|
On May 03 2010 04:08 Badjas wrote:
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.
I am pretty sure we don't call it thinking in the instance of the computer because we do not believe they have a mind. They do not experience "thought".
|
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.
Every single technology we rely on as a race derive from logics = assumption and heavy generalization, signposts for logical mistakes - humans posses relatively average logic, comparision to artificial intelligence and to its effectivness - however they posses a guiding force for logic, which is the foundation for creativity. Recall what truly guides you when you talk with someone - and more importantly how you developed your social skills. If that was thanks to logic alone - you would have to posses a very advanced analysing machine, like high class computer.
Even the simplest stone spear in the stone ages requires logical thought to create = well, logic in itself is analysis and comparision - so one could argue that some ancient tools were not fruits of logic, certainly not all and not completely because comparision and analising capabilities of humans are not enough in themselves.
I am not disregarding logic, by any means - human race, mostly doesn`t posses any considerable logical capabilities and that so many of them think that they have everything thanks to their logic - is only one of many logical mistakes they fall into.
|
In my opinion, this entire thread (especially those videos in the op) are a really big advertisement for Mathematics.
ps: for the lulz,
![[image loading]](http://content2.myyearbook.com/zenhex/images/quiz1/1687/1687_res2.jpg)
|
On May 03 2010 04:11 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2010 04:08 Badjas wrote:
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. I am pretty sure we don't call it thinking in the instance of the computer because we do not believe they have a mind. They do not experience "thought".
Indeed, what are you trying to point out here?
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On May 03 2010 03:54 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2010 03:40 HnR)hT wrote: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. This type of ignorance is a big problem in the world.
In a way, this is the most important statement in your post, since everything else follows from it, more or less. Some think that, what they call the ignorance of the masses is a major "problem" that can be solved. Others are much more pessimistic. This is just the old debate (mainly originating in 18th century France) between the Enlightenment enthusiasts and its critics, between liberals and conservatives. I don't think it is much use to try to resolve it here...
|
On May 03 2010 04:20 Badjas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2010 04:11 travis wrote:On May 03 2010 04:08 Badjas wrote:
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. I am pretty sure we don't call it thinking in the instance of the computer because we do not believe they have a mind. They do not experience "thought". Indeed, what are you trying to point out here?
That your example of us not referring to a computer as "thinking" isn't very useful in this situation.
Were you trying to say that consciousness is necessary for critical thinking? Because that seems redundant as we seem to agree that consciousness is necessary for thinking in general.
|
On May 03 2010 04:24 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2010 03:54 travis wrote:On May 03 2010 03:40 HnR)hT wrote: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. This type of ignorance is a big problem in the world. In a way, this is the most important statement in your post, since everything else follows from it, more or less. Some think that, what they call the ignorance of the masses is a major "problem" that can be solved. Others are much more pessimistic. This is just the old debate (mainly originating in 18th century France) between the Enlightenment enthusiasts and its critics, between liberals and conservatives. I don't think it is much use to try to resolve it here...
well I just like discussing things with you and some others I am not too worried about what I resolve or don't resolve 
|
Saw the first video. What he says is true, but nothing I didn't already know. His monotone and lack of examples detract hugely from the teaching power he could have.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On May 03 2010 04:29 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2010 04:24 HnR)hT wrote:On May 03 2010 03:54 travis wrote:On May 03 2010 03:40 HnR)hT wrote: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. This type of ignorance is a big problem in the world. In a way, this is the most important statement in your post, since everything else follows from it, more or less. Some think that, what they call the ignorance of the masses is a major "problem" that can be solved. Others are much more pessimistic. This is just the old debate (mainly originating in 18th century France) between the Enlightenment enthusiasts and its critics, between liberals and conservatives. I don't think it is much use to try to resolve it here... well I just like discussing things with you and some others I am not too worried about what I resolve or don't resolve
haha
|
United States3594 Posts
@UFO
Seems to me that I have a misunderstanding of what logic is. I thought logic is the study of reasoning, Both analysis and comparison are methods of reasoning, Hence I don't fully understand how one can argue something derive from analysis and comparison yet illogical in the same time, provided they only have excess to limited information and resource at the time.
Can you elaborate more about this with an example please?
@Badjas Thanks for clarifying, when I use the word logic, i actually put clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, significance, fairness and anything and everything relates to reasoning together as a whole concept.
|
On May 03 2010 04:38 rei wrote:
@UFO
Seems to me that I have a misunderstanding of what logic is. I thought logic is the study of reasoning, Both analysis and comparison are methods of reasoning, Hence I don't fully understand how one can argue something derive from analysis and comparison yet illogical in the same time, provided they only have excess to limited information and resource at the time.
The point is that it doesn`t necessarily derive from analysis and comparision.
Besides, do you know any other methods of reasoning that wouldn`t be these two or their result ?
|
Travis, what rei says 
When you use only the word logic, it is deceiving in my mind, when you mean a more broader concept. I am used to the computer kind of logic and everything else to me is not logic, but typically an approximation by human thought with possible human error.
Edit: Bleh I am not happy with how I phrased this but my mind is in no state to improve it. Edit2: ah let me add: Thinking is more than applying logic in a perfect/infallible manner no matter how you do it.
|
Logic = Reasoning = ability to analyse and compare and thats just it
|
Lets not argue over semantics. Instead, let me posit that people who dislike logic are dumbz ololool
edit: joke, don't ban me again please
|
Isnt skepticism about Relying on the best, most verifiable and reliable information on a subject, instead of basing your thoughts on ideology and arguments borne more out of belief than fact? Thats what I try to apply. Perhaps understanding that you cannot know much, and that facts change as new discoveries are made is at the core of it. Believing critical thinking to be a hoax is a fun proposal, wonder what the genius who scoffs at thinking does to make his conclusions.
Scientism is a stupid term borne out of ignorance, by people who want to "level" the playing field between science and religion, ignoring the fact that only one of them is based on evidence and a way of testing things.
People here seem to be basing the discussion too much on some random youpoop, makes for skewed discussions. Check out the skeptics guide to the universe if you like dorky science news in a entertaining podcast package.
|
Btw - Why some people talk shit about those videos, they are really good and I see no reason to disregard them, presented logic is sound and gives an inightful view about beliefs, prejudice and overal reasoning rules.
|
I thought critical thinking was about recognizing that all of your decisions are based on assumptions, identifying your assumptions, and addressing how valid those assumptions are.
Am I thinking of something else?
|
The problem with critical thinking tends to be,
The plenitude with which it's applied,
It's an issue not of faith but of degree,
And application to everything descried
Whether 'tis a holdover from times long past,
A reminder of the Age of Enlightenment,
With the philosophical arts downcast,
Reduced to a trite faux-entertainment
Or a gradual move to empiricism,
From a worldview that prized,
Development over religious schism,
And all that we could see with our own eyes.
A truth that can only be found in the laboratory,
Is worth less than graffiti in the lavatory...
|
i watched a couple and they sounded like plain common sense.
not sure how you guys found something to argue about... 0_o
|
Watched a few of them as well... Pretty basic stuff, and a few (okay, quite a few) errors (that second video on faith). I'm glad he mentioned Craig, too bad all he did was make assertions, mangled assertions...
On May 02 2010 10:57 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2010 10:32 Ghostcom wrote:On May 02 2010 10:24 Lixler wrote:On May 02 2010 10:21 Ghostcom wrote:On May 02 2010 10:12 Lixler wrote:On May 02 2010 10:09 Ghostcom wrote:On May 02 2010 10:05 Lixler wrote:On May 02 2010 10:04 Ghostcom wrote:On May 02 2010 09:53 Lixler wrote:On May 02 2010 09:40 zulu_nation8 wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions. It should be pretty evident that the current age is nihilistic at root. Take any political controversy as evidence. Buddhism doesn't make metaphysical assertions of the nature that are relevant to logic. What is reincarnation? Seriously, why can't the 2 groups not just leave each other alone? Calling each other "idiots, retards, emotionally retarded, inhumane" doesn't really do any good for either side, does it? Either side which doesn't see the degradation and extermination of its ideological opponents as good is probably going to be without value. A) That is a pretty idiotic statement. B) Science and religion aren't ideological opponents A) Why do you say that? B) You're right, but they certainly should be. On May 02 2010 10:10 Mindcrime wrote:On May 02 2010 10:05 Lixler wrote:On May 02 2010 10:04 Ghostcom wrote:On May 02 2010 09:53 Lixler wrote:On May 02 2010 09:40 zulu_nation8 wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions. It should be pretty evident that the current age is nihilistic at root. Take any political controversy as evidence. Buddhism doesn't make metaphysical assertions of the nature that are relevant to logic. What is reincarnation? Seriously, why can't the 2 groups not just leave each other alone? Calling each other "idiots, retards, emotionally retarded, inhumane" doesn't really do any good for either side, does it? Either side which doesn't see the degradation and extermination of its ideological opponents as good is probably going to be without value. That's nonsense. Dissent is good regardless of the truth of its claims. It is, but nobody should consider dissent from what they think positive. I said that mainly due to B... And no, they shouldn't, perhaps you think so, but that is your personal opinion and not a fact, stop stating stuff like facts. Why shouldn't a person consider his opinions as facts? Wouldn't he be a terribly drab person, always self-contradicting? Because facts are something objective which a subjective thing can never become? And you just describe the best scientist Nothing is truly objective, and nothing is truly subjective. The subject and object are both fictions.
Nothing is truly objective, and nothing is truly subjective... Then what are they? And if we're talking about a fiction, then whose fiction? Mine, or yours, or someone elses? And what is a semi-objective semi-subjective thing? Objectively subjective, subjective objective? Where's the contradiction in all of this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
