Critical Thinking

[cantata]

I took exams in Critical Thinking at 17 and 18. They were incredibly useful to me; I really think they should be mandatory. In fact, I think that critical thinking should be taught from primary school age.

I feel quite passionately about this.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I took exams in Critical Thinking at 17 and 18. They were incredibly useful to me; I really think they should be mandatory. In fact, I think that critical thinking should be taught from primary school age.

I agree with you on this. I found my critical thinking and logic courses in college to be invaluable.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

generally speaking, and Mark please correct me if i've mistaken your position, it is intersubjective evidence which is required to establish a claim and it is this sort of evidence which atheists are typically asking for even if they don't specify it with such an appellation.

Yes, that is the most common term I've seen used by atheists. The reason I brought perception into this is that usually it is evidence available to the senses that is regarded as suitably intersubjective.

Not to go on a tangent, but I will note here that I believe that there is such a thing as introspective evidence (data one achieves by focusing one's attention on one's mental processes) which may be quite useful in justifying claims about human psychology, and might even lead to some metaphysical insights. The Buddha is a good example of someone who uses this approach. However, I find this approach highly dubious for answering either scientific questions or establishing the existence of God, even if it can be replicated by others. (Not that the Buddha claimed that a Creator God exists.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is it rational to assume there is no other means for a rational basis to exist when perceptual evidence is lacking, as they so assume?

I don't understand your question. Would you rephrase it for me?

What do you mean by "perceptual evidence'?

I mean data available to the senses, which would seem to be necessary in answering any questions about what exists, aside from one's own mind, of course.

For example, how do we know that we live inside a Solar System? Our senses provide us with the information required to draw this conclusion. We can see planets. We can send probes with instruments that transmit information back, which we can then see on a computer monitor, and so on.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[meebs]

And/or a matter of temperament. Some people seem to enjoy critical thinking, and other people seem repulsed by it as if it just doesn't suit their personalities.


eudaimonia,

Mark

And some need it... I wish I could do a course in it to improve myself.

I didn't listen enough at school but I don't believe we were taught it, or taught very well. We had science though and I loved it, maybe they taught us in that. I've been taught at university (doing a science course). They emphasise the skill but I really think it needs to be highlighted as a single subject.

 

[meebs]

I took exams in Critical Thinking at 17 and 18. They were incredibly useful to me; I really think they should be mandatory. In fact, I think that critical thinking should be taught from primary school age.

I feel quite passionately about this.

I agree

 

[Eudaimonist]

And some need it... I wish I could do a course in it to improve myself.

Oh, just find some websites that discuss it online. Start with Wikipedia. I'm sure you don't need to take a course to learn this.

I didn't listen enough at school but I don't believe we were taught it, or taught very well. We had science though and I loved it, maybe they taught us in that. I've been taught at university (doing a science course). They emphasise the skill but I really think it needs to be highlighted as a single subject.

Yes, it is far better studied as an individual subject.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[meebs]

Oh, just find some websites that discuss it online. Start with Wikipedia. I'm sure you don't need to take a course to learn this.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Now and then I have been looking. My difficulty is im looking for stuff in simple English (there is the simple english wiki i suppose ).

I found an AS level book on critical thinking i may look into it's been highlighted on my wishlist for a while.

 

[Received]

No doubt that theology may include some critical thinking, but this gets drowned in demands for uncritical acceptance and belief.

As well as the fact that theology is a discipline extremely lopsided in relation to how many people use it versus how many really know it. Politics, obviously, is a close second, or maybe a first. The idea is that most people don't know what the hell they're talking about, a few people really do (and these individuals are either ignored or completely beyond the intellectual capacities of the less intelligent classes), therefore there's a lot of nonsense going on.

 

[cantata]

It depends how you define theology. The theology half of my degree is basically a mix of biblical criticism, Christian ethics, a bit of church history, and then there's a selection of other papers ranging from subjects including the psychology or sociology of religions, to archaeology, introductions to Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or Hinduism, the nature of religion, and so on. On the philosophy side, this term I'm taking a philosophy of religion paper.

The approach is very secular. We are encouraged to think critically about everything and there is no assumption of religious belief. This is a great way to conduct theology There is no wishy-washy fudging of facts or theories.

 

[Received]

Even in universities critical thinking is getting the cold shoulder. It's the curse of specialization, and I find myself reverting to Allan Bloom's masterpiece writing, The Closing of the American Mind. The more time progresses in the educational sphere, the more information snowballs in each subject, leading to the necessity of a sort of close-mindedness towards other disciplines so one can better understand his own. Both science and philosophy have millions of pages of information, and because education isn't interested in including a necessary philosophical basis in its Renaissance-type style, critical thinking is going to be left out. Critical thinking is absolutely indispensable; it allows you to question your own life, and ultimately gain that eudaimonic sense of happiness that comes with wisdom. I'd rather have this happiness than live till I'm eighty. Science is subordinate to the qualitative life that philosophy (and, yes, religion) can allow.

 

[nadroj1985]

Critical thinking is absolutely indispensable; it allows you to question your own life, and ultimately gain that eudaimonic sense of happiness that comes with wisdom. I'd rather have this happiness than live till I'm eighty. Science is subordinate to the qualitative life that philosophy (and, yes, religion) can allow.

I certainly agree with you that critical thinking is important, but I'm not sure you're being fair to science -- surely science endorses critical thinking at least as much as philosophy, and certainly it does so more than religion. I agree that philosophy and religion provide something that science does not, but I don't think that thing is critical thinking.

Oh, and hi Haven't talked in a while, eh?

 

[Received]

Science is crunk with the ontic; it just lacks an ontological spirit. The philosopher, crunk with the ontological, can entail concentration on the ontic; the problem is when you're interested with analyzing the ontic without caring at all for the big picture. Critical thinking is obviously needed in both disciplines. Sorry for the mixup.

 

[Received]

Still have the same number, Jordan? We need to swoon the chicks and talk philosophy some time.

 

[funyun]

Even in universities critical thinking is getting the cold shoulder. It's the curse of specialization, and I find myself reverting to Allan Bloom's masterpiece writing, The Closing of the American Mind. The more time progresses in the educational sphere, the more information snowballs in each subject, leading to the necessity of a sort of close-mindedness towards other disciplines so one can better understand his own. Both science and philosophy have millions of pages of information, and because education isn't interested in including a necessary philosophical basis in its Renaissance-type style, critical thinking is going to be left out. Critical thinking is absolutely indispensable; it allows you to question your own life, and ultimately gain that eudaimonic sense of happiness that comes with wisdom. I'd rather have this happiness than live till I'm eighty. Science is subordinate to the qualitative life that philosophy (and, yes, religion) can allow.

I think science as an institution not only allows for critical thinking but is built on it. The problem is this isn't made apparent to most students and so it isn't formally grounded in their personal approach to science. They know the scientific method ostensibly, but really don't get the underlying reasons for why science has evolved to have the exclusive set of foundational principles it has.

I know far too many peers in my classes who couldn't tell you what separates science as its own intellectual institution. Science majors or otherwise, I know very few people at all who have what I would consider adequate critical thinking skills. This is a serious, serious problem.

Every basic sciences major, every engineering major, every economics major, and most social science majors should be required to take a Philosophy of Science course and should not be admitted into their college until they pass it.

 

[cantata]

Still have the same number, Jordan? We need to swoon the chicks and talk philosophy some time.

I'm pretty sure it's grammatically impossible to swoon someone.

 

[meebs]

Every basic sciences major, every engineering major, every economics major, and most social science majors should be required to take a Philosophy of Science course and should not be admitted into their college until they pass it.

I always thought it would be good to do a history of science (and natural philosophy) course for all science students.

It would show the timeline and how the methods "evolved" over the years and why.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'm pretty sure it's grammatically impossible to swoon someone.

It's not the grammar that matters, but the style.

I'm pretty sure that statement almost means something.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

I always thought it would be good to do a history of science (and natural philosophy) course for all science students.

It would show the timeline and how the methods "evolved" over the years and why.

Yes, I would have liked to take such a course, if it had been offered. I suppose I came close by taking a Philosophy of Science course. It wasn't really the same thing, though.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[cantata]

It's not the grammar that matters, but the style.

Ah yes, being wrong with style is much better than just being wrong