Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking.

Well laid out, as usual, Razd. The only quality I would add to the fundamentals of Crit-think is 'Courage'--the ability to admit to the conclusions reached if they run counter to one`s previous understanding. Possibly the hardest to master.

Not so, Rob, I face it many times a year. Unlike other habits, it doesn`t get easier with practice.

O.K.,how about trannies being the missing critters between the 'kinds' that wandered off the Ark, and today`s species?
Too specific?

I think you miss the point. The whole essence of 'Crit-think' is that it is intensely personal. When one applies the four elements to one`s thinking, and it necessitates altering one`s worldview, you either change or go with the flow,i.e.,lack courage.

Courage? How else would you define letting go of the familiar? What other quality sums up changing your cosy beliefs to the harsh light of Crit-think? We all accept certain values as the standards in our life, based on previous understanding. Then, if you remain true to the three elements and discover you are on a fool`s journey, do you compromise, or take a deep breath and realign your thinking? I doubt anyone can take the plunge without counting the cost of lost sureties, lost opportunities, possibly lost friends. So it boils down to whether CT is king, or do you accommodate the new without accepting the new boundaries? Whether the transition is something relatively mundane, or life-shaking like moving from religious to atheistic (or vice versa), rejecting scientific, political, tribal, even domestic ties in the face of new evidence, I`d say it took courage. Still think phlogiston had a lot going for it.

Hey, Faith, momentous moment, we agree on something. I guess it boils down to being true to yourself. Face the chosen future because you won`t compromise on the rules you set for yourself, regardless of the pain. So easy to say WTH and keep your past. Far more of a test to hold to the demands of CT if it points in a different direction.

Nah, boasting is for the ego-driven. :-p

Perhaps, but some try not to let it fuel their world-view.

And oft refuted by an expert brought in by the opposition. We had a number of high-profile cases overthrown after a few years based on re-examining the forensics. Both times performed by 'experts'. I would suggest that physical evidence also be regarded as tentative,not necessarily objective, pending the exclusion of all or most possible explanations. Archaeology falls into this trap on many occasions by using either a predetermined mind-set for a find, or jumping to the first possible explanation. E.g., a ring found containing the name Jehu is located among ruins. This confirms the site was ruled by a king Jehu. Which ignores other possible causes such as a wandering nomad/soldier/merchant dropped it far from its place of discovery. Far-fetched? Watch your arche journal coming to a place near you.

Lol. I figure if we rent you out to CSI-LasVegas, we can extend the series by at least a couple of seasons as you and Grissom go head to head.