Joined: Apr 2009 Posts: 2129 Location: New Jersey Highscores:82 Thanks: 316 Thanked: 276 times in 227 posts
Gender: Country:
Thomas Hood wrote:
Quote:
I wasn't trying to deceive you in asking for information about your aunt. (I had forgotten her name.) Most of the introduction to one of your aunt's books on critical thinking is available as a Google Book. I went to the trouble of looking it up and reading it.
Thomas Hood wrote:
Quote:
Help me out here, Suzanne. Didn't you say you had an Aunt who taught Critical Thinking at Berkeley?
Suzanne wrote:
Quote:
Yes
Dr. Eileen Gambrill wrote:
Quote: Critical thinking involves more than the mere possession of related knowledge and skills. It requires using them in everyday situations and acting on the results of thinking carefully. It involves accurately presenting alternative perspectives and paying attention to the process of reasoning, not just the product. Strong-sense critical thinking involves a genuine fair-mindedness in which opposing views are accurately presented and there is a genuine effort to fairly critique both preferred and unpreferred views. Critical thinking involves questioning what others take for granted, asking "What's the evidence for this?" even when professors, supervisors, or administrators would rather not consider such questions. It requires paying attention to gaps between our background knowledge (current beliefs and related evidence) and related research findings. Critical thinking and scientific reasoning are closely related. Clarity and the critical appraisal of claims is important in both. Both share a commitment to fair mindedness and reliance on standards that are more likely than others to yield accurate answers to certain kinds of questions.
Thomas Hood wrote:
Quote:
Thank you, Suzanne. Your aunt's nine-sentence description of critical thinking supports my view that critical thinking is "emotional thinking applied to liberal ends, supposedly a beneficial propaganda."
Suzanne wrote:
Quote:
You asked for information from my aunt, I provided it, and again, you spun it around to suit your needs. Information can not be used that way. I truly believed you were searching for purposeful knowledge, I was not aware that what you wanted was knowledge to suit your purpose.
Thomas Hood wrote:
Quote:
I wasn't trying to deceive you in asking for information about your aunt. (I had forgotten her name.) Most of the introduction to one of your aunt's books on critical thinking is available as a Google Book. I went to the trouble of looking it up and reading it.
But you used the info I provided and attempted to deceive readers. The info I provided did not support your opinions. This did call for a value judgement on my part. I can not see you as a credible participant on this topic, and logic, traditional, or otherwise, leads me to the conclusion, I can not see you as credible at all.
Suzanne wrote:
Quote:
If my neighbor on my right tells me that my neighbor on the left is getting divorced, should I just believe it?
Thomas Hood wrote:
Quote:
Until you have reason to think otherwise, yes, you should accept it. If your neighbor has been a responsible informant in the past, why not accept it now? Checking costs. It takes time, effort, and sometimes expense. Most people aren't trying to deceive us, although they may be mistaken.
If the discussion participant has decieved in the past, why should I not believe he will deceive again.
_________________ I feel like a wet seed wild in the hot blind earth. --William Faulkner
Joined: Feb 2008 Posts: 836 Location: Wyse Fork, NC
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
Frank 013 wrote:
Quote:
TH If you find humility, honesty, and the Golden Rule hidden in the heart of things, I certainly wouldn't label you an atheist.
Why not?
Because, virtues are aspects of selves.
If humility, honesty, and the Golden Rule are virtues and are inherent in the universe, then they are inherent in a self.
And this self is God.
_________________ Think critically about critical thinking.
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3723 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 748 times in 563 posts
Gender: Country:
Those virtues aren't inherent in anything. They are aspects of behavior that we as humans have decided to term "virtuous". You'll find these behaviors a lot in some people, but not much in others. This is due to natural genetic variance and has nothing to do with the metaphysical or divine. How could you have come to the conclusion that these man made labels are inherent in the universe?
_________________ “In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
Joined: Feb 2008 Posts: 836 Location: Wyse Fork, NC
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
Interbane wrote:
Those virtues aren't inherent in anything. They are aspects of behavior that we as humans have decided to term "virtuous". You'll find these behaviors a lot in some people, but not much in others. This is due to natural genetic variance and has nothing to do with the metaphysical or divine. How could you have come to the conclusion that these man made labels are inherent in the universe?
Above you said:
Interbane wrote:
They are virtues, but they 'belong' no where. Just as the golden rule of morality does not belong to religion, but precedes it, the virtues of humility and honesty were understood by philosophers before the bible was written.
If they exist and are found "no where," that is, in no particular place, then they are everywhere and aspects of the cosmos as a whole. Maybe I didn't understand you, as I seldom do because of your peculiar use of words. For example, your use of the word "label" is metaphoric and usually irrelevant to what you are talking about. A "label" is a blank piece of paper attached to a pill bottle or some such, and has no definite connection to the contents of the pill bottle. When the label is inscribed "Amoxicillin" then there is -- or should be -- a definite connection between label (word) and contents of the bottle (referent).
Please comment on how you think virtues are aspects of behavior or are behaviors rather than dispositions, how and when humans decided on the use of the virtues, and why you think virtuous conduct is based on genetics.
_________________ Think critically about critical thinking.
Joined: Aug 2008 Posts: 1872 Images: 1 Location: NC
Thanks: 410 Thanked: 467 times in 348 posts
Gender: Country:
Thomas Hood wrote:
Because, virtues are aspects of selves. If humility, honesty, and the Golden Rule are virtues and are inherent in the universe, then they are inherent in a self. And this self is God.
It seems to me that buried in the strands of this thread is an attempt to defend a private spiritual belief using logic and reason and I don't think it's possible to do that. Science and logic are tools used to find meaning and truth in the physical world in which we inhabit. Spiritual beliefs are necessarily the domain of the metaphysical which is why spiritual belief requires faith. In my opinion, trying to defend or justify spiritual beliefs using rational thinking and/or science is inherently dishonest and ultimately futile.
Not to say that religion and science are incompatible because it's very simple to say that God invented nature and just because you show that a particular phenomenon has a natural explanation, whether it's the rising and setting of the sun and the moon, or the movements of the tide, it doesn't take God out of the picture. Thus it can be argued that God is the author of all things natural so, therefore, when you show that something has a natural phenomenon all that shows that it's within God's providential sphere. I think Aquinas said this.
Just to be clear I'm not saying that faith is scientifically provable, only that there are ways in which people of faith, who are convinced of the reality of God, to be able to understand science and accommodate it within their own religious views. Obviously this isn't my position, but it seems to me this is the only logically tenable position for someone who needs or wants to have faith in God. Fighting against science or logic has always been a losing proposition for the church and it's not going to work for an individual either.
_________________ -Geo Who Knows Only His Own Generation Remains Always a Child Cicero, Orator 120
Joined: Aug 2008 Posts: 1872 Images: 1 Location: NC
Thanks: 410 Thanked: 467 times in 348 posts
Gender: Country:
geo wrote:
Thus it can be argued that God is the author of all things natural . . .
Just to clarify my previous post, when someone admits that their belief comes from a position of faith they will have no need to assail science and logic or try to bend the truth to fit their beliefs. It becomes a matter of private belief which is not controversial and not debatable. That really is the crux of what I'm trying to say.
_________________ -Geo Who Knows Only His Own Generation Remains Always a Child Cicero, Orator 120
Joined: Feb 2008 Posts: 836 Location: Wyse Fork, NC
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
Frank 013 wrote:
Quote:
TH Please be fair, Frank. I asked you for your recommended sources:
I have been so much more than fair already...
Sources? For what… how to think fairly/rationally/critically?
My sources are my personal ethics and search for honesty and truth… no matter what my personal belief might be on the subject.
The inference is that you believe in critical thinking but have never examined its academic formulations and so have simply accepted it on faith. Now, I'm not criticizing you for being a person of faith, because as I pointed out, checking is expensive. Life is short and we cannot check everything and have to accept some things on trust.
However, in the case of critical thinking, you ought to examine its roots, because critical thinking is the Achilles heel of atheism. Atheism would be no more than a philosophical position If atheists did not have a fallacious logic to assert themselves.
About the discrimination you have experienced as an atheist, surely you are aware that in the minds of many persons, atheism and its rebellion against tradition has been a main prop of atheistic totalitarianism. When you are considered to be part of such a horror, you should expect others to be punitive.
Tom
_________________ Think critically about critical thinking.
Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 2397 Images: 7 Location: Michigan
Thanks: 803 Thanked: 607 times in 438 posts
Gender: Country:
Quote:
The inference is that you believe in critical thinking but have never examined its academic formulations and so have simply accepted it on faith. Now, I'm not criticizing you for being a person of faith, because as I pointed out, checking is expensive. Life is short and we cannot check everything and have to accept some things on trust.
It appears that i must point out again that critical thinking is NOT a belief system, but a pair of words to describe careful, inclusive thought processes that evaluate input in relation to other things in your experience.
I don't know what nonsense you have dredged up to make you think you know what you are saying when you talk about critical thinking as some kind of liberal conspiracy, but you are, unequivicably, flat out, wrong.
Quote:
...critical thinking is the Achilles heel of atheism.
Critical thinking is not the sole domain of atheists. Everyone uses critical thinking. If you look at a thing you know, or are told and challenge it to stand on evidence, rather than assumption, then that is critical thinking. It is evaluating the merit of a thing. What part of this says atheist? What part of this is liberal?
Quote:
Atheism would be no more than a philosophical position If atheists did not have a fallacious logic to assert themselves.
Fallacious logic you say? Perhaps you would like to hit the back button on your web-browser and peruse the litany of insane assertions you have made recently.
Atheism is, now read this part carefully, the dis-belief in a god. That is all.
This is the only tie that binds us and why we make such poor oppressors. Each and every one of us diverge after this one sentiment. There is no unified vision of atheism, there is no plan about atheism, there is no motive behind atheism, there is no curtain to shove aside, and no man pulling levers.
The main thrust of your argument, the only thing i have been able to filter out of this swill is that you don't trust independent, careful, thought process that evaluates ideas based on merit and veracity, and you would rather have us shoulder the yoke of blind old fools in robes who tow the leads of squabbling bronze age savages who dreamed up the ultimate "You just wait till your daddy comes home" scenario.
Quote:
About the discrimination you have experienced as an atheist, surely you are aware that in the minds of many persons, atheism and its rebellion against tradition has been a main prop of atheistic totalitarianism. When you are considered to be part of such a horror, you should expect others to be punitive.
There have been no totalitarian regimes who's goal was atheism. There have been totalitarian regimes with atheists amongst their number, surely.
Shall we set up a chalk board and take tally of how many atheist regimes there have been and then make a column for religious regimes? I do not fault religious people alive now for the events of the inquisition, or the crusades. I judge each person on the things they do and the things they say.
_________________ Have you tried that? Looking for answers? Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?
Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the truth would be revealed through logic and evidence. -James Williamson MD
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
In the absence of God, I found Man. -Guillermo Del Torro
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. -Derek Bok
You wouldn't like me when i'm angry... Because I always back up my rage with facts and documented sources. -The Credible Hulk
Joined: Feb 2008 Posts: 836 Location: Wyse Fork, NC
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
Suzanne wrote:
you used the info I provided and attempted to deceive readers.
I did nothing of the sort. Everything I did was public and documented. I would prefer to have your approval, but everybody can't be pleased all of the time. Apparently you have great admiration and respect for your aunt, and suppose that she should be treated with deference. Surely you do not expect me to share your emotional connection to your aunt.
Your criticism of Wikipedia is unjust. I no more follow Wikipedia mindlessly than I would any other source. I use Wikipedia heavily and shall continue to do so. You are quite right that some Wikipedia articles are flawed, an example being the Wikipedia article on Critical Thinking. This article appears to have been written either by Peter Facione or one of his associates, and it is basically an ad for Facione's critical thinking business. Nevertheless, it gives links helpful in exposing the roots of the critical thinking cult:
A person who had worked for Wikipedia joined BookTalk -- maybe six months ago -- and was critical of the management of Wikipedia, but he did not express himself in concrete terms.
Tom
_________________ Think critically about critical thinking.
Joined: Aug 2008 Posts: 1872 Images: 1 Location: NC
Thanks: 410 Thanked: 467 times in 348 posts
Gender: Country:
johnson1010 wrote:
It appears that i must point out again that critical thinking is NOT a belief system, but a pair of words to describe careful, inclusive thought processes that evaluate input in relation to other things in your experience.
I don't know what nonsense you have dredged up to make you think you know what you are saying when you talk about critical thinking as some kind of liberal conspiracy, but you are, unequivicably, flat out, wrong.
Well said.
Thomas Hood wrote:
However, in the case of critical thinking, you ought to examine its roots, because critical thinking is the Achilles heel of atheism. Atheism would be no more than a philosophical position If atheists did not have a fallacious logic to assert themselves.
I think, Thomas, in your mad dash effort to demonize atheists you are completely missing the boat about what critical thinking actually is. As Johnson says, critical thinking is not an atheist-only mode of thinking. Any atheist or theist can use critical thinking methods in the ongoing pursuit to get to the truth. I think what you're really trying to argue is that atheism is a religion, but for some reason you've latched onto critical thinking as an atheist's "Achilles heel." Would you have atheists use uncritical thinking methods? What then? Is it your hope that without it's "Achilles heel," an atheist's lack of belief in God will disintegrate and they will become raving believers?
Wikipedia wrote:
Critical thinking is purposeful and reflective judgment about what to believe or what to do in response to observations, experience, verbal or written expressions, or arguments.
Critical thinking only means thinking, well, critically. There's no creed or theory or pro-Nazi agenda attached to it. These are only your preconceptions that twist the meaning into something else.
I can't speak for others, but for me critical thinking is simply to question the way we do things and to always apply a healthy dose of skepticism to all claims and statements. For example, let's say someone comes up and tells me that they've started taking multivitamin tablets and they feel like they have more energy. I would be skeptical of such a claim; I would be inclined not to take what they say at face value. I would say probably they want to believe the multivitamins gives them more energy and therefore are reaping the benefits of the placebo effect. More importantly, I would reserve acceptance of the claim until I see evidence of it's truth. I am neither convinced of its truth or of its untruth. Although offhand, I'd say it's probably an imagined benefit. But even this bias is based on what I have already read about the alleged benefits to multivitamins (which are either negative—no benefit—or inconclusive).
There is no "fallacious logic" inherent in questioning the validity or truth of a claim. If anything it's an absence of belief or, at least, withholding judgment and allowing for the reality that many things are not what they may first seem. The human brain is far from perfect. We have limited cognitive and sensory abilities and flawed memories. We are prone to wishful thinking, subconsciously trying to bend the truth to our opinions rather than the other way around. It's human nature to come to a belief too easily. I think we are hard-wired to come to beliefs but, by thinking critically we are more likely to eventually get to the truth of things.
_________________ -Geo Who Knows Only His Own Generation Remains Always a Child Cicero, Orator 120
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3723 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 748 times in 563 posts
Gender: Country:
TH: "If they exist and are found "no where," that is, in no particular place, then they are everywhere and aspects of the cosmos as a whole."
If you’re using my statement that these virtues belong no where as the premise to show that they are everywhere, then I’m flattered. But, you didn’t use my words verbatim. I didn’t say they are ‘found’ no where(I'm sure you've found them in your neighbors), I said they ‘belong’ no where. This statement was to emphasize that there is no ‘purpose’ to these virtues. They are behaviors, or dispositions if you will, which are emergent characteristics of the human mind.
Honesty is a virtue that would not exist without deception. Deception exists because it is advantageous to survival. There is a point where too much deception, whether toward yourself or toward others, is destructive in the long run, but is enticing since it is immediately beneficial. This is not the only reason, but it is one reason that honesty is a virtue. For brevity, the explanation is compressed. Let me know if my peculiar use of words confuses you.
Honesty is the act of telling the truth. How is it that you think an act which is performed by people is everywhere and an aspect of the cosmos? When I deliberate on answering a question posed to me by my mother, and decide that I should be honest, does the universe at that precise moment in time ‘instill’ me with honesty? If you think so, what makes this explanation valid in any sense when such a decision is easily explained as a deliberate or unconscious choice? That we currently don’t have the ability to understand the workings of the brain doesn’t mean that the choices and behaviors that emerge aren’t a direct result of the firing of neurons. You have billions of nerves, each with thousands of analog(more variant than digital) connections, and you say that the act of ‘telling the truth’ cannot be an emergent property? The universe ignores the workings of this astoundingly complex neural processor and instead magically ‘instills’ us with honesty? This is a pristine example of cognitive dissonance.
Or is honesty a disposition that is instilled into us in varying amounts at birth? Which means all of our experiences and thoughts of a life long lived will have no impact on whether or not we lie to our wife when she asks if we think she’s fat. Such acts are deliberated, either consciously or unconsciously. Repetition of such acts is indicative of disposition.
If your new shelter is the unconscious, which I’ve mentioned a couple of times, know that unconscious decisions are still decisions, the same neurons are at work crunching the data ether. The difference is our awareness of this process. We cannot be simultaneously aware of two things at once, we’d be overloaded. So we have some thoughts that we aren’t aware of(and some perceptions we aren’t aware of either, which is interesting, but is a tangent.)
Also, if such virtues are inherent in the universe, what is the criterion for demarcation? Is humility so virtuous that it qualifies, but elegance or gracefulness or toughness or temperance, patience, loyalty, generosity, devotion, etc… do not? Do they all qualify? If so, then do their opposites qualify? Is deception inherent in the universe? If you cannot draw the line on the spectrum of dispositions going from very good to very evil, and everything in between, then every disposition known to man qualifies? If this is the case, who needs a brain! The neurons are all fake, put there to deceive us and lead scientists on a wild goose chase, and we will all still have heartbeats after we’re dead!
I assume you’ll have a problem with some of the words I’ve used, since you’re an adept wordsmith. If that’s the case, let me know and I’ll copy/paste everything I’ve written with the words you dislike replaced with ones you agree with. The underlying meaning and chains of reasoning are sound, so very little else need be changed.
_________________ “In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
Joined: Feb 2008 Posts: 836 Location: Wyse Fork, NC
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
johnson1010 wrote:
It appears that i must point out again that critical thinking is NOT a belief system, but a pair of words to describe careful, inclusive thought processes that evaluate input in relation to other things in your experience.
Stop making up stuff, Johnson, and consult what the critical thinking professionals say, like here:
Joined: Feb 2008 Posts: 836 Location: Wyse Fork, NC
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
geo wrote:
. . . critical thinking is not an atheist-only mode of thinking.
That's true, Geo. I hold in my hands Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Phillip E. Johnson (author of Darwin on Trial) -- a Creationist, I think -- and on p.56 he has a section titled "Critical Thinking in Evolutionary Biology, " which begins with "1. Learn to distinguish between what scientists assume and what they investigate." What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
_________________ Think critically about critical thinking.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.
Support BookTalk.org
BookTalk.org is being upgraded to a totally new design. This upgrade is expensive. Any support would be VERY helpful! See who supports us.
Make a donation
PEOPLE PAYING FOR OUR UPGRADE:
• afv - $10 May
• LevV - $50 March
• Dexter - $10 March
• supernova38 - $25 March
• Oblivion - $20 March
• jheimlich - $20 February
• Robert Tulip - $50 February
• giselle - $50 January
Children here need worming
regularly, and I think I
need to buy more worming
tablets, so while my friends
sit on the beach, I have to
catch bush taxis up to the… more
The children have a long way
to walk to the nearest primary
school. At the moment they are
in temporary accommodation,
with volunteer teachers. There
is community land available,
a… more
The price of The 12th Disciple
has been updated to $3.99 for
Kindle readers. The book is
still available for free to
borrow for Amazon Prime
members. To be
competitive, and s… more
The 12th Disciple has been
reviewed by two different
people on Amazon. They
purchased the Kindle edition;
one in the US, one in the
UK. One review was
5-stars (US) and the oth… more
I'd like to say I've
been reading Harry Potter
since the day the world renown
series appeared on the
scene. Unfortunately,
the truth is I began reading
Harry Potter… more
Easter teaches many of us the
importance of redemption and
resurrection. Regardless of
what faith people follow, the
story of Jesus Christ has been
told in many languages in many
c… more
Our Book Talk will begin on
Wednesday, May 2nd. I look
forward to hearing about your
learning and classroom
experiences with Number Talks
as it all unfolds...
NONOPPOSITIONAL NONVIOLENCE
The minute you conquer the
fear of death, at that moment
you are free. I submit to you
that if a man hasnt
discovered something that he
will die f… more
Yesterday, when I went to feed
Jeni the donkey, I noticed
swarms of bees entering
Ebrimas house through the
cracks in the door. We both
had a look, but he didnt
open his door… more
Whether you want to implement
number talks but are unsure of
how to begin or have
experience but want more
guidance in crafting
purposeful problems, this
dynamic multimedia resourc… more
Do you feel entitled? For
years I have listened to and,
in some instances, complained
that some people in America
feel entitled. For years I
have watched as these people
are portra… more
On Fat Tuesday and Ash
Wednesday of 2012, The 12th
Disciple was free to Kindle
users on both days. In all,
about 550 worldwide Kindle
users downloaded a copy of the
book.
Sacred Are the Brave a
collection of short stories
about the nonviolent
revolutions 1986-1989 is now
available in Kindle. Each of
the nine stories has
characters who are just
… more
The Weekend Trippers is the
true story of Rfn Ted Taylor
and his part in the heroic
last stand in Calais May 1940.
The Weekend Trippers is based
on Teds diaries written at
the… more
Tell your friends when to meet you in the BookTalk.org Chat Room.
If you enjoy business bestsellers and would like to expand your business knowledge check out the quality book summaries offered by the world's leading book summary company.
BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.
Tweet This Topic
