successful I am at it. The point is that I have learned to do this at all. I have learned that saying or thinking "I believe..." is a signal to myself that I've just come across something I may not yet have confirmed or categorized. And that I need to do so, to the best of my ability, every time I can.

But things don't always fall to the floor every single time. Balloons - a fixture of childhood - float. Birds fly. Clouds fly. Bugs fly.

Magicians are popular with kids because they can do what kids dream of doing: Totally controlling the universe, and make it do what seems impossible: Make rabbits appear. Get balls to float in mid-air.



Exactly.



And how do you come by that fact? You test it yourself, until you find a cliff that does?



I don't.

Are you trying to discover how humans gain the capacity to learn?

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

But those of us who do manage to survive childhood, and who have brains that learn, retain, and extrapolate, gain from those experiences the tools we need to survive future experiences, or at least have a better chance at it.

The point is not whether or not we can learn. The point is whether or not we choose to.

 

[CFLarsen]

Um... you land hard at the bottom and you don't die?

Yep: You learn. Only you can land hard and survive, but land not-so-hard from a not-so-tall cliff and still die. And, you can continue to try cliffs until you die.

Now what?

Then please tell me any other method you think we gain knowledge apart from direct experience or taught by someone else. Your statement "Likewise, did you wait until you were taught the scientific explanation of why things fall down, before you decided to stay away from the cliff? No, you relied on knowledge gained from other people. " seems to only consider those two possibilities. Are there no others?

There are several. I gave them as examples.

I'm sorry if I haven't been able to cover all eventualities of all issues ever imagined.

Ah, this is an attempt at a Clever Trick Question, isn't it? Okay: let's see if I can avoid your fiendish pitfall, or if I clumsily step right into a puddle of your brilliance, shall we?

No trick question.

I read. I investigate. I compare my knowledge to the collected knowledge of others. I compare new information to that which I've experienced before. I use my memory; I extrapolate from what's come before.

But most of all, I try to distinguish between that which can be known, and that which cannot, at least at this time. I don't know everything, and I know I don't know everything. I know there are some things none of us know, yet. So some information I simply hold in abeyance, within my mind. I catalogue it as something like "unconfirmed," and I wait for anything which may provide positive or negative input. Whenever such comes along, if it ever does, I weigh it like everything else.

In the end, I may occasionally make mistakes, and still think I know something that isn't actually so. When I come across these wee beasties, I use my Baloney Detection Kit on them. If someone says to me, "Hey, Sling, you know that isn't true, don't you?" then I go to other sources and see what's being said about it, and then I use all those tools I mentioned above.

And sometimes I still get it wrong. You see, I don't yet know if everything I think I know is actually so. It's a process, and one that I expect never to complete.

The point is not how successful I am at it. The point is that I have learned to do this at all. I have learned that saying or thinking "I believe..." is a signal to myself that I've just come across something I may not yet have confirmed or categorized. And that I need to do so, to the best of my ability, every time I can.

Exactly. But these require that you learn how to distinguish between belief and knowledge. You learn by yourself, but you also learn by being taught by others.

The point is not whether or not we can learn. The point is whether or not we choose to.

Unfortunately, not all have the opportunity to learn.

 

[slingblade]

No trick question.

That remains to be seen.

Exactly. But these require that you learn how to distinguish between belief and knowledge. You learn by yourself, but you also learn by being taught by others.

And this has what, exactly, to do with telling TA that his advice, if taken, will get a person dead, and quickly?

Unfortunately, not all have the opportunity to learn.

Duh. I already acknowledged that, above. Did you miss it?

 

[CFLarsen]

And this has what, exactly, to do with telling TA that his advice, if taken, will get a person dead, and quickly?

He assumed that people can inherently distinguish between knowledge and belief. Clearly, they can't. They have to learn, they have to be taught.

Duh. I already acknowledged that, above. Did you miss it?

No.

Why are you so aggressive? I'm not attacking you or anything.

 

[slingblade]

He assumed that people can inherently distinguish between knowledge and belief. Clearly, they can't. They have to learn, they have to be taught.

He did? Where?

No.

Why are you so aggressive? I'm not attacking you or anything.

Why are you taking my post as aggressive? I'm not attacking you or anything.

 

[CFLarsen]

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

 

[Piscivore]

Yep: You learn. Only you can land hard and survive, but land not-so-hard from a not-so-tall cliff and still die. And, you can continue to try cliffs until you die.

Now what?

Now we can see you are still thinking only in a limited capacity. This response shows you are only considering direct experience in evaluating this scenario.

Are you seriously claiming that a child- hell, even an animal- who falls off a cliff and is hurt, but does not die, is not going to excercise caution the next time he's near a ledge?

There are several. I gave them as examples.

No, you didn't, you gave examples of situations where ignoring what was taught (in otherwords, not trusting someone) might be dangerous.

What you've actually said in this thread about acquiring knowledge:
"Sometimes, it is OK to believe what your parents told you"
"You are told to stay away from guns, you don't find out for yourself."
"you relied on knowledge gained from other people."
"if you have to learn this yourself, you won't survive. Or, of course, you build your knowledge on other people falling off cliffs."
"...just rely on what your parents told you."

I'm sorry if I haven't been able to cover all eventualities of all issues ever imagined.

I dodn't ask for that, just give me one way besides direct experience or being taught by which you think a person can gain knowledge.

ETA:

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

Yes you do. It is your game. You're just miffed she's better at it than you are.

Take your ball and go home, Claus.

 

[CFLarsen]

Now we can see you are still thinking only in a limited capacity. This response shows you are only considering direct experience in evaluating this scenario.

I am going with how you described it: You land hard at the bottom and you don't die. That doesn't include anything else than direct experience.

Are you seriously claiming that a child- hell, even an animal- who falls off a cliff and is hurt, but does not die, is not going to excercise caution the next time he's near a ledge?

Could be. Some kids do, some don't. But even if he is cautious, that still doesn't mean he won't try ever again. Right?

No, you didn't

You are so intent on dictating my argument. Just go with what I argue, not with what you want me to argue.

 

[Piscivore]

I am going with how you described it: You land hard at the bottom and you don't die. That doesn't include anything else than direct experience.

Right, but how does that direct experience keep him from getting too close to the next cliff? You seem to be saying that the child has to fall off that one too: "And how do you come by that fact? You test it yourself, until you find a cliff that does [kill you]?"

I'm just trying to find out if that's the only way, besides being taught by someone else, that you think a child can learn that cliffs can kill.

Could be. Some kids do, some don't. But even if he is cautious, that still doesn't mean he won't try ever again. Right?

Right. But I am not asking about every single child that encounters a cliff. I am talking about the one who does not try again. Try and focus.

You are so intent on dictating my argument. Just go with what I argue, not with what you want me to argue.

I don't want you to argue anything. I would like it if you would stop trying to have an argument and just clarify your views.

Do you think that direct experience ond being taught by others is the only way to gain information?

No, Claus, you haven't already answered that.

 

[CFLarsen]

Right

Thank you.

, but how does that direct experience keep him from getting too close to the next cliff? You seem to be saying that the child has to fall off that one too

No I don't.

: "And how do you come by that fact? You test it yourself, until you find a cliff that does [kill you]?"

I am asking if that is how people come by that fact. You see this little sign "?" ? It means that it is a question.

I'm just trying to find out if that's the only way, besides being taught by someone else, that you think a child can learn that cliffs can kill.

I already made that clear. Read the thread.

Right. But I am not asking about every single child that encounters a cliff. I am talking about the one who does not try again. Try and focus.

Can you make up your mind? You criticize me for not consider all possibilities but you also criticize me for not "focusing" on one of them.

I don't want you to argue anything.

Then don't.

I would like it if you would stop trying to have an argument and just clarify your views.

I have clarified my views, repeatedly. Not only have I stated several times what I think, I have also several times corrected your many misunderstandings of what I argue.

Do you think that direct experience ond being taught by others is the only way to gain information?

No, Claus, you haven't already answered that.

Yes I have, in post #50.

Do you have something new? Something you haven't misunderstood repeatedly?

 

[Piscivore]

Yes I have, in post #50.

"You learn by yourself, but you also learn by being taught by others."

Does "learning by yourself" mean direct experience only?

 

[CFLarsen]

"You learn by yourself, but you also learn by being taught by others."

Does "learning by yourself" mean direct experience only?

There are several. I gave them as examples.

I told you to read the thread.

You'd look a heck of a lot less foolish if you did.