|
On May 02 2010 21:59 UFO wrote:
Its not like logic solves everything, problem solving abilities - intelligence is much more and has all to do with also understanding emotions, body, instincts in a skillful and purposeful way , where logic can apply to all of these elements.
So basicly - he`s right and not right because its not complete and it doesn`t state that incompleteness and if someone assumes its complete - then they might make their way on the wrong assumption, until they realize that.
Its not like reason is our first intelligence even , remember any situation where you socialize with buddies - is it really logic that is the guiding force ?
logic as a closed system is perfect, but human thought is not. the youtube author nor anyone in here that Ive seen sugested that the human thinking is perfect, but theyre pointing that it is the most useful when it follows logical guidelines and not rely on baseless faith.
when you're socializing.. I could make the argument that you are in fact applying many devices of logic to make jokes and correlate stories and topics, but I'm just gonna throw out the non-sequitur card instead.
thx 4 videos OP
I liked the second one which was like critical rationalism 101
|
On May 02 2010 21:44 HnR)hT wrote:
"Critical thinking" is a cheap substitute for the real thing. The word "critical" has been so tarred with an ideological subtext, one of Freudian and Marxist provenance, in the academia that it's best to avoid using it altogether if possible. "Critical thinking" stinks of that same subtext. It could not mean a skeptical turn of mind, because it implies an all-purpose fix for everything that is not right with humanity. In schools it instills unthinking disrespect for social convention among those who are too young to know better. As Jacques Barzun has said, the only alternative to convention is force. Without a degree of unquestioned adherence to convention for convention's sake, no civilization could exist.
I think you're confusing critical thinking with critical theory.
|
logic as a closed system is perfect
Does Godel not apply to logic, or just not yours?
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On May 03 2010 02:41 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2010 21:44 HnR)hT wrote:
"Critical thinking" is a cheap substitute for the real thing. The word "critical" has been so tarred with an ideological subtext, one of Freudian and Marxist provenance, in the academia that it's best to avoid using it altogether if possible. "Critical thinking" stinks of that same subtext. It could not mean a skeptical turn of mind, because it implies an all-purpose fix for everything that is not right with humanity. In schools it instills unthinking disrespect for social convention among those who are too young to know better. As Jacques Barzun has said, the only alternative to convention is force. Without a degree of unquestioned adherence to convention for convention's sake, no civilization could exist. I think you're confusing critical thinking with critical theory.
They are not unrelated.
|
On May 02 2010 22:57 duckett wrote:
haha this guy's videos are so terrible. just pretentious crap that makes far too many assumptions to be metaphyiscally relevant *in my opinion*.
and by not specifying "assumptions," you aren't any better, are you?
the clips are actually saying not to assume or take a leap of faith unless you have all the information that allows you to deduce with certainty (which is just a scientific method). i find that the narrator is boring and maybe "terrible," but the content itself is basic science, perhaps with a "pretentious" label of critical thinking.
but i think the issue is not critical thinking, but attention span in your case.
|
On May 02 2010 21:44 HnR)hT wrote:
"Critical thinking" is a cheap substitute for the real thing. The word "critical" has been so tarred with an ideological subtext, one of Freudian and Marxist provenance, in the academia that it's best to avoid using it altogether if possible. "Critical thinking" stinks of that same subtext. It could not mean a skeptical turn of mind, because it implies an all-purpose fix for everything that is not right with humanity. In schools it instills unthinking disrespect for social convention among those who are too young to know better. As Jacques Barzun has said, the only alternative to convention is force. Without a degree of unquestioned adherence to convention for convention's sake, no civilization could exist.
I am really not sure what you are trying to say by this. Unquestioned adherence. Why is this necessary? Why not skeptical adherence - an interest in constant improvement?
It could not mean a skeptical turn of mind, because it implies an all-purpose fix for everything that is not right with humanity.
what does this mean?
or rather, what basis do you have for the statement?
|
I think it's fine to teach philosophical concepts over youtube. Furthermore the topic in the videos isn't really something you can find in a book anyway. The "critical thinking" it preaches is a set of skills, I guess logical thinking skills, that are developed over time in pretty much every academic discipline.
On May 02 2010 21:59 UFO wrote:
Its not like logic solves everything, problem solving abilities - intelligence is much more and has all to do with also understanding emotions, body, instincts in a skillful and purposeful way , where logic can apply to all of these elements.
So basicly - he`s right and not right because its not complete and it doesn`t state that incompleteness and if someone assumes its complete - then they might make their way on the wrong assumption, until they realize that.
Its not like reason is our first intelligence even , remember any situation where you socialize with buddies - is it really logic that is the guiding force ?
This is more or less my problem also. The examples he uses such as someone who believes in God or UFOs imply religion or anything based on faith or contains irrational, non-scientific thinking can be easily disassembled by logic, which is one of the characteristics of when positivist thinking is used in a negative connotation.
|
hnr)rt I am a little skeptical because I have not yet heard anyone who associate the concept of critical thinking with critical theory, I will pay more attention though.
|
On May 03 2010 03:17 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2010 21:44 HnR)hT wrote:
"Critical thinking" is a cheap substitute for the real thing. The word "critical" has been so tarred with an ideological subtext, one of Freudian and Marxist provenance, in the academia that it's best to avoid using it altogether if possible. "Critical thinking" stinks of that same subtext. It could not mean a skeptical turn of mind, because it implies an all-purpose fix for everything that is not right with humanity. In schools it instills unthinking disrespect for social convention among those who are too young to know better. As Jacques Barzun has said, the only alternative to convention is force. Without a degree of unquestioned adherence to convention for convention's sake, no civilization could exist. I am really not sure what you are trying to say by this. Unquestioned adherence. Why is this necessary? Why not skeptical adherence - an interest in constant improvement? Show nested quote +
It could not mean a skeptical turn of mind, because it implies an all-purpose fix for everything that is not right with humanity.
what does this mean?
http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/critical-theory/
|
On May 03 2010 02:43 gyth wrote:Does Godel not apply to logic, or just not yours?
I just read a bit of that and forgive me if it sounds rubbish but:
It does apply, but the logic that I know of, and adopt as mine, doesn't aim to prove or disprove every possible theorem either.
Thats what I meant by closed system. Its perfect in its boundaries. It's when it's out of itself that it can become garbage.
|
yes to say logic works in boundaries is a fine statement to make.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On May 03 2010 03:17 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2010 21:44 HnR)hT wrote:
"Critical thinking" is a cheap substitute for the real thing. The word "critical" has been so tarred with an ideological subtext, one of Freudian and Marxist provenance, in the academia that it's best to avoid using it altogether if possible. "Critical thinking" stinks of that same subtext. It could not mean a skeptical turn of mind, because it implies an all-purpose fix for everything that is not right with humanity. In schools it instills unthinking disrespect for social convention among those who are too young to know better. As Jacques Barzun has said, the only alternative to convention is force. Without a degree of unquestioned adherence to convention for convention's sake, no civilization could exist. I am really not sure what you are trying to say by this. Unquestioned adherence. Why is this necessary? Why not skeptical adherence - an interest in constant improvement?
You can never justify everything to everyone's satisfaction using pure reason. On some matters it is better to accept established conventions (however arbitrary they may be from a rationalist point of view), in the interest of social peace, than to subject all aspects of society to endless argument and revision.
|
While were on the subject can anyone recommend a good introductory book on critical thinking? I'm looking for something concise. I've looked at a few books but they all get mixed reviews (by individuals whose expertise on the subject I'm entirely ignorant of). Is critical thinking a subject as structured and tested as say the scientific method?
|
Critical thinking for me is a practice of logics.
Being skeptical of everything is a by-product of practicing logics.
Logics is a necessity for the survival of human as a race and as a civilization
Every single technology we rely on as a race derive from logics. Even the simplest stone spear in the stone ages requires logical thought to create.
Think of logics as a key that opens up a person's mind to sciences, math and so much more.
Human became the dominate specie in this planet because of our ability to apply logic to everything, not because we are best fit for our environment through evolution. We don't adapt to the environment if we don't have to, we change our environment with our technology which is derive from logics.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On May 03 2010 03:23 zulu_nation8 wrote:
hnr)rt I am a little skeptical because I have not yet heard anyone who associate the concept of critical thinking with critical theory, I will pay more attention though.
You are perhaps right to be skeptical. You can call it an educated guess. Google seems to be useless when trying to pin down the exact origin of that phrase, "critical thinking." But the word "critical" as it is so often used in the academia nowadays tends to carry the connotations of the thought and the writings of the Frankfurt school. I found this, for example:
In Counterrevolution and Revolt Marcuse writes: "Making the university 'relevant' for today and tomorrow means, instead, presenting the facts and forces that made civilization what it is today and what it could be tomorrow--and that is political education. For history indeed repeats itself; it is this repetition of domination and submission that must be halted, and halting it presupposes knowledge of its genesis and of the ways in which it is reproduced: critical thinking." For both critical theorists and critical educators then, the development of this critical lens is the goal of education, but it also is a tool that must be brought to bear on educational systems themselves and the ways that they perpetuate unequal divisions of power and social injustices.
(http://mingo.info-science.uiowa.edu/~stevens/critped/frankfurt.htm)
|
On May 03 2010 03:40 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2010 03:17 travis wrote:On May 02 2010 21:44 HnR)hT wrote:
"Critical thinking" is a cheap substitute for the real thing. The word "critical" has been so tarred with an ideological subtext, one of Freudian and Marxist provenance, in the academia that it's best to avoid using it altogether if possible. "Critical thinking" stinks of that same subtext. It could not mean a skeptical turn of mind, because it implies an all-purpose fix for everything that is not right with humanity. In schools it instills unthinking disrespect for social convention among those who are too young to know better. As Jacques Barzun has said, the only alternative to convention is force. Without a degree of unquestioned adherence to convention for convention's sake, no civilization could exist. I am really not sure what you are trying to say by this. Unquestioned adherence. Why is this necessary? Why not skeptical adherence - an interest in constant improvement? You can never justify everything to everyone's satisfaction using pure reason. On some matters it is better to accept established conventions (however arbitrary they may be from a rationalist point of view), in the interest of social peace, than to subject all aspects of society to endless argument and revision.
I think it's better to encourage critical thought(and philosophy in general), but on a personal level. Teach people to keep an open mind. Most people take things they are taught, file them as "absolute truth", and never challenge it again. This type of ignorance is a big problem in the world.
I do agree, it is sometimes better to accept established conventions in the interest of social peace.
But which matters are those? Who gets to say?
By encouraging critical thinking you encourage intellectual discussion. We don't have to have people arguing about this and that and every little thing. People can discuss matters and come to consensuses. This is often how it works now and I see nothing wrong with it.
It is important to have people question their selves and the worlds they create. Otherwise they become stupid and reliant.
|
On May 03 2010 03:45 rei wrote:
Critical thinking for me is a practice of logics.
Being skeptical of everything is a by-product of practicing logics.
Logics is a necessity for the survival of human as a race and as a civilization
Every single technology we rely on as a race derive from logics. Even the simplest stone spear in the stone ages requires logical thought to create.
Think of logics as a key that opens up a person's mind to sciences, math and so much more.
Human became the dominate specie in this planet because of our ability to apply logic to everything, not because we are best fit for our environment through evolution. We don't adapt to the environment if we don't have to, we change our environment with our technology which is derive from logics.
How about if someone told you that you just made a bunch of logical mistakes ?
|
On May 03 2010 03:56 UFO wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2010 03:45 rei wrote:
Critical thinking for me is a practice of logics.
Being skeptical of everything is a by-product of practicing logics.
Logics is a necessity for the survival of human as a race and as a civilization
Every single technology we rely on as a race derive from logics. Even the simplest stone spear in the stone ages requires logical thought to create.
Think of logics as a key that opens up a person's mind to sciences, math and so much more.
Human became the dominate specie in this planet because of our ability to apply logic to everything, not because we are best fit for our environment through evolution. We don't adapt to the environment if we don't have to, we change our environment with our technology which is derive from logics. How about if someone told you that you just made a bunch of logical mistakes ?
Please help me correct my mistakes
|
If critical thinking is applying logic, and only logic, then you can't really call it thinking. A computer applies logic, and only logic, but you never speak of a computer as thinking (except as a metaphor). Part of critical thinking must be something that is not just applying logic, but a human activity prone to human failure.
|
On May 03 2010 03:58 rei wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2010 03:56 UFO wrote:On May 03 2010 03:45 rei wrote:
Critical thinking for me is a practice of logics.
Being skeptical of everything is a by-product of practicing logics.
Logics is a necessity for the survival of human as a race and as a civilization
Every single technology we rely on as a race derive from logics. Even the simplest stone spear in the stone ages requires logical thought to create.
Think of logics as a key that opens up a person's mind to sciences, math and so much more.
Human became the dominate specie in this planet because of our ability to apply logic to everything, not because we are best fit for our environment through evolution. We don't adapt to the environment if we don't have to, we change our environment with our technology which is derive from logics. How about if someone told you that you just made a bunch of logical mistakes ? Please help me correct my mistakes
everything from the 3rd line on is questionable, you're basically shitting all over yourself over how great logic is. It's also logic the singular and not logics. Great scientific discoveries usually have nothing to do with logic and everything to do with creative thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
