Page 3 of 6 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#46594 - 01/12/11 12:17 AM Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

Not claiming I know more than any other but to play Satanís advocate here.

A simple search would show the connections of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn to the subject. It would take about the same energy as typing the question here and helped save face.

I now return you to the regularly scheduled program.

~T~
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#46608 - 01/12/11 02:45 AM Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: ta2zz]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
6, correct me if I'm off-base.


While I don't think I have ever heard of this Kuhn person I can say that you are not off-base on the first part of your reply. Indeed the piece on the OP was designed to be a "crash-course" of sorts in critical thinking and, as you also stated, not meant "to teach them the philosophy of science."

-------------------------------------------------

 Quote:
A simple search would show the connections of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn to the subject. It would take about the same energy as typing the question here and helped save face.


Right, except for the fact that I am not concerned with saving face here. Someone brought up two people that I hadn't heard of before, and who were previously unmentioned in this thread, so I inquired about them.

Really I am more concerned with receiving an answer for the first question I asked. I probably couldn't care less who either of the people in question are. Just because I employ critical thinking skills doesn't mean I have no be familiar with every single person related to them.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#46611 - 01/12/11 03:05 AM Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
Karl Popper was a philosopher who wrote extensively one of his most if not the most notorious works is the work of falsification which extends itself as an all encompassing methodology of science. Not only attempting to serve as a term of demarcation between what is science and what is pseudo science. But also contributive to his theory on how scientific knowledge is built.

It might be noted that you did not premise falsifiability as dependent or contingent on Popper's understanding and build on of the terminology. Though the elaboration you provide I assumed was quite grounded in the ideas of falsification/falsifiability of Popper as a one to one correlation. But perhaps you are also trying to test me as if you are a PhD in anthropology with an investment on critical thinking and applying a scientific method to analyse cultural discourse I'd be surprised if you has not heard the name before. I'd also be surprised if it is merely a principle of falsifiability as some law of logical abstraction and not a reference to an adaptation of Popper's work.

In any event I think Thomas Kuhn brought to light the notion of paradigms in his seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Which I think more correctly describes how scientific theories are adopted. Mainly because his method more easily allows the adhoc method of science to persists and more

accurately describes it and also opens the door for socio-historical pressures to also more readily be accountable in discourse of why a particular theory etc is accepted.

More so the notion of paradigms might be taken as simply large identified bodies of discourse with different contextual basis of evidences and practices encouraging interdisciplinary communication. But with regard to scientific paradigms the distinction is process of experimentation and probabilistic induction etc.

I think my main concern with falsification in principle, is that it is described as a foundational principle the way naive falsification works yet the way sciences work it is always on a more sophisticated model. Popper himself worked on the system for a great many years and made revisions to it which means a few different modes of falsification have entered discourse.

I think I also prefer paradigms simply because it allows a more readily accessible narrative to science and humanities as self contained information or discourse sets. Whilst falsification concerns itself with only science and thus as a comprehensive informational system and regails in the old synthetic vs analytic claim Quine blew out of the water with his work on the two dogmas of Empiricism.

Particularly with anthropology which I think blurs the line between humanities and science depending I suppose what you are dealing with as a cultural anthropologist of the history of rock and roll is a little different to one which assesses archeological evidence. .

@ Auto I might have over-analysed a little with everything else that is there and the premise that it is directly related to help college students assess evidence it fits the bill. But there is a notion in University that some teaching processes involve a reeducation. Re-Training people how to think (for young grasshopper cannot learn when his cup is full).

When paradigmatic theory or at the very least the notion of paradigms is also important in any discussion of the history of or anthropological theory itself I thought it perhaps more convenient and more significant notion.

Top
#46612 - 01/12/11 03:20 AM Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: thedeadidea]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
Christ on a stick I read your second page response and just started replying. Bugger it.

Right SPECIFIC to your first question several reasons with little to no elaboration.

1. Falsifiability is a term of demarcation that relates to a larger theory which does IN SOME PRESENTATIONS have problems. See naive falsification.

2. The work does not permeate or translate equally as well in discourse with humanities significant when dealing with anthropology whilst paradigmatic theory does allow a more readily available exchange.

3. Paradigms more readily allows an analysis which breaks down an analysis to allow for adhoc additions to a particular experiment or research project to improve its informational quality and description.

Perhaps my analysis is a little exaggerated but you can take of it what you will. I am not saying that the informational quality of this piece is poor or outright wrong merely providing honest feedback to my own preferential predilection of informational, interpretive theory, scientific methods across the board. Also my only contention was one out of what was it six presentation points which form the whole guide.

Top
#46636 - 01/12/11 01:46 PM Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: thedeadidea]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
It might be noted that you did not premise falsifiability as dependent or contingent on Popper's understanding and build on of the terminology. Though the elaboration you provide I assumed was quite grounded in the ideas of falsification/falsifiability of Popper as a one to one correlation. But perhaps you are also trying to test me as if you are a PhD in anthropology with an investment on critical thinking and applying a scientific method to analyse cultural discourse I'd be surprised if you has not heard the name before.


It also might be noted that I didn't write this nor did I ever claim to. A reading of the thread will show I say the exact opposite, several times over. That is, someone else wrote this and I simply put it up for other people to reference.

Is this entire body perfect? Probably not. Nor do I think it pretends to be. However I think it does contain useful information to help the "layman", who doesn't have a strong grounding in scientific methodology, develop a more discerning eye for bullshit. Which, as has already been stated, was the point of the article in the first place.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#46699 - 01/13/11 10:42 AM Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
plover Offline
stranger


Registered: 12/22/10
Posts: 17
Let's think of benefit rather than truth.

Critical thinking leads to a certain benefit, namely capability to correctly predict unobvious falsifiable phenomena.

That being said, there has to be a reason why people think falsely.

Perhaps there is a benefit too in falsehood.

Imagine if I hated someone.

I can
1. Commit libel against him and risk getting caught and punished.
2. Not committing libel against him and that means not harming my enemies.
3. Have faith and truly believe that porn cause rape, and gun shot people by themselves.

The third way seems to have the advantage of 1&2 isn't it? Faith allow evil to say burn others' properties, extort money, and still not paying the full political costs of their acts.

Some muslims, for example, would burn churches and pubs in Indonesia. Obviously it's beneficial to harm others because it instill fear. Fear of others means power. And power is true wealth. But somehow they need something to justify the arsons. Hence, faith.

It's foolish then to simply think that faithful people as stupid. They're more devilishly smart than scientists and most sceptics. Well I talked with many to be frank.


Edited by plover (01/13/11 10:51 AM)

Top
#46706 - 01/13/11 11:33 AM Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: plover]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
I hope you realize that none of what you said has anything to do with the topic.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#46759 - 01/14/11 06:19 AM Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
plover Offline
stranger


Registered: 12/22/10
Posts: 17
What I am trying to say is that many opinions are popular are not due to critical thinking. Many are false.

However, thinking that people with those opinion are stupid or won't be successful will be another big mistake.

That's what skeptics and libertarian do. I thought satanists are better.

Does this make sense?

Top
#46761 - 01/14/11 08:38 AM Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: plover]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
 Originally Posted By: plover
What I am trying to say ...
Please try harder...


Just to add my 2 cents, "The art of controversy" by A. Schopenhauer is a good complement to critical thinking as descrtibed in the initial post.
The book exposes some common traps in which one can easily fall. The traps look like truth, seems logic but have a flawn. The way to avoid the traps are also exposed.

You can find the book content along with illustration of these trap on this site.

Enjoy!


Edited by Fabiano (01/14/11 08:43 AM)

Top
#47392 - 01/26/11 03:49 PM Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: Asmedious]
myk5 Offline
member


Registered: 01/24/11
Posts: 137
Critical thinking as explained in the first post, is well explained. But the consequences of applying that standard of critical thinking to magic are not explored. Likely because as quickly the claims to real made by the myths of religion fall apart rapidly in the face of critical appraisal, so too do claim of working with any supernatural power or 'magic'.

I like to distinguish soundness of reason from validity of reason, The distinction is the degree to which you permit an arguer their own facts. Which ideally should be inexcusable, but in practice and in the domain of 'metaphysics' it's almost impossible to make another question facts they have forged their very identity from.

So a Christian, for example, is unlikely with relinquish axioms relating to God, heaven and hell, for example. And if you want to pursue an argument with a Christian (for example - or a Traditional Satanist if you are anything else), really you can only do so if you allow yourself to agree to disagree with regard to their axioms.

So where the axioms cannot be agreed upon, you both are entitled to believe the argument of the other unsound. But invalid thinking, do their conclusions legitimately follow their evidence and argument? That can humiliate an opponent and is what is possible.

Confirmation bias is the boogy man in critical thinking. To explain simply, it is the tendency of any human to pay more attention to writing and facts that confirm that which they already believe, and to pay less attention to or even dismiss that writing or facts that are at odd with what you already believe.

If you are an Atheist, it is extremely easy to understand how the religious bigot you dislike, their belief system would be impossible without profound confirmation bias. It has been argued the usefulness of Astrology would be impotent if people refused to credit astrological predictions when they seem to be right, and ignore those prediction that are wrong or irrelevant.

As a magician, you must understand that any result you produce is indistinguishable from coincidence. You may find as I do that intentionally helping yourself believe in magic with 'intellectual decompression' or simply using confirmation bias to ignore failures and remember successes - it is part of what helps you be more successful.

Magic is a subjective art. It simply cannot withstand the rigors of scientific method (but then, quantum physics is not entirely dissimilar). A strategy common to Chaos magic is to focus on the result, because that is as close to binary - yes or no, as magic gets.

Top
#47504 - 01/29/11 08:00 AM Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: myk5]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
Magic is more than a subjective art... but yes tis different from run of the mill discourse. So point taken but critical thinking is not in and of itself designed to point necessarily to a definitive answer. Critical thinking is to do justice for oneself and the opinion that is offered in a frank analysis of what it is really trying to say and contexualising it's validity.

Obviously the same critical thinking techniques might not be taken lump sum as what is needed to understand chemistry and what is needed to understand say a historical piece work fundamnetally under different conditions. The inexplicable happens all to often and I am with Sam Harris on the need to make a meaningful distinction between the numinous and what is just plain silly.

To be honest there is nothing really to say about miracles or anything else in and of themself. I don't even dignify them as being a proof just a designated association to play into someone elses language game.

Take the link below :

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/25/us-australia-blood-idUSSYD90620080125

It happened or more then likely did I take it as axiomatic the reporting is accurate but one can look up the peer reviewed literature on it.

Point being take the same girl and put her in front of an alter or a sacred site and bobs your uncle we have a fucking miracle. So I don't even neccessarily take the argument of miracle to be a proof positive claim for religion in the first place.


Edited by thedeadidea (01/29/11 08:02 AM)

Top
#48365 - 02/08/11 08:32 AM Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: thedeadidea]
COINTELPRO Offline
lurker


Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 4
Loc: Colorado
Never hurts to have a 'refresher'; and this is digestible and well-written. Bravo.
_________________________
"Display some f*cking adaptability!"
-CPL Bobby M. Shaftoe, USMC

Top
#53792 - 05/01/11 01:55 PM Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: COINTELPRO]
Thule Offline
temp banned
pledge


Registered: 04/30/11
Posts: 68
It sounds like an interesting course, but why not create an elective based on thinking skills itself. Herein people are given reasoning problems and various excercises of the mind and taught some of the above evaluative methods.

I hate the term "critical". The reason is I have been studying to become a teacher in college. We are taught "critical pedagogy" which essentially is a form of Marxism. In this theory teachers are supposed to indoctrinate children in Marxism rather than allow them to think for themselves. Teachers are "agents of social change" and we are taught to hate 'those in power' and "tear down the existing power structure" which means white males.

My last class had many statements in the textbook which were hateful towards whites accusing them of creating the ghetto and saying all whites benefit from white privilege. There is never any evidence given for these statements, they are given as fact, Critical pedagogy teaches us to challenge the system and criticize it but when I challenged the hate speech in my book I was told that was not the proper place to do it.

Then the school implied that I would get "beat up" if I opened my mouth about the anti-white racism and implied that I won't be able to find a job as a teacher if I speak out against this nonsense.

Critical pedagogy is about turning children's brains off and indoctrinating them in hate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_pedagogy

It is related to critical race theory which is another Marxist theory dreamed up by Jewish Nationalists and Black Nationalists (racists) and is based on hating white people and destroying white society. As one college textbook put it "we need to destroy the existing white power structure"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

So the irony here is that critical theory has become a code word for "hate" and Marxism rather than actual thinking. In fact these theories are anti-scientific and anti-thought.

So I almost cringe whenever I here the word "critical" in an educational context. That's why I like to say "thinking skills" or something. But it's like 1984 where our words are stolen to mean the opposite of their original intent.

But yes public school mainly is about teaching people to be good slaves and sheep. Elites send their children to private schools or home school them. The public schools are training people to flip burgers, work in factories and mow rich people's grass. So obviously these people are mostly taught how to do what they are told rather than be critical thinkers.

There is an epidemic in our society though with everything being dumbed down and less emphasis on actual ability. Guess where this comes from? Critical theory.

Check out some of the essays by Sandra Stotsky PhD in education:

http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon1113ss.html

according to critical theory the goal of education is egalitarianism and actual free thought, academic achievement etc. takes a back seat.

This was used in the soviet union and created a "brain drain" and led to economic collapse. Now the US is heading in the same direction.

This is one reason for my private society work. Our society is going to hell in a hand basket so to speak. And they try to threaten me if I speak out against it. By why would any sane or rational person support something that is so utterly destructive to society? Personal greed and also they aren't sane or rational.

I also ask them where this hate comes from. They all seem to be jealous of anyone who does better than them and believe if they burn down their neighbor's house they will someone look superior in comparison. That's basically the philosophy of life at the highest levels of society now.



Edited by Thule (05/01/11 01:57 PM)
_________________________
http://www.hraftzer.weebly.com

Top
#57769 - 07/29/11 11:50 AM Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: Thule]
Jude Leaven Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/28/11
Posts: 21
Loc: Palm Springs,CA
I enjoyed reading the original post and how so many critical thinkers exercised their minds on this. I think I will have to revisit this topic only because I have a headache from reading it and not feeling well today.
@Thule:I had an experience while going to film school, I had to take an English class and we had to write a review about a movie called a "Thousand Pieces of Gold", a story about a Chinese immigrant who works as a prostitute in one of the California mining camps during the 1800s. The English teacher used her classroom to propagate her personal political agenda and anti-religious ideas, and used that story as a basis for her arguments. A story which was more than likely edited for content!
I could have sympathized with her on some of those issues, but she was abusing the privilege of having a classroom to such a degree that if my critical thinking did not coincide with her worldview, then I was getting an "F". I left the class. I wasn't going to sit there and be told it was my fault American Indians were killed by Miners even though I'm Cherokee and Cheyenne. I am also not going to be told that its my fault that many Chinese were killed by foreigners who came from "Europe" to pan for gold.
_________________________
"I am become death,the destroyer of worlds"

Top
#63114 - 12/29/11 04:09 AM Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Semyaza Offline
lurker


Registered: 12/25/11
Posts: 1
It's funny how the article contained within the first post is specifically designed to do the exact opposite of what it claims... That would be, destroy a person's ability to reason.
This issue of falsifiability is, essentially, the belief in nothing at all. The belief that, ultimately, nothing is true.
If that is so, why don't you go kill yourself? Because you don't really exist anyway.
"Critical Thinking" is not what it is made out to be, just as there is quite a difference between 'rational' thinking and logic or reason.
Take the term literally, "Critical Thinking".
TRUTH IS NOT THOUGHT, TRUTH IS KNOWING
... And if you don't know, don't worry.

I WILL PUT YOU IN YOUR PLACE

Top
Page 3 of 6 <12345>Last »


Moderator:  SkaffenAmtiskaw, fakepropht, TV is God, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.03 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.