|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
 Posted - 07/28/2004 : 06:49:16 [Permalink]
|
Wulfstan
I suspect that you may be a scholar or someone interested in the intellectual strength of our citizens. However, you and everyone like yourself who are aware of my efforts to encourage self-learning and the study of Critical Thinking are either actively attempting to thwart my efforts or are at least silent. I see no support from the academic community in a matter that one might expect such support. It makes no sense to me that you would be anti-intellectual. Why is someone like you playing the role of heckler? You do not appear to be a young person out for a bit of fun.
It appears to me that our (US) culture is very schizoid in all matters pertaining to the intellect. I will compare public reaction to physical prowess as opposed to that same reaction to intellectual prowess.
Admiration by most of the public toward others who exercise physically. Suspicion of those who exercise intellectually.
Coaches and teachers of sports display admiration for amateurs of the sport. Teachers and professors often are condescending toward amateurs of the sport of intellection.
Anti-intellectualism permeates our society. Our society loves the young person who displays physical prowess especially when that display is in the form of some popular sport.
Coaches and teachers of sports are often paid top dollar. Teachers and professors are often paid bottom dollar.
Our culture applauds intellectual effort directed at making more money. Our culture denigrates intellectual effort as an end.
In our culture a good physical appearance is considered admirable. Our culture shows little respect toward any appearance of intellectual competence.
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 07:03:38 [Permalink]
|
coberst wrote:quote:
However, you and everyone like yourself who are aware of my efforts to encourage self-learning and the study of Critical Thinking are either actively attempting to thwart my efforts or are at least silent.
No, no, no, NO!
You are again creating a false dichotomy.
In reality, many of the people you conclude to be hecklers started out trying to help you get your facts straight.
It does not do to have a proponent of critical thinking squawking about stuff that's wrong or even just unsupported by evidence and/or logic. That's what you've been doing, coberst.quote:
I see no support from the academic community in a matter that one might expect such support.
From what academic community have you sought such support? A handful of Internet message boards (even those such as the Philosophy Forums) do not constitute an "academic community."
Plus, the real academics in the forums you've visited have tried to correct you, but you just dismiss them as being negative.
A dozen strangers telling you that you are attempting to reach your goals badly should not be heckled, as you are doing, coberst.
Yes, you are still the heckler.
The one more chance SciFi Chick gave you has already been wasted. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 07:17:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
However, you and everyone like yourself who are aware of my efforts to encourage self-learning and the study of Critical Thinking are either actively attempting to thwart my efforts or are at least silent.
We are in no way against trying to get the general public to critically think (notice the lower case letters), however you must realize that you are not talking to the general public. I read articles on the net that I find on such topics, and would be doing so whether or not you came to this forum. I feel as if its the same for everyone else here, but I can't speak for them. We are only trying to get you to think critically, so in no way are we thwarting your efforts, but taking your message and applying it to you.
You have spewed out general knowlege, for no purpose that I can see. It sounds like you like hearing yourself talk. You make assertions which are unsupported and in many cases what I would consider to be false (as you have made no arguement for them and I have made arguments against them). You call everyone who disagrees with you unintelligent and not a critical thinker. This is not critical thinking. Its like taking a 10 year old and asking him to teach Quantum Physics. You must first understand what it is that your trying to teach, then you can teach it.
quote:
I see no support from the academic community in a matter that one might expect such support.
Then you are not looking hard enough. I get the feeling that you are drawing this conclusion based on your own school experience. The system has changed much since you were in school. I have had many teachers which taught critical thinking, the greatest one being Mr. Spinellie (sp? Not sure), my sophmore biology teacher who from which I first learned about the world of critical thinking and being a skeptic. But there were more than just him, and in my personal experience, teachers tried to teach us how to learn, not just how to memorize things. But I can not say that this is the same situation across the country, it is only from my experience.
quote:
Coaches and teachers of sports are often paid top dollar. Teachers and professors are often paid bottom dollar.
In public schools (at least I'm pretty sure in all of New Jersey), coaching is a volunteering job, they are not allowed to be payed more. Another unsupported assertion, unless you would care to support it? |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
SciFi Chick
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 07:42:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by coberst
I suspect that you may be a scholar or someone interested in the intellectual strength of our citizens. However, you and everyone like yourself who are aware of my efforts to encourage self-learning and the study of Critical Thinking are either actively attempting to thwart my efforts or are at least silent. I see no support from the academic community in a matter that one might expect such support. It makes no sense to me that you would be anti-intellectual. Why is someone like you playing the role of heckler? You do not appear to be a young person out for a bit of fun.
From Merriam Webster dictionary: heckle - to harass and try to disconcert with questions, challenges, or gibes.
coberst, we are not attempting to harass or disconcert you. The questions being asked of you are in a spirit of honesty and forthrightness. Sometimes it is hard "hear" tone of voice via writing, but I assure you that most of the people responding to you are trying to help you, not hinder you.
quote:
Originally posted by coberst
It appears to me that our (US) culture is very schizoid in all matters pertaining to the intellect. I will compare public reaction to physical prowess as opposed to that same reaction to intellectual prowess.
Admiration by most of the public toward others who exercise physically. Suspicion of those who exercise intellectually.
I see what you're saying here, but I'm not certain we would agree on the cause. See below.
quote:
Originally posted by coberst
Coaches and teachers of sports display admiration for amateurs of the sport. Teachers and professors often are condescending toward amateurs of the sport of intellection.
On this, I disagree completely. Most of the teachers and professors I know see athletics as fun to participate in or a necessary evil. They are not at ALL condescending to people who work at learning.
quote:
Originally posted by coberst
Anti-intellectualism permeates our society. Our society loves the young person who displays physical prowess especially when that display is in the form of some popular sport.
It permeates our popular culture, but not our society.
quote:
Originally posted by coberst
Coaches and teachers of sports are often paid top dollar. Teachers and professors are often paid bottom dollar.
Our culture applauds intellectual effort directed at making more money. Our culture denigrates intellectual effort as an end.
In our culture a good physical appearance is considered admirable. Our culture shows little respect toward any appearance of intellectual competence.
Money is the basis of our economy. Without it, you cannot meet your basic needs. Because of the money generated by football at my university, I am able to have more financial aid to pursue intellectual studies. It's a nice partnership IMHO.
|
"There is no 'I' in TEAM, but there is an 'M' and an 'E'." -Carson
"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud."
-Sophocles |
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 12:44:04 [Permalink]
|
Ricky
Yes our schools and colleges have begun teaching CT but they are not getting the support from the parents that is necessary. Very few adults have any knowledge of CT and thus they do not provide the support required. I am trying to bring to the attention of fellow citizens the message that CT is important. Hopefully parents will begin to inform themself of this important part of education. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 14:41:07 [Permalink]
|
Ricky
I try to differentiate between two phrases "Critical Thinking" and "critical thinking". When people see critical thinking they think that they think and they tend to be critical and thus they are Critical Thinkers. CT is a curriculum of knowledge that might be considered as a composite of logic and epistemology. It is equivalent to 6-hours of college credit courses.
I suspect that most members of this forum are critical thinkers but very few are Critical Thinkers. |
|
|
|
sweet
New Member
6 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 17:09:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ricky
I try to differentiate between two phrases "Critical Thinking" and "critical thinking". When people see critical thinking they think that they think and they tend to be critical and thus they are Critical Thinkers. CT is a curriculum of knowledge that might be considered as a composite of logic and epistemology. It is equivalent to 6-hours of college credit courses.
I suspect that most members of this forum are critical thinkers but very few are Critical Thinkers.
I've been watching these threads closely both here and at the church of critical thinking, and finally could bear no more. Coberst, this is probably just about the most absurd thing I've ever read. How do you support your claim that critical thinking is a "composite of logic and epistemology equivalent to 6 hours of college credit courses? Additionally, your definition is a grotesque example of equivocation. PLEASE, PLEASE PLEASE SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS. THIS IS THE CORNERSTONE OF TRUE CRITICAL THOUGHT. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 17:41:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It is equivalent to 6-hours of college credit courses.
No, not at all. Critical thinking is not something you can understand by taking a course. It is also not something you can learn fully. You can learn Einstien's Theory of Relativity and say "Ok, I'm done with that" but critical thinking is something which you learn over a life time. To me, this is what comes to mind when I hear critical thinking:
1.) Backing up your assertions and claims
2.) Questioning others assertions and claims
3.) Being ok with others who disagree with you
4.) Under standing logic and its fallicies
5.) A general understanding of science (the scientific method, etc)
6.) Understanding how to arrive at a correct conclusion
7.) Using and questioning data and evidence
I feel like there are a bit more that I could list, but thats mostly the basics. So far, the only one that you have not yet broken is a general understanding of science, but that may only be because it hasn't come up yet in your topics.
1.) This one is a bit obvious, I don't know any member that has posted here without showing that you don't back yourself up. Even in sweet's 1 post on this entire forum, he points that out (oh, and btw, welcome to the board sweet).
2.) In my various replies you have not tried to make a counter argument.
3.) Those who disagree are hecklers and "attempting to thwart my efforts [of spreading Critical Thinking]"
4.) "However, you and everyone like yourself who are aware of my efforts to encourage self-learning and the study of Critical Thinking are either actively attempting to thwart my efforts or are at least silent." - false dichotomy (as Dave pointed out)
6.) Based upon point 1, you need to back up assertions to arrive at a conclusion
7.) Your "data and evidence" seems to be your past experiences, and then assuming they apply to the community as a whole, but this is just my opinion.
|
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 18:20:29 [Permalink]
|
Coberst wrote:quote:
It is equivalent to 6-hours of college credit courses.
Beyond what Ricky has said, many (if not most) of the people here have probably done hundreds of hours of self-learning in subjects related to critical thought. This is a very important subject to many of us.
Oh, and if you want to be able to show we're not capital-C-capital-T critical thinkers, you'll need to do much better than just assume it's true because you've assumed it's true of the general population. It's those assumptions upon assumptions of yours, coberst, which demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that you are neither a Critical Thinker nor a critical thinker. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 19:09:44 [Permalink]
|
Me, I'm an old redneck from back in the sticks and there's something here that I don't understand: Critical Thinking vs. critical thinking. Sounds to me a lot like the hoary, old micro/macro evolution (non)arguement.
Somewhere, perhaps here or at TheologyWeb, I asked a Creationist how many micros would it take to make a macro. As expected, I got an ad hom answer satisfactory to neither of us.
But still, I ask: at what level does critical become Critical? What scholarly body makes that distinction, and upon what grounds is it made?
Alas, we are all humans, here. As such, we all think differently. A critical thinker on some subjects might well have been seduced by supertitious crap and urban ledgends on others. Which is one of the main reasons that we ask for and give reference almost every time.
?????
Edited to add; this ain't a heckle. |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 07/28/2004 19:12:50 |
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 02:14:41 [Permalink]
|
A Critical Thinker is an individual who has taken the effort to learn all of the characteristics of good thinking.
It seems to me that the primary area in which our school system has failed is in teaching reasoning skills.
I will give a mathematical analogy to clarify my meaning. We are born with an innate ability to deal with quantity. I will call this level one. When we learned to add and subtract we moved to level two. With an understanding of division and multiplication we advanced to level three. The fourth and last level I will define as learning algebra and geometry.
I argue that similar levels of reasoning could be defined.
We are all born with that innate ability to reason and can be educated to the various levels of reasoning proficiency just as in mathematics.
I am not aware of any such instruction given most of our population. It is obvious to me that the average individual hasn't reached the level of two yet. Probably 99% of our population has not gone beyond the equivalent of level two.
Individuals learn to reason well within the narrow limits of a profession and can act effectively while considering matters wherein their training has prepared them to operate. They have learned the algorithms of their profession. The engineer can solve engineering problems and the accountant can do the same with business problems. Both professionals are, however, less than effective with matters that they have not been trained to deal with. Within a profession one can learn to reason along a well-prescribed pattern, such is not the case with more ambiguous problems.
Reasoning is the ability to analyze facts and draw logical conclusions. To reason well is to be able to infer or conclude what is real. If we cannot, through clear thinking, determine the better, if not best, course of action we suffer the consequences throughout life. There is good reasoning, bad reasoning, better reasoning, and best reasoning.
Reasoning, like mathematics, can be learned. I can make it through life well enough without developing reasoning skills. However, there is so much more available to those who make the effort to learn to reason well.
A “Critical Thinker” is one who has acquired the skills of reasoning and combined these skills with a questioning intellect. Our schools and colleges are beginning to teach CT. Our older citizens were never taught that there are thinking skills that can be learned.
I have concluded that the lack of CT skills is the reason that our citizens are so easily manipulated by the purveyors of nonsense. If we wish a better society it behooves us to encourage our fellow citizens to gain CT skills.
I thought that the age of forty might be a good point at which one might make the effort to add this intellectual component to their life. By age forty many of us have our families well on their way and our career ambitions have declined and we are looking for something invigorating to add to our lives. During our twenties and thirties there are so many other things that come first
I spent a Saturday recently helping Habitat for Humanity build a house. I saw the workmen constantly using plumb bobs, carpenter squares and levels. We all recognize that such instruments must be used constantly to guarantee the construction of a well-built solid structure.
The skills of CT are analogous to the instruments described above. We all must exercise the skills of CT if we expect to construct well-built solid thinking.
A college level three-hour course would provide all of the elementary skills of critical thinking. Of course, all of us who did not learn these skills in high school or college need not remain ignorant the rest of our life. With a bit of will I can teach myself easily all the necessary CT skills.
A good place to begin is on the Internet. Do a google search of critical thinking (the search engine does not recognize capitalization) and you will |
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 04:27:10 [Permalink]
|
Wulfstun
Whoh! Suggesting that Socrates lied just moments before drinking the hemlock! That is Macho! |
|
|
|
Wulfstan
New Member
USA
42 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 04:34:09 [Permalink]
|
I can't believe I wrote this long post to Coberst's reply to me and lost it. I forgot to put my password in and hit Post New Reply and I got an error, backed up and it was gone. Why didn't I copy first??!!
I have no patience to write it all over again. Damn. Sorry Coberst, I had lots of replies to every point of your post. Now I must resort to briefly responding to this:
quote:
Wulfstan
I suspect that you may be a scholar or someone interested in the intellectual strength of our citizens. However, you and everyone like yourself who are aware of my efforts to encourage self-learning and the study of Critical Thinking are either actively attempting to thwart my efforts or are at least silent. I see no support from the academic community in a matter that one might expect such support. It makes no sense to me that you would be anti-intellectual. Why is someone like you playing the role of heckler? You do not appear to be a young person out for a bit of fun.
I tried to connect to you by using Socrates as an example, since you are familiar with his philosophies. I tried to explain to you that you are not being like him, in that you are not showing your critical thinking skills or challenging others' critical thinking skills, but rather you are rehashing your meme to an audience who agrees with you, in theory. No one is trying to thwart or silence your efforts. It is you who is being anti-intellectual by not using your intellect to understand what others are saying to you.
Intelligence= a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) :
You may be annoyed by people badgering you about your failure to comprehend that you need to explain and expand on your generalizations. My lost post addressed this point by point--again I am crushed it's gone, so my bluntness now is the result of this.
There is actually much support in the academic community regarding your thoughts. Do not accuse me of being a "heckler" again...that is utterly ridiculous and it is not a rational response.
I had responded to all of these points of yours below. They are very general statements that you need to clarify and expand; some I agreed with to a degree, others I feel are not accurate. Perhaps some other time I can re-write my replies. I'm too ticked off about losing my post right now.
quote:
It appears to me that our (US) culture is very schizoid in all matters pertaining to the intellect. I will compare public reaction to physical prowess as opposed to that same reaction to intellectual prowess.
Admiration by most of the public toward others who exercise physically. Suspicion of those who exercise intellectually.
Coaches and teachers of sports display admiration for amateurs of the sport. Teachers and professors often are condescending toward amateurs of the sport of intellection.
Anti-intellectualism permeates our society. Our society loves the young person who displays physical prowess especially when that display is in the form of some popular sport.
Coaches and teachers of sports are often paid top dollar. Teachers and professors are often paid bottom dollar.
Our culture applauds intellectual effort directed at making more money. Our culture denigrates intellectual effort as an end.
In our culture a good physical appearance is considered admirable. Our culture shows little respect toward any appearance of intellectual competence.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
