Frank 013 wrote:Quote:
TH
It is further supporting evidence for my view that critical thinking is emotional thinking for liberal ends.


What about us atheists that are not liberal?

Then I think you are going to have issues with critical thinking, not that critical thinkers present a united front. There are apparently different groups in competition with each other. In addition to previously posted links, I have found this Peter Facione group:

http://www.insightassessment.com/

http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_fi ... hy2006.pdf

http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/DEXadobe.PDF
Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of
Educational Assessment and Instruction -- Executive Summary: The Delphi Report”

Suzanne's Aunt Eileen may be in an entirely different group. Her book Critical thinking in clinical practice

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471471186

does cover fallacies. She may be of an older school.

Since critical thinking is a covert imposition of values -- really, a replacement for tradition religion -- it lends itself to abuse:

Our valid, reliable, efficient and cost-effective [critical thinking] testing instruments are used by universities, hospitals, businesses, government agencies, researchers and K-12 schools throughout the world. Quality measurement tools and test scoring services allow our customers to depend on the results as elements in employment applicant evaluation, professional development and training, academic admissions decision making, learning outcomes assessment, program evaluation and accreditation, and prediction of licensure passage and potential for professional success.
http://www.insightassessment.com/

Anyone denied employment, promotion, or admission to a school for failure to toe the critical thinking line should sue.

To the best of my knowledge, the only course in mind improvement that has had a measurable benefit was the course given by the atheist Albert Upton at Whittier College -- a 10 point improvement in IQ. Upton's work, unfortunately, lost creditability because of his connection with Richard Nixon.

Tom

Frank 013 wrote:The problem here is that TH is not searching for credible sources…

Please be fair, Frank. I asked you for your recommended sources:

What books or classes or websites or conversations are your sources for the doctrines of critical thinking? Do you consider Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World to be an authoritative definition of critical thinking?

And so far you have given me nothing. Possibly you believe in critical thinking from hearsay -- it does seem to be nice -- but if you could recommend any sources, I'd like to see them.

Tom

Wow.

TH... what the hell are you talking about?

Thomas, I gave you a source many posts back. I think you're off your rocker.

Frank 013 wrote:In this case he [TH] is trying to take the best form of thinking [critical thinking] available to humans and discredit it as purposeful propaganda and emotional thinking… why? Because it makes religious beliefs look irrational.

I see critical thinking as a substitute for religion, and if I thought it were a good substitute, I'd accept it. But it isn't a good substitute. Instead of asserting values upfront and loudly, critical thinking asserts values surreptitiously. It's myth for the modern person who has lost religion.

Also, unlike Upton, who did give specific methods, there is no clear method in critical thinking. It's all fog. If critical thinking were real and improved our minds and gave us material benefits, I'd be for it too. But so far, the only good I have found in critical thinking are those parts of traditional logic it has incorporated. Anyway, if you have faith in it, that's probably better than faith in nothing.

Tom

johnson1010 wrote:Wow.

TH... what the hell are you talking about?

Could you be more specific?

Interbane wrote:Thomas, I gave you a source many posts back. I think you're off your rocker.

Well, Interbane, you have given several links, and I have already visited them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2009 ... c-fallacy- part-ii.html

Did you find a conclusive insight into critical thinking at one of these sites?

TH,

Critical thinking is not like karate or something. It doesn't have a group, or followers any more than cracking your knuckles has adherants.

Critical thinking is a term to describe the process of questioning assumptions. It is not a substitute for religion. Hard as you may find it to believe, there is no trace of religion or worship in my life, or many others across the planet.

No gods. No ghosts. No magic. No superstition. No rites. No rituals.

Your assertions are completely off the mark and speak more to your conspiracy theory complex than anything that exists in actuallity.

I see critical thinking as a substitute for religion, and if I thought it were a good substitute, I'd accept it. But it isn't a good substitute.

So you are saying that instead of using critical thinking, or what might be accurately described as examining the things you are told for truthfulness and not swallowing everything you are told regardless of how unlikely an assertion is, we should have religion? Does that make religion the opposite of thinking for yourself? Is that the way you see it?

Explain to me exactly how thinking carefully about things you are told is myth? Do you see yourself as incapable of thinking carefully about things, and project this failing on all of us as well?

This tangent you are skewing down is leaving little room for me to consider what you say seriously.

johnson1010 wrote:Explain to me exactly how thinking carefully about things you are told is myth?

If critical thinking were no more than thinking carefully, it wouldn't be mythic. But as I have repeatedly pointed out, using evidence from top critical thinkers, critical thinking involves value-judgments that are absent in traditional logic. People believe in critical thinking. They do not have such passionate, irrational belief in traditional logic, calculus or automotive repair. Critical thinking isn't about getting things done: it's about how to be. It's mythic.

TH: "Did you find a conclusive insight into critical thinking at one of these sites?"

I wasn't biased in a search for a conspiracy, if that's what you're asking. Although after reading though these and others, it seems to me that faith is the opposite of critical thinking, where mindless acceptance is the opposite of using your brain. This makes sense to me coupled with your rejection of critical thinking.

TH: "I see critical thinking as a substitute for religion.."

Though of course, it's not. Critical thinking is basically logic, with emphasis on other key factors such as clarity, relevance, accuracy and precision(they are different), and a few others. One key difference is the emphasis on intellectual honesty and intellectual humility. For example, realizing that some of what you think you know is actually not knowledge, but only a belief.

If you stress the importance of logic over intellectual honesty, then all the riffraff you've been posting makes sense. The benefit of humility and honesty in a thought process is unquestionable. Critical thinking is bad, and dead people have heartbeats! Your Faith has warped your worldview.