What is Critical Thinking?

[Dr H]

Thanks. I appreciate your making me your personal pissing post.

Oh hell, I'm not trying to do that. I'm just critically examining your position, as seems appropriate in a thread on "critical thinking".

I mostly agree with what you originally said; I just think it could be said with more precision, and thus garner less backlash. YMMV.

Friend of Larsen's are ya?

Never met the dude prior to dropping in on this forum.

 

[Dr H]

<shrug> OK, if you say so. Seems like you were, though.

Well, I wasn't.

I accept that that is your assessment; pardon me if I remain unconvinced.

The logic involved in a form of argument doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the precise meaning of individual terms, but again, OK.

You don't necessarily have anything to do with my argument, either.

Hmm... a tad touchy.

The point is that the person to whom TA was speaking doesn't have to remain ignorant about what he merely believes to be true, in many cases. He can undertake to find out whatever he may about what he believes. In that exploration, he may exchange belief for knowledge. He may not. The key is to try.

He may exchange belief unsupported by evidence for belief supported by evidence.
I agree that the key is to try. He of course has to want to try.

I don't agree. If you chose to continue to believe the world is flat, in spite of the preponderance of the evidence, it's not a matter of faith.

No? Then what is it? How would you define "faith," if different from that standard definition that I have been using?

I do not agree that the entirety of what I know, or of what humanity knows, is nothing more than belief.

I agree that to call it nothing more than belief trivializes it. Nonetheless, it is belief: it's belief that is either supported by evidence, or belief that is supported by faith.
I prefer belief supported by evidence.

You can never know that there is no additional evidence to discover. {...}

I know.

Indeed? How do you know? And how do you know that you know?

And is a simple fact.

No fact is simple.
Social conventions can be facts, but they are facts that are subject to change with context.

Neither of which would be a mere belief.

Agreed. Because "mere belief" = faith, and you would be basing both statements upon evidence, and not faith.

But your point, it seemed, was that there could be no new evidence in your example case;
I see you've rethought that statement.

By the same token, if the standard of measurement did change last week, the person who says they still "believe" it's 12 inches would be wrong.

Of course. Because the new evidence doesn't support their belief.
Juat as the person who believes that the foot is 13 inches would have been wrong last week, because the best available evidence then didn't support that belief.

Indeed? Was George Washington born February 11th or February 22nd?{...}

And how do you know any of that? Did it come, fully blown, from your own head, or did you have to do any, oh...I don't know...reading, maybe? Any fact-verification? Any gathering of information from sources outside yourself?

Sure, I did research on the topic, fact verification, all that. From my current perspective the available evidence seems to support my belief that it is true. If I hadn't done any of that, then my belief would have been founded solely on faith that my notion was correct.

Look, I'm really not trying to give you a hard time,

HOW MANY of my posts, and onlymy posts, did you rip apart in this manner? And you're not giving me a hard time? Really?

Sorry if you're feeling victimized, but no, really, I'm not.
I'm a veteran of many years of Usenet newsgroup participation where folks are a good deal thicker-skinned than some seem to be here. If my rough country-ways have offended you, best I can do is let you know that it's nothing personal.

Also, while I've been lurking in these fora for a couple of years, I've only begun posting recently. So I haven't had a chance to rip into a whole lot of people yet. Give me time.

since I agree with the basic point of your post. But there is a certain carelessness of language that creeps into these discussions that can often undermine a critical examination of the main ideas.

I can tell you don't agree with me.

You need to read a bit more carefully; your belief on that point is in error.

Can you tell I don't care?

If you don't care, why respond to me?

Can you tell that the entire point is that:
If the poster to whom TA said to "toss out" his beliefs takes TA's advice, he will not surely die.

That was your main point, and I've already told you I agree with it.

I stopped caring what you think the moment I saw scads of my posts shredded to bits, one after the other after the other, but not one word quoted from anyone else. I know an attack when I see it, even one so passive and nicey-nice eudite as this one.

Do you participate in discussion fora for the purpose of having discussions, or were you just expecting a place where you would be allowed to pontificate, unchallenged?

More to the point: he was suggesting that the poster stop relying on faith, and start relying on evidence.

Yeah, That's what I said. That's exactly what I said.

I respectfully disagree. That may be exactly what you meant, but in what you said you conflated "faith" with "belief". Perhaps it was unintentional; if so, why continue to argue about it?

Sounder advice would be to base your beliefs upon solid evidence, and always be willing to examine those things you think you "know".

Yeah. That's what I said.

If that's what you meant, I have no quarrel with you. If it had been what you said, then I would have seen no need to comment on it.

I am acquainted with plenty of religious people who "know" that God exists; who "know" that prayer is answered; who "know" that they're going to heaven, and I'm going to hell.

And they're wrong. They do not know it. They only believe it, with no evidence whatsoever.

You believe that they're wrong, and so do I. Just as they believe that they are right.
The difference is that their belief is based on faith alone, and yours and mine is based on evidence.

Words can be slippery things. If they're not used carefully, they will come back and bite you on the ass.

You'll find out, I'm sure.

We all find out. Some of us sooner; others later.

Cheers.

 

[Dr H]

Replacing "belief" by "mere belief" is a step in the right direction, but what you really mean is still "faith".

You don't get to tell me what I mean.

Far from it. I do get to tell you what your statements mean to me, however. If I am drawing an incorrect inferrence, you have ample opportunity to clarify.

And now you're confusing "information" with "knowledge".

No. I'm not.

OK. MYbad. Maybe.
Perhaps you could clarify the difference, then?

 

[Dr H]

Wasn't talking about Darwin or natural selection. Was talking about deliberately choosing to use the brains you've got, if you've got any to use.

I don't see where I've insulted you in any of my posts.
Why do you feel it necessary to do so to me?

 

[Dr H]

True. And at that point you can either choose to believe the position suggested by the preponderance of physical evidence, or you can choose to continue to believe that the world is flat, in spite of the evidence. In the first case we call your belief "factual;" in the second we call it "faith." In either case, it is still a belief.

I don't know. I think many people would call the second case "willful ignorance". Is that what faith is?

Sometimes. Perhaps not always.

Faith seems to be important in realms where facts are in short supply. Believing something against a wealth of facts, without anything to support it doesn't seem to deserve the term "faith", though, of course the term can be applied. I think 'willful ignorance' works better there.

As noted above, sometimes faith does amount to willful ignorance. I'm not sure that phrase always fits, though -- it implies an active choice, and frequently faith seems to me to be a matter of more passive acceptance; it is often an unquestioned idea.

But examples of people believing in the fact of contrary evidence abound. Look at those who believe in the efficacy of prayer; or homeopathy; or that atheists are satinists, just to take a few of the more obvious.

If I step off a 20 story building because I believe that I can float, do you say I have great faith or I'm nuts? Of course you can label it faith, but nuts must be associated with it somewhere. It's not just faith.

Nailing down absolute terms is always tricky. I agree that "faith," as most commonly used, is usually saved for larger issues. On the other hand, take the example of a Jehovah's Witness who believes that God will heal a ruptured appendix without medical intervention. Do you call that 'great faith' or 'nuts'?

The line between the two can be fuzzy.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

As noted above, sometimes faith does amount to willful ignorance. I'm not sure that phrase always fits, though -- it implies an active choice, and frequently faith seems to me to be a matter of more passive acceptance; it is often an unquestioned idea.

But examples of people believing in the fact of contrary evidence abound. Look at those who believe in the efficacy of prayer; or homeopathy; or that atheists are satinists, just to take a few of the more obvious.

Perhaps we should start using the terms together.

Nailing down absolute terms is always tricky.

Probably impossible.

I agree that "faith," as most commonly used, is usually saved for larger issues. On the other hand, take the example of a Jehovah's Witness who believes that God will heal a ruptured appendix without medical intervention. Do you call that 'great faith' or 'nuts'?

Hmm, I think I'd call it nuts. Perhaps great faith that leads to absolutely nutso behavior.

Of course, it depends on one's perspective. Lovers' behavior is perfectly normal to a lover and completely asinine to anyone else watching. The Jehova's witness would call it great faith and decide that God just wanted to take little Billy now. Anyone looking from the outside would just call it nuts.

 

[slingblade]

I accept that that is your assessment; pardon me if I remain unconvinced.

Then do so. Remain so.

Hmm... a tad touchy.

Oh, no. Now there you're wrong. I am extremely touchy.

He may exchange belief unsupported by evidence for belief supported by evidence.
I agree that the key is to try. He of course has to want to try.

I don't care if he does or doesn't want to try. That isn't my point. My point is that TA suggested another poster confirm his own knowledge base and Larsen said if the poster did that, he'd surely die.

Hyperbole doesn't bother you, even a bit?

No? Then what is it? How would you define "faith," if different from that standard definition that I have been using?

Again: My point is that TA suggested another poster confirm his own knowledge base and Larsen said if the poster did that, he'd surely die.

I agree that to call it nothing more than belief trivializes it. Nonetheless, it is belief: it's belief that is either supported by evidence, or belief that is supported by faith.
I prefer belief supported by evidence.

I don't play semantics, and yes my dear, I'm quite familiar with it. I simply don't play. By play, I mean this particular game in which I can ony be counted as correct, or only be understood, if I use the words you tell me to use.

I used to know someone who played. He was good.

Me: Why are you so angry?

Him: I'm not angry! (yelling at me)

Me: Then why are you so mad?

Him: I'm NOT MAD!

Me: Okay...why are you so upset?

Him: I'M NOT UPSET!

Me: Then why are you so...negatively inclined?

Him: Ah! The reason I'm negatively inclined is....

No. Sorry. I don't play that game. If that's your sport, you must find other partners.

Indeed? How do you know? And how do you know that you know?

No. I most certainly do not play that game, either. I can't fathom why anyone finds it interesting to play, but I'll happily leave them to it. I find it a waste of time and good brain power that could be used for other, more productive things.

No fact is simple.
Social conventions can be facts, but they are facts that are subject to change with context.

Agreed. Because "mere belief" = faith, and you would be basing both statements upon evidence, and not faith.

But your point, it seemed, was that there could be no new evidence in your example case;
I see you've rethought that statement.

No. I didn't have to rethink any of my statements, and certainly not because, in your wisdom, you decided to undertake to educate the retard. But it doesn't matter now, does it? By that simple turn of phrase, you've set yourself up as the wise one. Should that have capital letters?

Well, it's all right, You've set me straight. I'll certainly know better in future. Thanks, ever so, for making the world a safer place for others, at my expense.

Of course. Because the new evidence doesn't support their belief.
Juat as the person who believes that the foot is 13 inches would have been wrong last week, because the best available evidence then didn't support that belief.



Sure, I did research on the topic, fact verification, all that. From my current perspective the available evidence seems to support my belief that it is true. If I hadn't done any of that, then my belief would have been founded solely on faith that my notion was correct.



Sorry if you're feeling victimized, but no, really, I'm not.
I'm a veteran of many years of Usenet newsgroup participation where folks are a good deal thicker-skinned than some seem to be here. If my rough country-ways have offended you, best I can do is let you know that it's nothing personal.

Also, while I've been lurking in these fora for a couple of years, I've only begun posting recently. So I haven't had a chance to rip into a whole lot of people yet. Give me time.



You need to read a bit more carefully; your belief on that point is in error.


If you don't care, why respond to me?


That was your main point, and I've already told you I agree with it.


Do you participate in discussion fora for the purpose of having discussions, or were you just expecting a place where you would be allowed to pontificate, unchallenged?




I respectfully disagree. That may be exactly what you meant, but in what you said you conflated "faith" with "belief". Perhaps it was unintentional; if so, why continue to argue about it?



If that's what you meant, I have no quarrel with you. If it had been what you said, then I would have seen no need to comment on it.




You believe that they're wrong, and so do I. Just as they believe that they are right.
The difference is that their belief is based on faith alone, and yours and mine is based on evidence.




We all find out. Some of us sooner; others later.

Cheers.

Now then. You just go along, in your world, where everything is only a form of belief. Where nothing can be known, and to attempt to know anything will result in one's sure death. Don't try to learn; you'll surely die. Don't change a thing about what you think, or why: you'll surely die. Stay away from critical thinking, and just keep snuggling those beliefs each night; they'll keep you warm and safe.

 

[Dr H]

{faith versus 'willful ignorance'}Perhaps we should start using the terms together.

Perhaps. I think there is a distinction in some contexts, though.

Hmm, I think I'd call it nuts. Perhaps great faith that leads to absolutely nutso behavior.

Of course, it depends on one's perspective. Lovers' behavior is perfectly normal to a lover and completely asinine to anyone else watching. The Jehova's witness would call it great faith and decide that God just wanted to take little Billy now. Anyone looking from the outside would just call it nuts.

I agree that perspective is important.

As to faith leading to nutso behavior, certainly it can do that, though it's not a sure thing. People who believe that their moral code comes from God may nonetheless behave well because they choose to follow that code.

And the reverse is true: acting on evidence doesn't guarantee that one is not going to do something nutty. For example, knowing how to build a fission bomb, and what its capabilities are likely to be doesn't necessarily mean I won't think it's a good idea to build one in my cellar, just as a hobby.

 

[CFLarsen]

My point is that TA suggested another poster confirm his own knowledge base and Larsen said if the poster did that, he'd surely die.

Hyperbole doesn't bother you, even a bit?

If you feel that way about hyperbole, you shouldn't misrepresent things yourself.

I did not say that confirming your own knowledge base would lead to certain death.

 

[Dr H]

Hmm... a tad touchy.

Oh, no. Now there you're wrong. I am extremely touchy.

So I'm starting to notice. That does not auger well for rational discussion.

Hyperbole doesn't bother you, even a bit?

Not at all, if artistically employed.

I don't play semantics,

No. I didn't have to rethink any of my statements

I see: You're not interested in communicating, you merely want to pontificate.
You could have just said so, in so many words.

That's cool; I can live with that, now that I know where you're coming from.

Now then. You just go along, in your world, where everything is only a form of belief. Where nothing can be known, and to attempt to know anything will result in one's sure death. Don't try to learn; you'll surely die. Don't change a thing about what you think, or why: you'll surely die. Stay away from critical thinking, and just keep snuggling those beliefs each night; they'll keep you warm and safe.

What a fascinating analysis of a whole slew of claims I never made.

Since you mention "critical thinking," have you ever considered giving it a try?

 

[slingblade]

Funny. Tell you what: I do have one thing I'll use.

 

[slingblade]

If you feel that way about hyperbole, you shouldn't misrepresent things yourself.

I did not say that confirming your own knowledge base would lead to certain death.

Oh, but you did.

It's all right, though. The problem presented has a solution.

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh, but you did.

It's all right, though. The problem presented has a solution.

*sigh*

No, I didn't. And I have no idea why you think you can get away with claiming such a preposterous thing.

You need to take a break from this forum. Seriously.

 

[slingblade]

No, Larsen, I need to take a permanent break from you. And as of this post, I've done so.

I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again. I've apologized for it before, and I'll apologize again. But when I'm right, and I'm told I'm not right, I will defend it. And I am, on both counts.

I stand by what I said. I'm right about what I said: TA's advice is not "a sure-fire way to die."

And don't tell me how to spend my time. You know where the ignore feature is, as well as I do. I'm using mine. What you do is your affair, as what I do, where I go, what forums I frequent, and what I choose to say on them, is mine. Pisses me off no end for people to tell me to leave, because they don't agree with me. Don't agree, that's fine.

But I'm not going anywhere.

 

[Dr H]

Geez, it's just like Usenet, only the tempers are even more hair-trigger.

<yawn>

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Even though Chavez has publicly commented on his admiration for Castro, do you find the contention that he is "leftist" hard to swallow? Sure, it's a loaded term, but aligning one's self with a well known leftist leader, even if one is only espousing solidarity of a sort, hardly defuses the contention that Chavez is indeed a "leftist" as a political leader.

Me, I think leftist is an incorrect label, being imprecise, as his moves in the past few years look far more like a standard banana republic despot working to consolidate his own popularity and power. We shall see how it plays out in the next few years.

Whether or not Chavez being "leftist" is of major significance is another matter. Why not apply a test to Chavez himself: how much critical thinking does he display in his utterances and actions?

Is referring to Bush as the devil at the UN critical thinking in action?

Nations have an interest in acting to support their own security. No one looks out after your affairs better than you do. Ecuadorian turning of a blind eye to the haven their magical line on the map provided for a FARC/Narco kingpin is hardly supportive of regional security.

We agree. Try applying some critical thinking regarding Chavez. It will be a liberating experience.

DR

Your erroneous preconceptions about me are again interfering with how you interpret what I said.

I'm not saying Ecuador, Venezuela and Nicaragua were not left leaning governments. I am saying that how you value that fact affects how you view the actions of everyone involved here. Critical thinking would require one to look at the actual facts.

Who is corrupt?
Who's harming civilians?
Whose government serves the greater good?
Who is lying?

There are real facts in this story somewhere. If you side with one mentality or the other, you are not going to see the real facts, you are going to make assumptions based on your preferred beliefs. You have shown a particular likelihood of making biased assumptions rather than thinking critically about political matters. Your false assumption I would blindly support some particular political ideology is evidence of that fact.

Reagan called the Contras, "freedom fighters". They were not. They were terrorists, paid for by a few wealthy Nicaraguans and preferred by international corporations who preferred to support oppression of the population rather than human rights.

Does that mean all leftists governments are preferable? Of course not. Holding people captive for huge ransoms is no better. Not every leftist struggle is a human rights struggle. They are just as susceptible to being terrorists and there are many left wing governments which promote terrorism for their own personal gain.

I believe in human rights. I also believe a capitalist economic system is ideal. What I refuse to buy into is blind allegiance to capitalism as if human rights are never trampled on by the US. I also know from first hand experience, we are not always the good guys. Rarely, I see you allude to that. But more often than not you refuse to look.

 

[CFLarsen]

There are real facts in this story somewhere. If you side with one mentality or the other, you are not going to see the real facts, you are going to make assumptions based on your preferred beliefs.
...
I also believe a capitalist economic system is ideal.

You don't even realize what you are saying.

You have shown a particular likelihood of making biased assumptions rather than thinking critically about political matters. Your false assumption I would blindly support some particular political ideology is evidence of that fact.

You? Who blindly follow Hillary Clinton, ignoring or downplaying anything that is critical of her and her campaign?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You don't even realize what you are saying.



You? Who blindly follow Hillary Clinton, ignoring or downplaying anything that is critical of her and her campaign?

You are full of it, Claus. I have said a number of critical things about Clinton. Apparently I have come to a particular conclusion about the evidence I have assessed that differs from your conclusions. You certainly do not have a monopoly on correct assessments.

 

[CFLarsen]

You are full of it, Claus. I have said a number of critical things about Clinton. Apparently I have come to a particular conclusion about the evidence I have assessed that differs from your conclusions. You certainly do not have a monopoly on correct assessments.

I don't pretend to. Unlike you, who chide people for doing exactly what you do so much better.

It's OK to be biased in politics. What isn't OK is to claim that you aren't, when in reality you are among some of the most biased people I have ever seen. It's nothing but hypocrisy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'll debate the evidence with you any day, Claus, that is until I get tired of you ignoring that evidence. Your personal attacks claiming I ignore the evidence simply don't stand up to scrutiny.

Here are two posts from another thread providing support for my assertion I am strong on evidence, refuting your ad hom for which you cannot provide specific evidence of.

I have seen skeptigirl and linda, more than anyone else, closely analyze and then expertly take apart Ivor's and Beth's "evidences" in a lot of detail.

For them to claim that Linda and Skeptigirl just don't agree or are just biased is complete nonsense....

One reason why Skeptigirl may be loath to change her conclusions is because she may have come to them due to strong evidence, to which your claims cannot compare. Another may be that she's believing blindly and ignoring what you can offer, but I lean toward her having access to more evidence than do you.