Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What Does Critical Thinking Mean To You?
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(3)
Message 136 of 339 (722171)
03-17-2014 1:18 PM


Never Wrong = Zombie
I think the biggest indication of whether or not you're using Critical Thinking is if you accept the possibility that you may be wrong.
Can Science be wrong?
  • If your answer is yes: Then you are likely using some method of Critical Thinking.
  • If your answer is no: Then you are definitely not using Critical Thinking and have moved into a zombie-like-non-thinking state.
Can the Bible be wrong?
  • If your answer is yes: Then you are likely using some method of Critical Thinking.
  • If your answer is no: Then you are definitely not using Critical Thinking and have moved into a zombie-like-non-thinking state.
Can you be wrong about experiencing the supernatural?
  • If your answer is yes: Then you are likely using some method of Critical Thinking.
  • If your answer is no: Then you are definitely not using Critical Thinking and have moved into a zombie-like-non-thinking state.
Can you be wrong about the evidence?
  • If your answer is yes: Then you are likely using some method of Critical Thinking.
  • If your answer is no: Then you are definitely not using Critical Thinking and have moved into a zombie-like-non-thinking state.
Or course, the best method we have to uncover being right or wrong about reality is to collect evidence and see what direction that points us in. Can it be wrong? For sure. Is it our best bet? As far we currently know, yes.
If you ever find yourself clinging to any specific explanation without willing to accept that some sort of future evidence may sway you to no longer think it is correct... then you're firmly into Zombie mode and you've long since tossed any notions of Critical Thinking aside.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 137 of 339 (722173)
03-17-2014 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Faith
03-15-2014 8:00 PM


Re: Evaluating Our Experiences
ABE: Other phenomena, such as "psychic" phenomena, is different and can be tested. But Randi should test the Yogis, not the average psychics.
Well, the JREF tests people who submit themselves for testing. If no yogis submit themselves, then we must suppose either (a) that every yogi knows himself to be a fraud, and so is unwilling to submit himself for testing (b) that no yogi wants a million dollars, either for himself or to donate to the charity of his choosing, and that for some reason no yogi would want to demonstrate his powers under stringent conditions for the religious edification of mankind either, although they are perfectly willing to demonstrate them under conditions where fraud would go undetected.
Now option (b) would be, if anything, more extraordinary than that they should actually have miraculous powers, wouldn't it? If you challenge a man to prove that he can do what he says he can, and offer him a million dollars if he can, and if it would be of vast importance to the whole human race to prove that he can --- then what possible consideration would stop him, except that he can't?
If the JREF offered me a million dollars to prove my contention that I can juggle three balls, then although this claim has little significance it itself --- well, you'd better not stand between me and the guy who's offering me the money. If my juggling would in addition enlighten humanity as to some important question, then that would make me even keener to show off my talent.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 03-15-2014 8:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 138 of 339 (722174)
03-17-2014 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by ringo
03-17-2014 11:42 AM


Re: God versus Long John Silver
Phat writes:
not every decision can be examined critically before it is made. Some decisions only have an impact after they are made.
You cant realize that you should have turned right unless you turn left and notice that the terrain is unfamiliar. Sitting at the fork in the road gives no insight into the terrain ahead.
ringo writes:
That's fine, as long as you're willing to unmake those decisions if they turn out to be bad ones. If you make a wrong turn, you can keep telling yourself, "It's just over the next hill," or you can admit you were wrong.
It seems to me that religions put a lot of effort into making excuses for staying on the wrong road.
This is where I agree with jar that behavior (good,rational,mature behavior) is the indication of being on the right road. Not everyone on the right road needs to be outwardly religious but the fact is that if my particular belief is right and that Jesus is in fact the way to know God, Nobody on the right road would deny Him, though some may choose to simply behave and do good without the religious professions and theatrics. You could well be a humanist atheist your entire life, but again, if my belief is correct, it would only make sense that you had a time of communion and acceptance with God some day.
Is it ok to question various beliefs? Yes, of course. Is it ok to doubt them? Yes, if you are honest with yourself. Is it ok to deny or ignore them? Only if after examining all available evidence you honestly conclude that there is nothing to accept nor deny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by ringo, posted 03-17-2014 11:42 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by ringo, posted 03-18-2014 11:58 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 145 by Taq, posted 03-18-2014 12:06 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 139 of 339 (722180)
03-17-2014 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Faith
03-14-2014 1:55 PM


Re: Evaluating Our Experiences
I believe the criteria for differentiating the demonic from the mental illness is quite clear in the descriptions themselves,
It isn't clear at all. Describe these criteria for us.
and your inability to see it doesn't bode well for any effort I might put into trying to demonstrate it beyond that.
Your inability to demonstrate it does not bode well for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 03-14-2014 1:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 140 of 339 (722181)
03-17-2014 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Faith
03-15-2014 12:22 PM


Re: Evaluating Our Experiences
If there IS no evidence but stories, it's stupid to dismiss the stories,
A perfect example of how critical thinking does NOT work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Faith, posted 03-15-2014 12:22 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Stile, posted 03-18-2014 9:11 AM Taq has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 141 of 339 (722201)
03-18-2014 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Taq
03-17-2014 4:55 PM


Re: Evaluating Our Experiences
Taq writes:
Faith writes:
If there IS no evidence but stories, it's stupid to dismiss the stories
A perfect example of how critical thinking does NOT work.
Actually, I would say that Faith is technically correct here (taking her out of context).
The process of critical thinking would not dismiss the stories if there was no evidence.
The next step would be an attempt to verify the stories... test them in some way (any way).
If there is no way to test them... then critical thinking would lead you to dismiss them (because they would be synonymous with "imagination.")
You certainly are correct when speaking in the context about what Faith is discussing, though... supernatural and/or biblical stories have been tested and failed all but the most mundane tests. (Some things like simple locations actually did/do exist... but, well, that's hardly evidence for the rest of the claims).
As far as the Bible stories go, there is lots and lots of evidence about them... this evidence all tells us that the stories are not true.
Edited by Stile, : Nonsense... there's no edit here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Taq, posted 03-17-2014 4:55 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by NoNukes, posted 03-18-2014 11:08 AM Stile has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 339 (722204)
03-18-2014 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Stile
03-18-2014 9:11 AM


Re: Evaluating Our Experiences
The process of critical thinking would not dismiss the stories if there was no evidence.
Really? Critical thinking means that you have no ability to reject anything not proven wrong? Because if that is the case, then I submit that nobody uses critical thinking.
I don't have any personal knowledge of scientific testing to verify that poltergeists don't hide TV remotes or that toys don't talk when no humans are around. Not saying that the evidence is not there, but I don't know of it. But there is no point at which I am going consider the possibility that a spook stole the remote or decide that it's time to bug the kid's playroom.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Stile, posted 03-18-2014 9:11 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Stile, posted 03-18-2014 12:02 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 153 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2014 6:09 PM NoNukes has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 143 of 339 (722206)
03-18-2014 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Phat
03-17-2014 2:05 PM


Re: God versus Long John Silver
Phat writes:
Not everyone on the right road needs to be outwardly religious but the fact is that if my particular belief is right and that Jesus is in fact the way to know God, Nobody on the right road would deny Him, though some may choose to simply behave and do good without the religious professions and theatrics.
I deny Him. I don't believe He ever existed. By your logic, I must be on the wrong road.
Phat writes:
Is it ok to deny or ignore them? Only if after examining all available evidence you honestly conclude that there is nothing to accept nor deny.
You yourself admit that there is no evidence for your beliefs, don't you? So the question should really be, "Is it okay NOT to deny or ignore them if there's no evidence for them?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Phat, posted 03-17-2014 2:05 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 144 of 339 (722207)
03-18-2014 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by NoNukes
03-18-2014 11:08 AM


Re: Evaluating Our Experiences
NoNukes writes:
Stile writes:
The process of critical thinking would not dismiss the stories if there was no evidence.
Really?
I don't think you understood the context I was attempting to get across.
Critical thinking means that you have no ability to reject anything not proven wrong?
This isn't what I was talking about.
I meant "no evidence" in the sense of before anything is even attempted to be proven right or wrong.
As in "I've just heard some stories. Now what?"
...at this point, when there is "no evidence" (because you haven't tested anything yet...) it would not be following Critical Thinking to dismiss the stories. Critical Thinking would say you need to test the stories.
I don't have any personal knowledge of scientific testing to verify that poltergeists don't hide TV remotes or that toys don't talk when no humans are around. Not saying that the evidence is not there, but I don't know of it. But there is no point at which I am going consider the possibility that a spook stole the remote or decide that it's time to bug the kid's playroom.
But... you do have evidence that "whenever someone brings up poltergeists or spooks... then they're full of bullshit."
Because you've researched these things in the past (at least on some level) and identified that the stories are, indeed, bullshit.
If you've never heard of a poltergeist or spook before... and have never had your remote gone missing before... and all of a sudden your remote is missing, and someone says a poltergeist took it... then simply dismissing the poltergeist story would not be following Critical Thinking. It would be time for some tests. Perhaps look for the remote. Perhaps look into what "poltergeists" actually are. But Critical Thinking does require you to do something... test something... before dismissing an idea. Those tests may have been done long ago, that's also fine... but if you just dismiss a story because you don't know anything about it (have "no evidence")... then that's not Critical Thinking either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by NoNukes, posted 03-18-2014 11:08 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by NoNukes, posted 03-18-2014 12:19 PM Stile has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 145 of 339 (722208)
03-18-2014 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Phat
03-17-2014 2:05 PM


Re: God versus Long John Silver
This is where I agree with jar that behavior (good,rational,mature behavior) is the indication of being on the right road. Not everyone on the right road needs to be outwardly religious but the fact is that if my particular belief is right and that Jesus is in fact the way to know God, Nobody on the right road would deny Him, though some may choose to simply behave and do good without the religious professions and theatrics. You could well be a humanist atheist your entire life, but again, if my belief is correct, it would only make sense that you had a time of communion and acceptance with God some day.
If we applied critical thinking, we would have to ask if it is possible for someone to have good, rational, mature behavior because of a belief in a deity that doesn't exist, and how we would tell the difference between behavior caused by a belief in a non-existent deity, and a belief in a real deity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Phat, posted 03-17-2014 2:05 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 339 (722210)
03-18-2014 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Stile
03-18-2014 12:02 PM


Re: Evaluating Our Experiences
I meant "no evidence" in the sense of before anything is even attempted to be proven right or wrong.
What evidence can you cite demonstrating that there are no invisible poltergeists? I am not familiar with the evidence.
If you've never heard of a poltergeist or spook before... and have never had your remote gone missing before... and all of a sudden your remote is missing, and someone says a poltergeist took it... then simply dismissing the poltergeist story would not be It would be time for some tests
Really? What about my experience from the 562 other times that I found the remote in the seat cushions or behind the couch? Shouldn't I look there first? What about the fact that I was always able to find the remote in some mundane place before someone told me the poltergeist story?
I reject the idea that I would attribute something to magic after hearing an anecdote, when every other time, Fnet =ma, where the source of all F's was perfectly ordinary, perfectly accounted for the location of the missing remote. You should too.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Stile, posted 03-18-2014 12:02 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Stile, posted 03-18-2014 1:21 PM NoNukes has not replied
 Message 148 by Stile, posted 03-18-2014 1:25 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 147 of 339 (722211)
03-18-2014 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by NoNukes
03-18-2014 12:19 PM


Re: Evaluating Our Experiences
NoNukes writes:
What evidence can you cite demonstrating that there are no invisible poltergeists? I am not familiar with the evidence.
Whenever someone claims that a poltergeist "did this", and the situation is investigated and a non-poltergeist solution is found to explain "this" instead... is evidence that there is no invisible poltergeist there.
The fact that most the claims are directly refuted, and those not directly refuted are either unreliable in the first place, or untestable otherwise is also evidence that invisible poltergeists do not exist.
There is plenty of evidence that people make things up when they don't understand a situation. This is more evidence that there's no such things as invisible poltergeists.
NoNukes writes:
Stile writes:
...and have never had your remote gone missing before...
What about my experience from the 562 other times that I found the remote in the seat cushions or behind the couch? Shouldn't I look there first? What about the fact that I was always able to find the remote in some mundane place before someone told me the poltergeist story?
I already answered this... in the part of my message that you quoted, even:
As I said. If you already have evidence that your remote can go missing in mundane ways... then you already have evidence to dismiss the story and you are not dealing with a situation in which there is "no evidence."
I reject the idea that I would attribute something to magic after hearing an anecdote, when every other time, Fnet =ma, where the source of all F's was perfectly ordinary, perfectly accounted for the location of the missing remote. You should too.
I've completely agreed with this statement in each and every message of mine you've replied to.
I've then told you that I'm not talking about a situation where you have prior evidence. I'm talking about a situation in which you have "no evidence."
I really do not understand why you keep insisting I'm saying something I've told you I'm not talking about over and over again.
Sorry if I've upset you.
My only point is if you do not have any evidence whatsoever then you should not dismiss a story based on the fact that you have no evidence. Critical Thinking requires you to get some evidence first.
It's really just stating the basic concept of Critical Thinking in the first place... have a reason or method to make your decisions. If you have no evidence or information in order to develop a reason or method... then you have no basis to use Critical Thinking to make the decision in dismissing an idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by NoNukes, posted 03-18-2014 12:19 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 148 of 339 (722212)
03-18-2014 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by NoNukes
03-18-2014 12:19 PM


Re: Evaluating Our Experiences
NoNukes writes:
I reject the idea that I would attribute something to magic after hearing an anecdote...
I should probably also point out that I have never said anything about accepting the stories.
I have only been talking about not dismissing the stories.
There's a difference between not dismissing a possibility vs. accepting it as "the solution."
Your comments seem to imply that I'm pushing for accepting an idea without any evidence for it. I'm not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by NoNukes, posted 03-18-2014 12:19 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by NoNukes, posted 03-18-2014 2:07 PM Stile has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 149 of 339 (722213)
03-18-2014 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Stile
03-18-2014 1:25 PM


Re: Evaluating Our Experiences
Your comments seem to imply that I'm pushing for accepting an idea without any evidence for it. I'm not.
And I'm saying you are wrong. My experience before ever hearing about poltergeist is enough to dismiss them when I do hear about them and some things they are supposedly responsible for.
And that's true even if the story is about the cause of lightening or cases of cholera even if I don't happen to know the real causes for either of those. That's also the case for leprechauns, and pink elephants, and it does not matter if the missing object is a remote or an electric sweater knitter. If the claim is that some mystical entity used magical means to hide the object from me, I won't just not accept the claim. I will dismiss them. My claim is that the dismissal is the critical thinking thing to do.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Stile, posted 03-18-2014 1:25 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Stile, posted 03-18-2014 2:37 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 151 by 1.61803, posted 03-18-2014 3:07 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 150 of 339 (722214)
03-18-2014 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by NoNukes
03-18-2014 2:07 PM


Re: Evaluating Our Experiences
NoNukes writes:
And I'm saying you are wrong. My experience before ever hearing about poltergeist is enough to dismiss them when I do hear about them and some things they are supposedly responsible for.
Your reasons for dismissing the poltergeist story is because you have evidence that no "other story (whatever it is)" is required.
That is... the 562 times you found your remote in the cushions and other such examples.
Such evidence is, obviously, not "no evidence." And therefore is not what I'm talking about.
So... you're saying I'm wrong about something I've never made a claim on.
My claim is that the dismissal is the critical thinking thing to do.
My claim is that the dismissal is the critical thinking thing to do only when you have evidence to do so.
In every example you've provided... you've also provided evidence to do so. So I agree with you.
Then I tell you that I would not agree with you if you did not have "evidence to do so"... if you had "no evidence."
Then you disagree with me.
Then, to prove your point you provide another example but you then also include "evidence to reject the claim." Therefore... it's not "no evidence," again.
Think of it this way... if you have "no evidence" to dismiss a story about poltergeists... then it would not be the critical-thinking-thing to dismiss the story "just because you feel like it."
The whole point of using critical thinking is to have a rational reason to make your decision.
If you have "no evidence"... then you cannot possibly have "a rational reason" to decide to dismiss the story. Therefore, you cannot be using Critical Thinking.
If the claim is that some mystical entity used magical means to hide the object from me, I won't just not accept the claim. I will dismiss them.
If you dismiss a claim (any claim, even "mystical entity" claims) without any evidence to do so... then you're not using Critical Thinking. You're just doing what ever you want... which is the opposite of Critical Thinking.
The fact that no claims of "mystical entities" have ever been shown to be valid, and we've investigated a lot of these claims very thoroughly... this is evidence to use Critical Thinking to dismiss such claims without needing to do more evidence every time you hear a claim.
If you're using this evidence to make your dismissal... then you're using Critical Thinking.
If you're just dismissing the claims "because you feel like it"... then you're not using Critical Thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by NoNukes, posted 03-18-2014 2:07 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by NoNukes, posted 03-18-2014 4:21 PM Stile has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024