huxley:


Obviously, thinking is nothing new to humans, but[b] 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?[/b] This is what subjects like CT are attempting to address, by drawing from the fileds of the cognitive sciences, logic philosophy, linguistics, etc.

Every body thinks more critically about some things than about other things. We are all filled with urges that drive our behaviour. Each individual is driven slightly differently by his urges and that's what makes us individuals. When you feel an intense urge about an issue then that urge subjugates all the others and one will quite likely think more critically about how to satisfy the greatest urge.

For instance there are certain people drawn to discovering religious truth. These people will think more critically about religion. On the other hand some other people just see their religion as a form of social Identity. 'I'm a catholic, what are you?'. Such people will not peruse religion too deeply, but if their religion is questioned or attacked, what that becomes is actually an attack on the person's identity. That person will react the way anyone would if his person was being attacked. That doesn't mean that they are incapable of thinking critically. It just means that religious Truth matters less to them, and personal dignity matters more. Put the same man in a laboratory and he might prove to be the smartest scientist in the country. Obviously his drive to find scientific truth makes him more critical in that field, more likely to appraise and reappraise his experiences etc.

Pastor AIO:

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


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.

Like I said above CT draws from a wide range of fields, including linguistics, cognitive sciences, logics, mathematics, philosophy. CT is essentially an attitude of mind, a style of thinking and making decisions that utilises the best available facts about the nature of reality. In some places, I have seen it defined as - Thinking about thinking or mindful thinking ( I don't like this definitions as I think there are too narrow)

Why don't you do a google search to see what other people think about it. Over reliance on one source may be dangerous.


I suppose the stuff in the manual they present is their attempt at looking at what the cognitive sciences say about thinking and the mind. Frankly, If I wanted to read anything about cognitve sciences/mind, I would not use that manual. Maybe they have a different (or better) treatment in one of their many books on the subject.


Now, what would a fair evaluation of the usefulness of CT be? Would that constitute ONLY focusing of eaxmining what one source had to say about the subject? Would it be wise to see what others have to say?

Pastor AIO:

Every body thinks more critically about some things than about other things. We are all filled with urges that drive our behaviour. Each individual is driven slightly differently by his urges and that's what makes us individuals. When you feel an intense urge about an issue then that urge subjugates all the others and one will quite likely think more critically about how to satisfy the greatest urge.

For instance there are certain people drawn to discovering religious truth. These people will think more critically about religion. On the other hand some other people just see their religion as a form of social Identity. 'I'm a catholic, what are you?'. Such people will not peruse religion too deeply, but if their religion is questioned or attacked, what that becomes is actually an attack on the person's identity. That person will react the way anyone would if his person was being attacked. That doesn't mean that they are incapable of thinking critically. It just means that religious Truth matters less to them, and personal dignity matters more. Put the same man in a laboratory and he might prove to be the smartest scientist in the country. Obviously his drive to find scientific truth makes him more critical in that field, more likely to appraise and reappraise his experiences etc.

Supposing such a scientist were studying the cosmos and they were to discover a fact about the cosmos which is at odds with their religious view - such as was the case with Galileo. What should he do?

1) Deny that he has made such a discovery because it conflicts with his religions view?

2) Abandon the view from his religion as they are not in agreement with observed objective facts?

3) Re-interpret the religious view to make it agree with the facts?


One of the things you would learn in CT training are the various logical fallacies. Logical fallacies are a description of certain types of faulty reason and the range from adhominen, argument from person experience, etc, etc, etc. The arguments from personal experience deals with the issue of personal urges and emotions and how one should control or avoid making decision (where objectivity is required) on urges or emotions.

I've looked up CT some more and I see what you mean that it is quite a broad subject. In fact the links you put up do it no justice at all.

I don't think that it is really one topic as such but a cocktail of all the various ideas on logic through the ages.

huxley:

Supposing such a scientist were studying the cosmos and they were to discover a fact about the cosmos which is at odds with their religious view - such as was the case with Galileo. What should he do?

1) Deny that he has made such a discovery because it conflicts with his religions view?

2) Abandon the view from his religion as they are not in agreement with observed objective facts?

3) Re-interpret the religious view to make it agree with the facts?


One of the things you would learn in CT training are the various logical fallacies. Logical fallacies are a description of certain types of faulty reason and the range from adhominen, argument from person experience, etc, etc, etc. The arguments from personal experience deals with the issue of personal urges and emotions and how one should control or avoid making decision (where objectivity is required) on urges or emotions.

Funny you should use Galileo. I was reading about Galileo just today. I can't find where though. Perhaps it was one of the links you referred me to. Well, to answer your questions about Galileo, I always put the testament of experience above any other opinions or views. Personally I don't see how the fact that Jupiter has moons conflicts with anything in christian doctrine. I would say that the Holy See in Rome was just extremely paranoid (as one should be I guess if his position relies on a rigid orthodoxy).
But let's imagine that it conflicts with his religious beliefs. The human mind is compartmentalised. It is very easy for a person to hold two contradictory views without having issues as a result. Hypocrisy? or just elasticity of the human mind? I don't think that the issue was with Galileo. The issue was with the Holy See and soon enough they made their issue his issue in the way only despot's can.

The arguments from personal experience deals with the issue of personal urges and emotions and how one should control or avoid making decision (where objectivity is required) on urges or emotions.

How does one control or avoid emotions and urges influencing decisions according to CT? I happen to think that Thinking is just a derivative of what happens in emotional processes. Nietzsche thought that it was impossible to be truly objective and that we are all driven by what he called the Will to Power.

In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche begins with a chapter entitled “On the Prejudices of Philosophers.” Almost immediately he begins to tear into the lack of integrity on the part of traditional philosophers who present their ideas as the product of pure reason. Nietzsche declaims, “they pose as having discovered and attained their real opinions through the self-evolution of a cold, pure, divinely unperturbed dialectic: while what happens at bottom is that a prejudice, a notion, an ‘inspiration,’ generally a desire of the heart sifted and made abstract, is defended by them with reasons sought after the event” (Beyond Good and Evil, which will be referred to as BGE, I.5). Thus, philosophical insights are not the universal claims to truth that philosophers have presented them as and wished them to be. The philosophy of an individual is precisely that, not a product “of a cold, pure, divinely unperturbed dialectic.”

This is taken from here:
http://www.stolaf.edu/depts/philosophy/reed/2001/perspectivism.html

Indeed I find that most cognitive processes start with a bias and then think up clever rational arguments to support the bias. I wouldn't go as far as Neitzsche to claim that that is the sole purpose of our rationality, ie to make our biases look good, but I find that in most people the cognitive shifts begin with traumas of heavy emotional experiences of one kind or another. Many people turn to God after someone close has a fatality. But then again, many people turn away from God after someone close to them experiences a fatality.

I'm very curious to know how CT proposes that we can think without Bias.

Am glad to see that you have done some more research on CT. It has been an active area for many years (perhaps about 100 years) although only recently is it becoming more popular.

Check out this excerpt from the book by Alec Fisher here: http://assets.cambridge.org/052100/9847/sample/0521009847ws.pdf


Hvae just read most of it and agree with most of what he says, Wish I had the whole book.

Hello Huxley, Long time no see on this thread.

You never got back to me on how CT proposes that we think without bias.