The Myth of Critical Thinking

[Magical Realist]

You treat this like you have the right to demand answers to your questions, and that it is somehow our responsibility to educate you in something you admittedly don't know about.

And when you don't like what you hear, you will haul out your epithets troll and liar.

Why would anyone choose to help you?

Sure, we can discuss things as much as we want, but let's make no mistake, the prosecution reserves the right to treat the witness as hostile.

Are you going to answer my question or not? Also, when I address you, I am not addressing a plural being. So the use of plural pronouns is inappropriate. I know it gives you confidence to speak as if you were a group, but you're not.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't think following any procedure of memorized steps is actually using reasoning.

I notice you had to insert the phrase 'memorized steps'. No one has used that phrase.

Is that what you think programming is?

Or did you simply read what was written and substitute your own preconceived notion that allows you to dismiss what is being told to you?

 

[Magical Realist]

I notice you had to insert the phrase 'memorized steps'. No one has used that phrase.

Is that what you think programming is?

Or did you simply read what was written and substitute your own preconceived notion that allows you to dismiss what is being told to you?

I took a few programming courses in college. We used flow charts which represented certain memorized steps in a procedure. Have you ever taken programming courses?

 

[DaveC426913]

Are you going to answer my question or not?

How in God's name do you think it is it my responsibility to educate you?

Do you realize how ridiculous this is?

"I have been beaten down by a line of logic I don't understand."
"I have started a thread designed to show this logic is invalid (a myth) - even though I admit I don't understand it."
"I demand that others educate me in my own thread where I will then attempt to render it invalid."

Get off the internet.

 

[DaveC426913]

I took a few programming courses in college. We used flow charts which represented certain memorized steps in a procedure.

As with other things you have been recently struggling with, maybe there's a little more to the world than you think.

Maybe, if the whole world seem to be pushing against you, maybe the problem isn't with the rest of of the world.

Have you ever taken programming courses?

I have been a software developer since before there was an internet.

And no, I feel no obligation to teach you anything.

You are not in a position on SciFo to make requests of other people. You have forfeited that privilege with your behavior.

 

[Magical Realist]

How in God's name do you think it is it my responsibility to educate you?

Do you realize how ridiculous this is?

"I have been beaten down by a line of logic I don't understand."
"I have started a thread designed to show this logic is invalid (a myth) - even though I admit I don't understand it."
"I demand that others educate me in my own thread where I will then attempt to render it invalid."

Get off the internet.

LOL! So you're refusing to answer the question? Or is it just that you don't have an answer and that's why you have to ramble on about pixies.

 

[Magical Realist]

You are not in a position on SciFo to make requests of other people.

Are you a moderator now?

 

[DaveC426913]

LOL! So you're refusing to answer the question? Or is just that you don't have an answer and that's why you have to ramble on about pixies.

Shame.

You call names like you're on a playground, then confess you don't know how to argue critically, then denigrate the process, then demand others educate you, then wonder why you are not given the time of day.

 

[Magical Realist]

Maybe, if the whole world seem to be pushing against you, maybe the problem isn't with the rest of of the world.

Maybe you should quit self-righteously moralizing about me and actually discuss the OP for a change. Is that too hard?

 

[Magical Realist]

Shame.

You call names like you're on a playground, then confess you don't know how to argue critically, then denigrate the process, then demand others educate you, then wonder why you are not given the time of day.

You can't even define what critical thinking is despite strutting around telling other people they're not doing it. So much for your credibility here..But ironically enough you have completely confirmed the thesis of the OP..Tks.

 

[DaveC426913]

You can't even define what critical thinking is despite strutting around telling other people they're not doing it. So much for your credibility here..But ironically enough you have completely confirmed the thesis of the OP..Tks.

I'm comfortable with my credibility. It is apparent others find me credible too.

I know that credibility is an open wound for you.

 

[DaveC426913]

[dupe]

 

[Magical Realist]

Or is it possible you're being coy? You're hoping someone will put forth a definition, which can put you in a position of shooting it down and then mocking them - because you already have your own idea of what it might be.

I'm simply demonstrating the fallacy of morally lifing up some ideal 1984-ish standard for thinking without defining it clearly enough for people to actually emulate it. I'm also highlighting the use of "critical thinking" less as something people actually practice and more of a club to beat opponents over the head with. That's the effect of moralization--it provides a plaform from which to devalue other people or their actions or their thoughts. In this case it is a convenient way of invalidating thinking without even having to argue against it. Of labeling something as "bad" without having to show how it is bad.

 

[exchemist]

My guess is it will be a trick, because of course a concept like this is - like many terms to be found in dictionaries - not susceptible of a nice and tidy exact definition and so one can, if one wants to be a pain in the arse, find rival descriptions which are not entirely consistent and make hay with the differences.

Yazata had a good shot at describing critical thinking a few posts ago.

I could also offer the following, which is adapted from a description I found of some of its features: thinking based on applying universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, fairness, and on application of logical or rational methods of argument.

I would be quite interested to see a good* argument that applying these principles is a bad thing to do.


* judged by my criteria, amongst which is that the person making the argument is not on my Ignore list, as I need to be able to see it, obviously

 

[arfa brane]

You can't even define what critical thinking is

And neither can you.
Look, it isn't really that hard. You've enrolled in some course and the lecturer tells the whole class they shouldn't just accept everything they get told in lectures.
Instead, they should think for themselves. And they should think "critically". I don't recall it being explained beyond that, so I suppose it was up to me to understand what it meant.

This is analogous to having to think about how to write some program, instead of looking up some example somewhere and using that. Seriously, it is just like that. Or it's like learning to drive a forklift, or a tractor, or a formula one racecar. In those cases you learn about certain reactions you need to develop (when to turn, when to brake, when to accelerate), because anyone teaching you about how to drive a vehicle isn't going to be able to do it for you, capische?

So my take on it is that critical thinking is what you need to do to really learn something. If you don't apply this kind of thinking when driving around a racetrack at close to 200 kph, you will likely crash, run into a barrier or wall, hit another car etc. You can listen to other drivers, watch them race and so on, but doing it yourself is a whole 'nother thing.

 

[Magical Realist]

And neither can you.
Look, it isn't really that hard. You've enrolled in some course and the lecturer tells the whole class they shouldn't just accept everything they get told in lectures.
Instead, they should think for themselves. And they should think "critically".

This is analogous to having to think about how to write some program, instead of looking up some example somewhere and using that. Seriously, it is just like that. Or it's like learning to drive a forklift, or a tractor, or a formula one racecar. In those cases you learn about certain reactions you need to develop (when to turn, when to brake, when to accelerate), because anyone teaching you about how to drive a vehicle isn't going to be able to do it for you, capische?

So critical thinking is just a complimentary term for people thinking correctly. Seems redundant to me. Like telling someone to go ride a bike, but make sure they are doing correctly. If you are thinking at all, one assumes you are doing correctly.

Also, if you are telling people how to think, aren't you already undermining their ability to think for themselves?

 

[DaveC426913]

My guess is it will be a trick, because of course a concept like this is - like many terms to be found in dictionaries - not susceptible of a nice and tidy exact definition and so one can, if one wants to be a pain in the arse, find rival descriptions which are not entirely consistent and make hay with the differences.

Yazata had a good shot at describing critical thinking a few posts ago.

I could also offer the following, which is adapted from a description I found of some of its features: thinking based on applying universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, fairness, and on application of logical or rational methods of argument.

I would be quite interested to see a good* argument that applying these principles is a bad thing to do.


* judged by my criteria, amongst which is that the person making the argument is not on my Ignore list, as I need to be able to see it, obviously

Well, this was a point I was going to bring up. I'm not sure why MR has suddenly forgotten how to internet. He is fond of cherry-picking specious definitions from dictionaries that suit his needs. The rest of us know that even the devil can quote the bible to his own advantage.

I was really hoping that a trivially simple example given previously would be better than some contextless definition.

Something like

A infers B therefore B infers A.

If someone were to make the above assertion, a critical thinker would easily recognize that it is faulty.
A campfire infers heat, but heat does not infer a campfire.

MR has made that error a number of times, and struggles with why others call him on it. They call him on it because he has not thought carefully, logically about the relationship between A and B.

 

[DaveC426913]

Also, if you are telling people how to think, aren't you already undermining their ability to think for themselves?

No. Any more more than telling someone how to fish does not undermine their ability to fish for themselves.

There is a logical way to analyze a fact, claim, assertion or other statement, to see what can and cannot be concluded from it.

 

[Magical Realist]

Well, this was a point I was going to bring up. I'm not sure why MR has suddenly forgotten how to internet. He is fond of cherry-picking specious definitions from dictionaries that suit his needs. The rest of us know that even the devil can quote the bible to his own advantage.

I was really hoping that a trivially simple example given previously would be better than some contextless definition.

Something like

A infers B therefore B infers A.

If someone were to make the above assertion, a critical thinker would easily recognize that it is faulty.
A campfire infers heat, but heat does not infer a campfire.

MR has made that error a number of times, and struggles with why others call him on it. They call him on it because he has not thought carefully, logically about the relationship between A and B.

LOL! This from the guy who was insisting pixies were ufos, all to make some syllogistic point.

 

[Magical Realist]

No. Any more more than telling someone how to fish does not undermine their ability to fish for themselves.

There is a logical way to analyze a fact, claim, assertion or other statement, to see what can and cannot be concluded from it.

As if there were only one way to fish---fly fishing, nets, noodling, spear fishing, etc.