The critical habit of thought, if usual in society, will pervade all its mores, because it is a way of taking up the problems of life. Men educated in it cannot be stampeded by stump orators , They are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain. They can wait for evidence and weigh evidence, uninfluenced by the emphasis or confidence with which assertions are made on one side or the other. They can resist appeals to their dearest prejudices and all kinds of cajolery. Education in the critical faculty is the only education of which it can be truly said that it makes good citizens. ~ William Graham Sumner, Folkways, 1906

[Critical thinking is a] desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture. ~ Francis Bacon (1605)



Dear Reader:

To live well is to live as a reasonable and ethical person. Yet humans are not by nature rational or ethical. Humans are predisposed to operate in the world in narrow terms of how it can serve them. Their brains are directly wired into their own pleasure and pain, not that of others. They do not inherently consider the rights and needs of others. Yet humans have the raw capacity to become reasonable and ethical persons, to develop as fair-minded skilled thinkers. But to do so requires:
1. Understanding how the mind works.
2. Using this understanding to develop skills and insights.
This guide addresses the first of these requirements. It lays the conceptual foundations necessary for understanding the mind, its functions, its natural propensity toward irrationality, and its capacity for rationality. It is designed for those interested in developing their potential to be fairminded reasonable persons, concerned with how their behavior affects the lives of others, concerned to develop their full humanity, concerned with making the world a more civilized and just place. It is designed for those willing to transform their thinking to improve their
decisions, the quality of their lives, the quality of their interpersonal relationships, and their vision of the world. It is intended to provide an initial map to help interested persons begin to
free themselves from the traps their minds have constructed. It points the way toward mindfulness and self-understanding through critical thinking. It is, in any case, a beginning place.
Sincerely,
Linda Elder Richard Paul

Taken from http://www.criticalthinking.org/files/SAM-TheHumanMind1.pdf


http://www.criticalthinking.org/

http://www.open.ac.uk/skillsforstudy/critical-thinking.php

http://www.criticalthinking.co.uk/

http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b_0_5?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=critical+thinking&sprefix=criti

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Critical-Thinking-Merrilee-Salmon/dp/0534626637/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235490720&sr=1-1



I hope those interested should find the above links useful.

What a Nice phat load of Dogma you've dished out for us!

This is what your gurus say:

The Mind's Three Distinctive Functions
The mind has three basic functions:thinking, feeling, and wanting.

■ Thinkingis the part of the mind that figures things out. It
makes sense of life’s events. It creates the ideas through which
we define situations, relationships and problems. It continually
tells us:This is what is going on. This is what is happening.
Notice this and that.
■ Feelingsare created by thinking — evaluating whether the
events of our lives are positive or negative. Feelings continually
tell us:“This is how I should feel about what is happeningin my
life. I’m doing really well.”Or, alternatively, “Things aren’t
going well for me.”
■ Our desiresallocate energy to action, in keeping with what we
define as desirable and possible. It continually tells us:“This is
worth getting. Go for it!”Or, conversely, “This is not worth
getting. Don't bother.”
The basic functions of
the human mind
Thinking Feeling Wanting
The mind has three basic functions:thinking, feeling, and wanting.

Are these distinctiosn for real or are they just arbitrary? To be honest I was expecting examples and demonstrations backed with an analysis of the brain and how different distinct parts operate the different distinct functions. Again, Huxley, you have disappointed me. Without backing you have just dropped some statements on me gbolaaa!, just like that.

Let's start with thinking. What part of the brain does Thinking? Let's say that I accept uncritically what you define as thinking, how does this fit in with the other functions of the mind that you propose.
Feeling, as you have defined it, suggests to me that it is just Thinking with Appraisals added. So if you thinking identifies something with a category then your feelings will tell you whether it is of high value or not, ie where it stands in relation to some ideal.
If I am wrong about any of these things I am sure that you will not hesitate to correct me. I believe that with that definition of feelings we have departed from the common meaning of Feeling, though for the sake of this discussion I am happy to accept your definition of the term.
What part of the Brain contributes the added function of Appraisal to Thinking?

Desires! By your definition if you desire something then that desire will automatically manifest as energy in achieving the thing. Perhaps you have another definition of desire from that which I am used to, but I know many that desire yet are not engaged in achieving their desire.
In fact I am shocked with your guru's claims to be teaching in universities because I find their whole premise quite superficial.

Please huxley can you demonstrate to me that your ideology is better than religion by providing scientifically backed evidence for why the mind can be thus partitioned, otherwise I will be forced to conclude that you are just peddling the dogma of yet another twisted ideology, no different from many of the religions you dislike so much?

Pastor AIO:

What a Nice phat load of Dogma you've dished out for us!

This is what your gurus say:
Are these distinctiosn for real or are they just arbitrary? To be honest I was expecting examples and demonstrations backed with an analysis of the brain and how different distinct parts operate the different distinct functions. Again, Huxley, you have disappointed me. Without backing you have just dropped some statements on me gbolaaa!, just like that.

Let's start with thinking. What part of the brain does Thinking? Let's say that I accept uncritically what you define as thinking, how does this fit in with the other functions of the mind that you propose.
Feeling, as you have defined it, suggests to me that it is just Thinking with Appraisals added. So if you thinking identifies something with a category then your feelings will tell you whether it is of high value or not, ie where it stands in relation to some ideal.
If I am wrong about any of these things I am sure that you will not hesitate to correct me. I believe that with that definition of feelings we have departed from the common meaning of Feeling, though for the sake of this discussion I am happy to accept your definition of the term.
What part of the Brain contributes the added function of Appraisal to Thinking?

Desires! By your definition if you desire something then that desire will automatically manifest as energy in achieving the thing. Perhaps you have another definition of desire from that which I am used to, but I know many that desire yet are not engaged in achieving their desire.
In fact I am shocked with your guru's claims to be teaching in universities because I find their whole premise quite superficial.

Please huxley can you demonstrate to me that your ideology is better than religion by providing scientifically backed evidence for why the mind can be thus partitioned, otherwise I will be forced to conclude that you are just peddling the dogma of yet another twisted ideology, no different from many of the religions you dislike so much?

These are not my work. I just pick one manual from their site and posted some stuff from it here as an apitiser for those interested. Remember, you are the one who questioned how it is possible to go about learning the skills of CT and I raised this thread to show readers that there is quite a lot of resourses out there. If you want to criticise thge material, well go ahead. That is what CT is anyway.

huxley:

These are not my work. I just pick one manual from their site and posted some stuff from it here as an apitiser for those interested. Remember, you are the one who questioned how it is possible to go about learning the skills of CT and I raised this thread to show readers that there is quite a lot of resourses out there. If you want to criticise thge material, well go ahead. That is what CT is anyway.

Of course, I understand your position. But you've got to admit that you did endorse it. When asked how to become an atheist you pointed at Critical thinking.

I still need some evidence to show me that this is not just some dodgy baseless dogma.

So it is not one sided I will offer also a schema of how I believe the mind can be partitioned.

I believe that the functions are 3-fold.
1) Emotions, based on urges which can be either instinctive or based on experiences.

2) Pseudo-Rationality, which is a refinement of the Emotional processes.

These first two can also be called Sensible or Sensational functions.

The 3) is Rationality. However I use rationality in a different sense from what you call rationality. What I believe you are calling rationality is what I would call pseudo rationality. But before this part causes an impasse in our discussion I am happy to drop it.

Speaking broadly I say that Emotions have their seat in the Limbic system and the Cortex of the human brain, While the Neo-cortex houses the pseudo rational processes of the brain.

I'll stop here and see if you have any questions.

Pastor AIO:

Of course, I understand your position. But you've got to admit that you did endorse it. When asked how to become an atheist you pointed at Critical thinking.

I still need some evidence to show me that this is not just some dodgy baseless dogma.

So it is not one sided I will offer also a schema of how I believe the mind can be partitioned.

I believe that the functions are 3-fold.
1) Emotions, based on urges which can be either instinctive or based on experiences.

2) Pseudo-Rationality, which is a refinement of the Emotional processes.

These first two can also be called Sensible or Sensational functions.

The 3) is Rationality. However I use rationality in a different sense from what you call rationality. What I believe you are calling rationality is what I would call pseudo rationality. But before this part causes an impasse in our discussion I am happy to drop it.

Speaking broadly I say that Emotions have their seat in the Limbic system and the Cortex of the human brain, While the Neo-cortex houses the pseudo rational processes of the brain.

I'll stop here and see if you have any questions.

Looks like you are keen to debate this mind/body/thinking issue. To tell the truth, I am not in the mood for that. That is a whole big subject on its own and an slowly working my way thru some advanced books on the subject. The philosophers of mind have still got the major question unresolved, much less me or you.

I randomly selected a manual from their site and posted the stuff here as an apitiser, as I said. It does not mean that I endorsed it. Why don't you look at their other manuals on less controversial subjects, like this - http://www.criticalthinking.org/files/Concepts_Tools.pdf.


CT is becoming a well established subject in its own right now. A great deal of the essence of CT used to be taught in Logic and Philosophy classes, but most academic now think that its importance gets lost in these traditions subjects. Have you looked at all the books on CT (on amazon)? Have you looked at the college and university courses on CT. Have you looked at the professional programs on CT?

huxley:

Looks like you are keen to debate this mind/body/thinking issue.  To tell the truth, I am not in the mood for that.  That is a whole big subject on its own and an slowly working my way thru some advanced books on the subject.  The philosophers of mind have still got the major question unresolved, much less me or you.

I randomly selected a manual from their site and posted the stuff here as an apitiser, as I said.   It does not mean that I endorsed it.   Why don't you look at  their other manuals on less controversial subjects, like this - http://www.criticalthinking.org/files/Concepts_Tools.pdf.


CT  is becoming a well established subject in its own right now.   A great deal of the essence of CT used to be taught in Logic and Philosophy classes, but most academic now think that its importance gets lost in these traditions subjects. Have you looked at all the books on CT (on amazon)?   Have you looked at the college and university courses on CT.   Have you looked at the professional programs on CT?

you're right, I was hoping for a discussion.  When someone brings something up on a forum whose purpose is discussing various subject, I think it is normal to expect that that person will be willing to discuss the subject.  However I see now that I was wrong.  You are quite happy to make dogmatic statements without back up. 

Well I guess I'd better leave you to your 'advanced' (smirk) studies while I remain blissfully elementary. 

huxley:
The philosophers of mind have still got the major question unresolved, much less me or you.

Dude, there comes a stage in the process of maturation where one learns to speak solely for oneself.  I hope you achieve that sometime soon.

ps. I think that I can criticise any statement that has been put in front of me and I don't have to read tomes of nonsense. If in the process of making my criticism I show that I don't understand the subtleties of the subject then I'd expect the person that I'm discussing with and who initially proposed the statements to correct me.

You brought up the whole nonsense of critical thinking in the first place and now you are too hi4lootin' to condescend to discuss and defend your position. How impressive!

Pastor AIO:

you're right, I was hoping for a discussion. When someone brings something up on a forum whose purpose is discussing various subject, I think it is normal to expect that that person will be willing to discuss the subject. However I see now that I was wrong. You are quite happy to make dogmatic statements without back up.

Pastor AIO:

ps. I think that I can criticise any statement that has been put in front of me and I don't have to read tomes of nonsense. If in the process of making my criticism I show that I don't understand the subtleties of the subject then I'd expect the person that I'm discussing with and who initially proposed the statements to correct me.

You brought up the whole nonsense of critical thinking in the first place and now you are too hi4lootin' to condescend to discuss and defend your position. How impressive!

Are you really surprised? These dudes have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what they discuss. they think they can just pull the wool over our eyes with high sounding flowery but meaningless language. Press them on specifics and they start huffing and panting. I'm still waiting for Huxley to return to his drivel about evolution. He couldnt defend himself there too and ran away.

Pastor AIO:

ps. I think that I can criticise any statement that has been put in front of me and I don't have to read tomes of nonsense. If in the process of making my criticism I show that I don't understand the subtleties of the subject then I'd expect the person that I'm discussing with and who initially proposed the statements to correct me.

You brought up the whole nonsense of critical thinking in the first place and now you are too hi4lootin' to condescend to discuss and defend your position. How impressive!

I am prepared to talk about CT here not philosophy of mind. You get it?

davidylan:

Are you really surprised? These dudes have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what they discuss. they think they can just pull the wool over our eyes with high sounding flowery but meaningless language. Press them on specifics and they start huffing and panting. I'm still waiting for Huxley to return to his drivel about evolution. He couldnt defend himself there too and ran away.

I would be glad to resume the discussion once we are agreed on what biological evolution as defined by the vast majority of the scientific community is. I had to give up once I realised you were peddling some "religious" form of evolution. I was busy defending scientific (biological) evolution, whereas you were dishonestly misrepresenting the biological evolution accepted in the scientific community.

If you want to carry on that discussion, go back to the thread and post the definition of evolution as accepted by the scientific community. Even if you do not agree that biological organisms evolve, it is grossly dishonest to refute evolution by misrepresenting it. And you call yourself a Christian.

huxley:


I would be glad to resume the discussion once we are agreed on what biological evolution as defined by the vast majority of the scientific community is. I had to give up once I realised you were peddling some "religious" form of evolution. I was busy defending scientific (biological) evolution, whereas you were dishonestly misrepresenting the biological evolution accepted in the scientific community.

If you want to carry on that discussion, go back to the thread and post the definition of evolution as accepted by the scientific community. Even if you do not agree that biological organisms evolve, it is grossly dishonest to refute evolution by misrepresenting it. And you call yourself a Christian.

That is absolute nonsense. NOT ONCE did we even talk about anything religious . . . you brought up these issues to "defend" your own idea (and talkorigins) of evolution not that of science:

1. Horse evolution tree - We know that is FALSE because it is based on a few fossils that were misrepresented. It also fails to explain why a certain breed of horses retain the same size as their alleged ancestor.

2. Pygmy Hippos and their river relatives - some humans are pygmies, does that mean they are slowly evolving into subhuman species too?

3. Whale pelvis as residual limbs - then why do both female and male whales have different pelvic structures?

4. Human tails - you posted a picture but it was apparent you didnt even read the scientific paper the photo came from because it says NOTHING about the nonsense talkorigin and yourself parroted.

What is "religious" there? My friend stop making noise.

Pastor AIO:

ps.  I think that I can criticise any statement that has been put in front of me and I don't have to read tomes of nonsense.  If in the process of making my criticism I show that I don't understand the subtleties of the subject then I'd expect the person that I'm discussing with and who initially proposed the statements to correct me.  

You brought up the whole nonsense of critical thinking in the first place and now you are too hi4lootin' to condescend to discuss and defend your position.  How impressive!

Let us say you were writing a scholarly thesis, would you just sit down and make it all up, however solid your arguments might be?  Would you care to investigate what your forebears or other experts in the field might have said about the subject?   If you did, why would you do that?

davidylan:

That is absolute nonsense. NOT ONCE did we even talk about anything religious . . . you brought up these issues to "defend" your own idea (and talkorigins) of evolution not that of science:

Unlike you, I do NOT have MY own idea of evolution.  I defend the idea of evolution accepted by the vast majority of scientist who are experts in the field.  Incidentally, that is the same idea talkorigin defends.  It is NOT talkorigin's idea.  It is the idea defended by even Christian scientist like the Leader of the Genome project Francis Collins,  Kenneth Miller,  Francisco Ayala, Dobzanhky, Daniel Fairbanks.  Even the scientific bulwark of the Intelligent Design movement,  Michael Behe, accepts this as the process responsible for the diversity of life on earth.


Have you ever asked yourself why these esteemed men of science (perhaps bar Behe) should care to defend an idea that would be so at odds with their beliefs?



So these are not my idea.  It is the idea owned by the entire scientific community.    Can you show me any scientific dissent from this position?

Scientific evolution is not like the "religious" evolution you defend, whereby each person has their own idea and defends it in the face of contradictory evidence.

I have got about 6 books about scientific evolution from the basic to the really complex that deal with molecular/genetic sides of evolution.  Not a single one of these detracts from the views I was presenting, ie

Evolution  = random mutation +  Natural Selection

It is also recognised that evolution can be driven by genetic drift.   Now, if you want to discuss scientific biological evolution this is the definition we have got to be working with. Otherwise, you are talking about your very own "religious" evolution.

Now, before I used TalkOrigin, I did do some due diligence of the material they present.  For a start, all their article are reference with scholarly books/journals.  Many of the authors of these referenced article have books or journal publications that I own or have read.   Many of them belong to prestigious research and academic institutions and are involved in field research, collecting and classifying and studying fossils samples.    Can this be said for the critics of TTE?

davidylan:


1. Horse evolution tree - We know that is FALSE because it is based on a few fossils that were misrepresented. It also fails to explain why a certain breed of horses retain the same size as their alleged ancestor.

How do we know that this is false?   Did you present the evidence?  Can you show any scholarly publication has claims that the [b]entire [/b]tree for horses is false?   I want evidence.   You are a man that claims to be doing PhD research.   Are you planning on presenting you PhD evidence so flippant a manner?

davidylan:


2. Pygmy Hippos and their river relatives - some humans are pygmies, does that mean they are slowly evolving into subhuman species too?

It could or it could not.   But given that they currently exploit very different niches, they are a prime candidate for the process of natural selection to fashion new creatures out of them in the very long run.

davidylan:

3. Whale pelvis as residual limbs - then why do both female and male whales have different pelvic structures?

Could it be because of the need for childbirth in the female?   Do human males and females have exactly the same pelvic structures?

The question I asked, which you did not answer was why are 1 in 500 whales born with hindlimbs, in some case fully developed as in the article I presented.  Why is an animal that is "designed" by your god to live in water created with the ability to have limbs that would serve no purpose but impede in locomotion in water?

davidylan:

4. Human tails - you posted a picture but it was apparent you didnt even read the scientific paper the photo came from because it says NOTHING about the nonsense talkorigin and yourself parroted.

Did the paper say it was NOT a tail?   Why would humans be born with unfused vertebrae in the coccyx that extend in the form of a tail and have blood supply, nerve, and skin and hair?

huxley:


I am prepared to talk about CT here not philosophy of mind. You get it?

Thank you. Can you please tell me what is the scientific basis of the concepts of Critical Thinking?

Pastor AIO:

Thank you. Can you please tell me what is the scientific basis of the concepts of Critical Thinking?

Think about this. Supposing you or someone close to you were desperately in need of some therapy from a illness for which there are currently no adequate treatment. Supposing in your search for treatment regimes you are told that there is a non-conventional "doctor" offering cures for said illness. What course of action would you take?

davidylan, still waiting!

huxley:

Think about this. Supposing you or someone close to you were desperately in need of some therapy from a illness for which there are currently no adequate treatment. Supposing in your search for treatment regimes you are told that there is a non-conventional "doctor" offering cures for said illness. What course of action would you take?

I don't know what any of this has to do with the subject in question but I'll answer anyway in case it actually leads up to a pertinent point that I can't see yet.

If I was desperately in need of a cure or therapy and there were no conventional doctors, what would I do? Well there are many factors I would consider in the search for an alternative cure. What is the record of the alternative cure? What independent reports have I heard about it?
How much does it cost me? If it will cost me nothing then there is no harm in trying it even just as an experiment. Does the Cost outweigh the likelihood of success?
Then again if I am really desperate and faced with a fatality then maybe it might be worth throwing everything at it, including my every possession. If on the other hand i had children that I wanted to leave something to then I might just decide to cut my losses, die gracefully, and leave my fortune intact for my loved ones.
There are much too many factors that would influence my decision so I couldn't tell you what I would do based on the information you've given me.

huxley:


Let us say you were writing a scholarly thesis, would you just sit down and make it all up, however solid your arguments might be? Would you care to investigate what your forebears or other experts in the field might have said about the subject? If you did, why would you do that?

There is no scholarship that does not depend a great deal on invention and imagination. What else are theories? So yes I would just be making it up, but of course my inventions will be limited by rigor, hence the solidity of my arguments.

Now, I might or might not care to investigate what forebears and other experts in the field have said about my subject. The reasons why would include (off the top of my head):
1. To make sure that I'm not covering ground already covered by others and thus drawing accusations of plagiarism.

2. To place my work in some sort of context of the contemporary ideas.

3. Just out of curiousity. For instance I'm reading Giordano Bruno's Cause, Principle, and Unity at the moment. I think it is full of rubbish but I'm very much interested in medieval thought and appreciate it as an historical artifact from that era.

4. A good reason to not bother with what others have said is if my theories are a complete departure from the conventional wisdom and I know that my premises are stronger. Why bother with the shoulder of Giants when I have a better view from atop the Burj Dubai.

Huxley, if my negligence of past authorities leads me to talk rubbish then I am very sure an erudite fellow like you will call me up on it. I don't have to read absolutely every book in the world before I start to form opinions of my own. And therein lies the wonderful benefits of society and communication, that without having read all that you've read I can still benefit from the distilled wisdom of your erudition by having a chat with you. Imagine that we could only ever learn from our own personal studies. We'd probably still be in the stone age.

Pastor AIO:

If I was desperately in need of a cure or therapy and there were no conventional doctors, what would I do? Well there are many factors I would consider in the search for an alternative cure.

What is the record of the alternative cure?

What independent reports have I heard about it?

How much does it cost me?

If it will cost me nothing then there is no harm in trying it even just as an experiment.

Does the Cost outweigh the likelihood of success?

Then again if I am really desperate and faced with a fatality then maybe it might be worth throwing everything at it, including my every possession.

If on the other hand i had children that I wanted to leave something to then I might just decide to cut my losses, die gracefully, and leave my fortune intact for my loved ones.

There are much too many factors that would influence my decision so I couldn't tell you what I would do based on the information you've given me.

Many thank Pastor, I could not have said it better. But am I sure that with more deliberation on your part (an possibly my part) you could come up with even better strategies for approaching this problem of seeking a cure/therapy for said hypothetical illness.

Question is - why don't you just dive in head first and accept the first treatment presented to you? What is the driving force behind you need to evaluate this and the various alternatives.

Do you think everyone, face with the same or similar situation would be good at sifting out the bad options from the good options?

By carefully evaluating evidence, claims and propositions you are doing critical thinking. You have just shown me that you would exercise you CT faculties in deciding what therapy (in any) to seek for an illness. With this in mind, let's go back to your earlier question - the scientific principle behind CT. What is the scientific principle (if there is one) driving you to evaluate and carefully consider the options you have got?

Pastor AIO:

There is no scholarship that does not depend a great deal on invention and imagination. What else are theories? So yes I would just be making it up, but of course my inventions will be limited by rigor, hence the solidity of my arguments.

Now, I might or might not care to investigate what forebears and other experts in the field have said about my subject. The reasons why would include (off the top of my head):
1. To make sure that I'm not covering ground already covered by others and thus drawing accusations of plagiarism.

2. To place my work in some sort of context of the contemporary ideas.

3. Just out of curiousity. For instance I'm reading Giordano Bruno's Cause, Principle, and Unity at the moment. I think it is full of rubbish but I'm very much interested in medieval thought and appreciate it as an historical artifact from that era.

4. A good reason to not bother with what others have said is if my theories are a complete departure from the conventional wisdom and I know that my premises are stronger. Why bother with the shoulder of Giants when I have a better view from atop the Burj Dubai.

Huxley, if my negligence of past authorities leads me to talk rubbish then I am very sure an erudite fellow like you will call me up on it. I don't have to read absolutely every book in the world before I start to form opinions of my own. And therein lies the wonderful benefits of society and communication, that without having read all that you've read I can still benefit from the distilled wisdom of your erudition by having a chat with you. Imagine that we could only ever learn from our own personal studies. We'd probably still be in the stone age.

Large agree with you again here but with some caveats. A good number of the technologies, theories and sciences modern civilization enjoys today were made by people who basically dreamt them up out of new cloth, or arrived upon them by serendipity. There is still PLENTY of room for such discoveries, especially in areas that have hit a stalement, or yet undiscovered areas of human intellectual endeavours.

It turns out that what you were so keen to discuss is one such area as there is still a great deal unknown about what constitutes the mind, consciousness, emotions, etc, etc. This is burgeoning field of research, called neuroscience, aimed at understanding the functioning of the mind. And I admire you courage in wanting to explore discussion in this area.

However, is is daunting to see that vast amounts of theories from the likes of Descartes to more contemporary thinking, that inadequately fail to fully capture the nature of the mind. Pick up any good books on the Philosophy of the Mind/Consciousness to appreciate the graveyard of inadequate theories.

If I was starting out to pontificate about the theories of the mind, how would I know if I was not heading down one of these graveyards?

huxley:


Question is - why don't you just dive in head first and accept the first treatment presented to you? What is the driving force behind you need to evaluate this and the various alternatives.

Critical Thinking is a bit of a Tautology. Being Critical and Thinking are the same thing.

But I get the point as a need to mark the extent to which one is being critical when one thinks because the process has varying levels of subtlety. What is the difference between a woman who says that she will never trust a tall man again in her life because her previous boyfriend was tall and he treated her badly, and the woman who says tall men with sweet talking mouths are not to be trusted?

When we think we look for correlations. The first woman correlated the boyfriends height with the fact that he mistreated her. Many of us would say that that was shallow and not every tall man will mistreat her. In other words we are saying that there are subtleties to the case that she is not taking into account. We are saying that things are not just black or white like that but there are shades of grey. If she was more critical then she would notice subtleties that will reveal that perhaps certain tall men are crap but it is not to be applied to all tall men.

As Pavlov has shown we all process information on that very coarse unsubtle level where we accept two corelating factors without much subtlety. For Pavlov's dog it was the bell and the imminent dinner. The dog came to expect dinner whenever a bell was rung even when there was to be no dinner forthcoming.
http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/medicine/pavlov/readmore.html
What is the difference between the dog and the social scientist that recognises the correlation of a sudden influx of cuban refugees to Miami and a crime wave explosion in the city? Or the woman who notices a connection between guys with sweet mouths and heartbreak.

This is getting long but the bottomline is that thinking involves the seeking out of correlations between different events. If a quack doctor came to a sick man with a treatment therapy and the quack doctor had mastered all the ostensible mannerisms of a proper doctor then the ill man might well succumb to the deception. Afterall anyone who spoke in a certain manner and dressed a certain way had to be the real deal, hadn't he? Everyday we all make decisions on such superficial basis, judging books by their cover. It seems to me that the more cynical someone is in certain areas of life, the more uncritical they'll be in other areas.

However what is the difference when someone is being more critical? Nothing more than the fact that more factors are taken into account. "Yes the book has a very nice cover, but let's read the foreword first before we judge whether we might like it". Ultimately until absolutely all factors that come to play on an event are taken into account properly, there will always be room for improvement. Thinking could always be more critical.

huxley:

What is the scientific principle (if there is one) driving you to evaluate and carefully consider the options you have got?

When I ask for the scientific principles that CT is based on I meant it in the sense that when you have a methodology or system for doing something then that methodology needs to be supported by scientific principles. For instance, when I go for a vaccination to protect myself I am confident in the treatment because I know it is based on the scientific principles of immunology. If there is no solid scientific principle discovered about how the mind works then what is CT based on? Are they quacks?

My drive to evaluate is not based on any scientific principle. It is an instinct. People have been evaluating and carefully considering things long before the modern scientific era. What drives my thinking process are urges? Various basic urges that influence absolutely everything I do. These determine the criteria by which I evaluate and judge my circumstances. For instance I consider it a basic urge of humans to seek Regard from others. A lot of our behaviour is geared towards getting attention (favourable or otherwise). It determines how we choose our cars our clothes and much more. These urges are basic and instinctive.

It is for this reason that I consider what CT says as false when it states that

Feelingsare created by thinking — evaluating whether the
events of our lives are positive or negative.

The criteria by which we evaluate events is based on our urges and these do not stem from our thought processes but rather are instinctive and fundamental. Urges are Primary, rather than secondary derivatives from thoughts. How we feel about things depends on whether they help fulfill urges or whether they frustrate urges.

huxley:


However, is is daunting to see that vast amounts of theories from the likes of Descartes to more contemporary thinking, that inadequately fail to fully capture the nature of the mind. Pick up any good books on the Philosophy of the Mind/Consciousness to appreciate the graveyard of inadequate theories.

If I was starting out to pontificate about the theories of the mind, how would I know if I was not heading down one of these graveyards?

I think you give those guys like Descarte too much credit. Or possibly, you give yourself too little credit. Dem no get two heads. Na only one brain like me and you them get. And also you kowtow too much to certain authorities, I suspect. How else would science have advanced if we were too submissive to authorities. Even if your contribution is not more than tuppence it can still go a long way. Nobody else in the world Now, in the past or ever to come, will have the perspectives that you have, and who knows, perhaps your particular perspective is just what is needed to make a breakthrough on the issue.

Personally, I don't give a damn about the failures of the failed regardless of their reputations.

Pastor AIO:

I think you give those guys like Descarte too much credit. Or possibly, you give yourself too little credit. Dem no get two heads. Na only one brain like me and you them get. And also you kowtow too much to certain authorities, I suspect. How else would science have advanced if we were too submissive to authorities. Even if your contribution is not more than tuppence it can still go a long way. Nobody else in the world Now, in the past or ever to come, will have the perspectives that you have, and who knows, perhaps your particular perspective is just what is needed to make a breakthrough on the issue.

Personally, I don't give a damn about the failures of the failed regardless of their reputations.

This is a bizarre accusation. Where have I implied that I give them credit. In fact, did not my post suggest that many of their theories have ended up in graveyards? How the hell could you have twisted that to mean I was giving them credit. What bizarre reasoning.

All I was implying is that a more productive was of working follows the following guidelines:

1) If possible, try and avoid the mistakes of the past
2) Do not re-invent the wheel where possible and harness the work of others where appropriate
3) Then anew build from that solid platform

This does NOT mean that there is no room for pure, bluesky innovative thinking. Of course, there is. Just think about it. Paradigm shifts are few and far between, but there still happen. But the majority of scientific innovations have been based on well established theories.

huxley:

This is a bizarre accusation. Where have I implied that I give them credit.

I arrived at that cos you said:

The philosophers of mind have still got the major question unresolved, much less me or you.

and also:

However, is is daunting to see that vast amounts of theories from the likes of Descartes to more contemporary thinking, that inadequately fail to fully capture the nature of the mind.

This illustrates quite well what we are talking about. That I've arrived at my conclusion of your giving them too much credit from these two statements that you've made. One, that you're daunted by the fact that the likes of Descartes have failed, and 2, that if 'philosophers of the mind' can't resolve it, how much less you and me, as if to suggest that you and me are less than these philosophers of mind.
While two instances of apparent low self esteem is not enough to draw a character profile, the human brain cannot help but make conjectures with whatever information is available to it. Yet the more information that is available the better informed the conjecture will be and the more Critical and hopefully accurate it will be. Hence the need to take into account the subtleties surrounding any issue.

huxley:


All I was implying is that a more productive was of working follows the following guidelines:

1) If possible, try and avoid the mistakes of the past
2) Do not re-invent the wheel where possible and harness the work of others where appropriate
3) Then anew build from that solid platform

This does NOT mean that there is no room for pure, bluesky innovative thinking. Of course, there is. Just think about it. Paradigm shifts are few and far between, but there still happen. But the majority of scientific innovations have been based on well established theories.

Building on past works of others will only ensure that you remain within the same paradigm. However, what about if you are questioning the very premises of the paradigms in which they were working. Paradigms are inert. Once they are established they run their course throwing up a very limited range of theories and ideas. Then they're done. Life is more subtle than that.

Pastor AIO:

I arrived at that cos you said:
and also:
This illustrates quite well what we are talking about.  That I've arrived at my conclusion of your giving them too much credit from these two statements that you've made.  One, that you're daunted by the fact that the likes of Descartes have failed, and 2, that if 'philosophers of the mind' can't resolve it, how much less you and me, as if to suggest that you and me are less than these philosophers of mind.
While two instances of apparent low self esteem is not enough to draw a character profile, the human brain cannot help but make conjectures with whatever information is available to it.  Yet the more information that is available the better informed the conjecture will be and the more Critical and hopefully accurate it will be.  Hence the need to take into account the subtleties surrounding any issue. 

In fact, to be fair, lets give credit where credit is due.   Compare to most of these innovators ( the great scientist and pholosphers of the past like Faraday,  Archimedes, Descartes, Laviossier, Priestly,  Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Boyle, etc, etc)  I have constributed nothing to human civilisation.   Have you?   Show me your grand theories or contribution.

These people deserve respect and credit for their innovations and contribution to civilisation.   Yes, it is only fair that credit is given where it is due.


But how does this relate to low self-esteem?


I take it that you have attended establishments of learning (maybe up to university level) and have been taught and mentored by consummate professional intructors and teachers.  People who are 1st class in their field.  Now, as a student starting out to learn in this field, did you have low self-esteem vis-a-vis your instructors/teachers/mentors?

I am not a professional philosopher of the mind, nor a cognitive scientist, but I have a developing interest in these areas and see the amount of work that have been carried out before as quite impressive.  Some of it may be leading down blind alleys, others may not.  Anyone starting out in this field would have a daunting task appreciating this volume of work.

Now, are you a professional philosopher or cognitive scientist?   Can you show me your body of work that puts you on a par with some of the contemporary workers in this field?   If you have not yet got a body of work published or documented, do you mind having such work reviewed by experts in the field should you manage to document them?

In fact, do you think that the process of peer-review and replicability, built-in with contemporary scientific practice is a worthwhile process and would you submit your work to be evaluated under this scheme?

huxley:


In fact, to be fair, lets give credit where credit is due.   Compare to most of these innovators ( the great scientist and pholosphers of the past like Faraday,  Archimedes, Descartes, Laviossier, Priestly,  Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Boyle, etc, etc)  I have constributed nothing to human civilisation.   Have you?   Show me your grand theories or contribution.

These people deserve respect and credit for their innovations and contribution to civilisation.   Yes, it is only fair that credit is given where it is due.

It is one thing to give credit where it is due and it is quite another thing for one to discard one's native intelligence in order to kowtow to Authorities.  That you have thus far contributed nothing to human civilisation does not mean that you are incapable of doing so or that you cannot have your valid opinion about various issues.  It is your reluctance to present your own personal insights on account of the fact that others have made 'greater' contributions that I find worrisome and leads me to say that you've given them too much credit.

huxley:


But how does this relate to low self-esteem?


I take it that you have attended establishments of learning (maybe up to university level) and have been taught and mentored by consummate professional intructors and teachers.  People who are 1st class in their field.  Now, as a student starting out to learn in this field, did you have low self-esteem vis-a-vis your instructors/teachers/mentors?

I am not a professional philosopher of the mind, nor a cognitive scientist, but I have a developing interest in these areas and see the amount of work that have been carried out before as quite impressive.  Some of it may be leading down blind alleys, others may not.  Anyone starting out in this field would have a daunting task appreciating this volume of work.

Now, are you a professional philosopher or cognitive scientist?   Can you show me your body of work that puts you on a par with some of the contemporary workers in this field?   If you have not yet got a body of work published or documented, do you mind having such work reviewed by experts in the field should you manage to document them?

In fact, do you think that the process of peer-review and replicability, built-in with contemporary scientific practice is a worthwhile process  and would you submit your work to be evaluated under this scheme?

If you don't see how refusing to cultivate your own opinion on account of thinking that others are greater than you is related to Low Self Esteem then I don't know what argument I can use to convince you.  In my case, even at school I always challenged authority and I had a healthy opinion of my own native intelligence. 

Tell me, when you read your 'philosohers of the mind', as you read, do you evaluate what they are saying or do you just think, " the author who is a very clever guy says so therefore it must be true".  In other words are you capable of thinking critically or not.

I am happy to have my thoughts and ideas reviewed and criticised by experts and even by fellow contributors to this forum, ati omo ati eru ('and freeborn child and slave', cos yoruba says that it is the same way we give birth to the free that we give birth to slaves). 
[size=17pt]But all this is a terrible distraction isn't it?[/size]

We need to get back to the true subject of this thread which is Critical Thinking. I've asked you what is the scientific basis of critical thinking and I am stilling waiting for my answer.  I'll restate my question:

Pastor AIO:

When I ask for the scientific principles that CT is based on I meant it in the sense that when you have a methodology or system for doing something then that methodology needs to be supported by scientific principles.  For instance, when I go for a vaccination to protect myself I am confident in the treatment because I know it is based on the scientific principles of immunology.  If there is no solid scientific principle discovered about how the mind works then what is CT based on?  Are they quacks?

Pastor AIO:

It is one thing to give credit where it is due and it is quite another thing for one to discard one's native intelligence in order to kowtow to Authorities.  That you have thus far contributed nothing to human civilisation does not mean that you are incapable of doing so or that you cannot have your valid opinion about various issues.  It is your reluctance to present your own personal insights on account of the fact that others have made 'greater' contributions that I find worrisome and leads me to say that you've given them too much credit.

Is is important to know when it is appropriate to use authorities. Supposing you where a defendant in a case where it is important to present some biological forensic evidence, say about DNA. You have some basic knowledge of DNA and crucially you are aware that there are experts in this field, with years of experience of forensic analysis, DNA and presenting evidence in a court of law. What do you do?

1) Do ignore the services of such experts and decide to do all the work by yourself and present it in courts?

2) Do you hire one such experts and work with him to defend your case?

3) Having hire hire, would you immediately feel a strong sense of low self-esteem with respect to your expert since he is clearly an authority on the subject?

Pastor AIO:

If you don't see how refusing to cultivate your own opinion on account of thinking that others are greater than you is related to Low Self Esteem then I don't know what argument I can use to convince you.  In my case, even at school I always challenged authority and I had a healthy opinion of my own native intelligence. 

I have issues with your very clumsy premise, namely that withhold a personal opinion is tantamount to low self esteem. Low self esteem has many precursors, the greatest of which is a persistent bad image of one's self, which could create a feedback loop, which further depresses the self-image. Ignorance of a subjects, by itself is rarely the cause of low self esteem otherwise everybody would be suffering from low self esteem as nobody knows all there is to know about everything.

How much does Stephen Hawkins know about composing music, for example? Could he offer an intelleigent opinion about the circuitry of neuron in the brain? Should he suffer from low self esteem because he may not have opnions on this subject?

Should all currently practicing mathematicans feel a sense of low self esteem because their lives are graced with the work of John Nash, who is probably one of the greatest living mathematician? If not, why not?


Your arguments are simply too crude and is unbecoming of a man of you learning.


What is your own personal opinion about the following?

1) String Theory
2) The idea that the universe is expanding

It is all very well to have ideas and opinion, but how would you know your ideas describe the true nature of reality?

Pastor AIO:

Tell me, when you read your 'philosohers of the mind', as you read, do you evaluate what they are saying or do you just think, " the author who is a very clever guy says so therefore it must be true".  In other words are you capable of thinking critically or not.

Did I imply anywhere that I accept ALL their ideas as dogma? What I said was that this is a very difficult subject and that many thinkers from time immemorial have been thinking about it. And that in venturing into this, it helps to know what these other past and current ideas are.

Why did I not just present one of the ideas from the books I have read as my own? If I had done that, would you have been any the wisers? Not only would that have been dishonest, I happen to be aware of the pitfalls of some of this ideas.

In other words are you capable of thinking critically or not

Are you asking this in gest? I thought you are the one lampooning critical thinking?

Pastor AIO:

I am happy to have my thoughts and ideas reviewed and criticised by experts and even by fellow contributors to this forum, ati omo ati eru ('and freeborn child and slave', cos yoruba says that it is the same way we give birth to the free that we give birth to slaves). 
[size=17pt]But all this is a terrible distraction isn't it?[/size]

We need to get back to the true subject of this thread which is Critical Thinking. I've asked you what is the scientific basis of critical thinking and I am stilling waiting for my answer.  I'll restate my question:

I did pose a conundrum about evaluating various courses of action if you were faced with a medical situation. You seem to exercise really good critical thinking in that case. I did go further to ask that if there was a scientific basis to the process of thinking in evaluating the options you presented.

Now, are you suggesting that what you did in evaluating the various options was NOT CT? If it was not CT, what were you really engaged in then? Do you think some people are better at making such decision than others?

huxley:

Is is important to know when it is appropriate to use authorities. Supposing you where a defendant in a case where it is important to present some biological forensic evidence, say about DNA. You have some basic knowledge of DNA and crucially you are aware that there are experts in this field, with years of experience of forensic analysis, DNA and presenting evidence in a court of law. What do you do?

1) Do ignore the services of such experts and decide to do all the work by yourself and present it in courts?

2) Do you hire one such experts and work with him to defend your case?

3) Having hire hire, would you immediately feel a strong sense of low self-esteem with respect to your expert since he is clearly an authority on the subject?

I have issues with your very clumsy premise, namely that withhold a personal opinion is tantamount to low self esteem. Low self esteem has many precursors, the greatest of which is a persistent bad image of one's self, which could create a feedback loop, which further depresses the self-image. Ignorance of a subjects, by itself is rarely the cause of low self esteem otherwise everybody would be suffering from low self esteem as nobody knows all there is to know about everything.

How much does Stephen Hawkins know about composing music, for example? Could he offer an intelleigent opinion about the circuitry of neuron in the brain? Should he suffer from low self esteem because he may not have opnions on this subject?

Should all currently practicing mathematicans feel a sense of low self esteem because their lives are graced with the work of John Nash, who is probably one of the greatest living mathematician? If not, why not?


Your arguments are simply too crude and is unbecoming of a man of you learning.


What is your own personal opinion about the following?

1) String Theory
2) The idea that the universe is expanding

It is all very well to have ideas and opinion, but how would you know your ideas describe the true nature of reality?

Did I imply anywhere that I accept ALL their ideas as dogma? What I said was that this is a very difficult subject and that many thinkers from time immemorial have been thinking about it. And that in venturing into this, it helps to know what these other past and current ideas are.

Why did I not just present one of the ideas from the books I have read as my own? If I had done that, would you have been any the wisers? Not only would that have been dishonest, I happen to be aware of the pitfalls of some of this ideas.

I hope you don't mind but I'm going to ignore all of what you said above, despite finding it interesting and wanting continue down that line, cos I consider it a red herring. Perhaps we can do it on another thread.

huxley:

Are you asking this in gest? I thought you are the one lampooning critical thinking?

Hey, wait a minute. Lampooning critical thinking?! We are conflating two different things. There's Critical thinking, let's call it just CT, which is a system and methodology for considering issues that is (you claim) taught in universities and divides cognitive processes into Thinking, Feeling, and Desire. Then there is just plain simple Thinking Critically which man has always done from the dawn of time way before there was such a university subject or even the subject of Logic. Man has always thought critically to varying degrees.

Yes, I'm lampooning CT. I am saying, quite unequivocally, that CT is a Quack subject. It has no basis in the science of how the mind works and it's premises are superficial. That is the conclusion that I've come to after thinking critically about CT.

I did pose a conundrum about evaluating various courses of action if you were faced with a medical situation. You seem to exercise really good critical thinking in that case. I did go further to ask that if there was a scientific basis to the process of thinking in evaluating the options you presented.

Now, are you suggesting that what you did in evaluating the various options was NOT CT? If it was not CT, what were you really engaged in then? Do you think some people are better at making such decision than others?

No, I did not use any of the methods that are found in the links of CT that you gave me. I just thought about the matters you presented to a certain critical level.

I asked you quite simply, WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF CT? Vaccinations have their basis in the science of Immunology. Is there anything in neuroscience that suggests that cognitive processes can be partitioned the way it has been in CT? I put it to you again that CT is a quack science.

Much of thinking lies in the ability to make distinctions. The more critically one thinks, the more subtle distinctions one can make. There is a whole range from total dumbass who sees things as black and white to super intelligent that perceives all the subtle shades of grey and how each one applies differently.

Pastor AIO:

I hope you don't mind but I'm going to ignore all of what you said above, despite finding it interesting and wanting continue down that line, cos I consider it a red herring. Perhaps we can do it on another thread.

I agree, lets talk about CT.

Pastor AIO:

Hey, wait a minute. Lampooning critical thinking?! We are conflating two different things. There's Critical thinking, let's call it just CT, which is a system and methodology for considering issues that is (you claim) taught in universities and divides[b] cognitive processes into Thinking, Feeling, and Desire[/b]. Then there is just plain simple Thinking Critically which man has always done from the dawn of time way before there was such a university subject or even the subject of Logic. Man has always thought critically to varying degrees.

What is the difference between Critical Thinking (CT) and Thinking Critically (TC)?

Pastor AIO:

Yes, I'm lampooning CT. I am saying, quite unequivocally, that CT is a Quack subject. It has no basis in the science of how the mind works and it's premises are superficial. That is the conclusion that I've come to after thinking critically about CT.
No, I did not use any of the methods that are found in the links of CT that you gave me. I just thought about the matters you presented to a certain critical level.


I asked you quite simply, WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF CT? Vaccinations have their basis in the science of Immunology. Is there anything in neuroscience that suggests that cognitive processes can be partitioned the way it has been in CT? I put it to you again that CT is a quack science.

Much of thinking lies in the ability to make distinctions. The more critically one thinks, the more subtle distinctions one can make. There is a whole range from total dumbass who sees things as black and white to super intelligent that perceives all the subtle shades of grey and how each one applies differently.

CT is formal, systematised and methodical thinking that is aim at approaching problems with the best available and rational tools available to humankind. It draws from fields such as mathematics and logics, cognitive sciences and philosophy, linguistics and the sciences.


Obviously, thinking is nothing new to humans, but there is good thinking and there is bad thing. The questions is - Why are we, humans, so prone to bad thinking? What are the barriers to good thinking? This is what subjects like CT are attempting to address, by drawing from the fileds of the cognitive sciences, logic philosophy, linguistics, etc.

There reason is has been abstrated into a separate subject is because no other courses were available that could systematically delve into the deeps of logics, cognitive sciences, linguistics, philosophy, etc.

Huxley, let's put it this way: What is the scientific basis of the following statements . . .

The Mind's Three Distinctive Functions
The mind has three basic functions:thinking, feeling, and wanting.

■ Thinkingis the part of the mind that figures things out. It
makes sense of life’s events. It creates the ideas through which
we define situations, relationships and problems. It continually
tells us:This is what is going on. This is what is happening.
Notice this and that.
■ Feelingsare created by thinking — evaluating whether the
events of our lives are positive or negative. Feelings continually
tell us:“This is how I should feel about what is happeningin my
life. I’m doing really well.”Or, alternatively, “Things aren’t
going well for me.”
■ Our desiresallocate energy to action, in keeping with what we
define as desirable and possible. It continually tells us:“This is
worth getting. Go for it!”Or, conversely, “This is not worth
getting. Don't bother.”
The basic functions of
the human mind
Thinking Feeling Wanting
The mind has three basic functions:thinking, feeling, and wanting.

huxley:

I agree, lets talk about CT.

What is the difference between Critical Thinking (CT) and Thinking Critically (TC)?

Critical Thinking is a subject apparently taught in universities which has as it's primary basis and principles a description of the mind as set out above by Dr. Linda Elder, and Dr. Richard Paul. It divides the mind into Thinking, Feeling and Desire.
http://www.criticalthinking.org/files/SAM-TheHumanMind1.pdf

I remain unconvinced that anything found in the link above about the subject of CT has any basis in Scientific facts.

Thinking Critically on the other hand is something we all do everyday to varying degrees. The more subtlety there is in our perceptions when thinking, the more critical will be our thinking.