Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What Does Critical Thinking Mean To You?
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 196 of 339 (722521)
03-21-2014 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by RAZD
03-21-2014 2:22 PM


RAZD writes:
It fits with your worldview.
It fits with how the world seems to work.
It doesn't fit with your worldview.
It doesn't fit with the way the world seems to work.
To reject evidence just because it is weak is not critical thinking imho.
To prefer strong evidence to weak evidence is rational. The reverse would be irrational.
Of course it may not be correct but the balance of probabilities are not in the weaker evidence's favour and in order to prefer the weaker over the stronger we need a proportionally larger amount of evidence.
That's all the Antecedent Probability Principle and the Proportional Principle mean. Big Important Words. Very simple ideas.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2014 2:22 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2014 11:21 PM Tangle has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 197 of 339 (722526)
03-21-2014 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by New Cat's Eye
03-21-2014 6:00 PM


Re: Huh?
We've looked everywhere they could be.
What do you mean, "everywhere"?
It was only a few years back that scientists found the first underwater mushrooms. They'd looked at a lot of rivers, but clearly they hadn't looked everywhere.
Horse-like mammals can't survive in the bottom of the Mariana Trench, the heart of the Amazon, nor the middle of Antarctica.
Int the first place, that's a generalization based on only on all the horse-like mammals you know about, and in the second place unicorns are magic.
Besides, the original claims of it existing come from small section of the world, and its been shown to be clear of unicorns.
Well of course they're extinct in Eurasia now, but not before crossing the Bering Land Bridge, heading south and over the Isthmus of Panama, and hiding in the Amazon rain forest, behind some of the trees you haven't looked behind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-21-2014 6:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2014 10:40 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 198 of 339 (722532)
03-21-2014 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Tangle
03-21-2014 6:41 PM


RAZD writes:
It fits with your worldview.
It fits with how the world seems to work.
In your opinion, based on your worldview.
It doesn't fit with your worldview.
It doesn't fit with the way the world seems to work.
In your opinion, based on your worldview.
To reject evidence just because it is weak is not critical thinking imho.
To prefer strong evidence to weak evidence is rational. The reverse would be irrational.
But you didn't say you had strong evidence, and I'm talking about the only evidence you have is weak.
It is irrational to reject the only evidence you have just because it is weak. Critcal thinking would say it's the best information you have.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2014 6:41 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Tangle, posted 03-22-2014 4:13 AM RAZD has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 199 of 339 (722537)
03-22-2014 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by RAZD
03-21-2014 11:21 PM


I'm pretty sure you understand the point, I'm not going to labour it any further.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2014 11:21 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by RAZD, posted 03-22-2014 5:58 PM Tangle has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 339 (722545)
03-22-2014 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Dr Adequate
03-21-2014 7:25 PM


Re: Huh?
and in the second place unicorns are magic.
Oh, I wasn't meaning to talk about anything magical. Nevermind then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-21-2014 7:25 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 201 of 339 (722548)
03-22-2014 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by New Cat's Eye
03-21-2014 6:00 PM


Re: Huh?
Catholic Scientist writes:
Horse-like mammals can't survive in the bottom of the Mariana Trench, the heart of the Amazon, nor the middle of Antarctica.
How "horse-like" are they? They superficially resemble horses but how do we know their biology is horse-like? Maybe the heart of the Amazon is their ideal habitat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-21-2014 6:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 202 of 339 (722571)
03-22-2014 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Tangle
03-22-2014 4:13 AM


I'm pretty sure you understand the point, ...
But do you understand my point ...
Your worldview is your cognitive construct, your sum total intellectual and emotional model based on your education, experiences, beliefs, all the books you've read and the discussions you've had, your politics and your philosophy.
The way you approach questions and answers is necessarily filtered (seen through the eyes of) your worldview, including what you believe are universal "default" positions.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Tangle, posted 03-22-2014 4:13 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Tangle, posted 03-22-2014 6:09 PM RAZD has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 203 of 339 (722572)
03-22-2014 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by RAZD
03-22-2014 5:58 PM


RAZD writes:
But do you understand my point ...
I'm renowned for rarely missing the blindingly obvious. And also for having no time for the pedantic. Just a little foible.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by RAZD, posted 03-22-2014 5:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2014 1:09 PM Tangle has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 204 of 339 (722622)
03-23-2014 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Tangle
03-22-2014 6:09 PM


I'm renowned for rarely missing the blindingly obvious ...
Well, imho, whether or not the bridge is out is a question where the "blindingly obvious" default would be "I don't know" -- and that you can make assumptions based on your worldview and whatever evidence is at hand, no matter how weak that is, but you won't really know until you get to the bridge.
Critical thinking -- to me anyway -- includes recognizing when you don't know, and separating assumption from hypothesis based on facts, theory and knowledge into a hierarchy of relative likelihood.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Tangle, posted 03-22-2014 6:09 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2014 4:52 AM RAZD has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 205 of 339 (722658)
03-24-2014 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by RAZD
03-23-2014 1:09 PM


RAZD writes:
Well, imho, whether or not the bridge is out is a question where the "blindingly obvious" default would be "I don't know"
Then you've not understood the Antecedent Probability Principle and the Proportional Principle.
Of course you don't know whether the bridge is out or not. Just like you don't know whether its been magically made out of marshmallow. But those two states are not equally probable and one would require a larger amount of evidence to convince you than the other.
The point of those principles is to give you a frame of reference for making a rational decision. We know that bridges are generally open and working unless something exceptional has happened. All things being equal, it is therefore rational to think the bridge is open. That's the antecedent probability principal.
If, despite the fine weather and lack of recent geological activity, your passenger tells you that he believes that the bridge ahead is no longer there, you must demand further evidence before you accept his statement. That's the Proportionality Principle.
If he says that he was a member of a demolition team that took it out as a terrorist activity earlier in the day, you might have a few more questions to ask, but the probability of the bridge still being there has now reduced considerably.
If he says that god just told him, you'd probably not consider that good evidence would you?
We make rational decisions based on what we have experienced to be true in the world. But we don't assume that what we know is 100% true, we ascribe them probabilities in order to just get by in the world.
To say that you don't know if the bridge is there or not, despite your world experience telling you that in 100% of all the thousands of times you've approached a bridge it was there, is not critical thinking, it's just pseudo-philosophical silliness.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2014 1:09 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2014 8:15 AM Tangle has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 206 of 339 (722671)
03-24-2014 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Tangle
03-24-2014 4:52 AM


Of course you don't know whether the bridge is out or not. Just like you don't know whether its been magically made out of marshmallow. But those two states are not equally probable and one would require a larger amount of evidence to convince you than the other.
Actually all it takes is seeing the bridge, up until that point you are operating on assumptions based on your worldview.
To say that you don't know if the bridge is there or not, despite your world experience telling you that in 100% of all the thousands of times you've approached a bridge it was there, is not critical thinking, it's just pseudo-philosophical silliness.
I guess I travel in a different world, as I've had instances of bridges being out, and I've seen newscasts of bridges being taken out, so no it is not 100%, and it depends on a lot of factors, all of which go into your evaluation of the situation depending on your worldview.
But feel free to drive off the edge to prove your point.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2014 4:52 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2014 8:57 AM RAZD has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 207 of 339 (722677)
03-24-2014 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by RAZD
03-24-2014 8:15 AM


RAZD writes:
Actually all it takes is seeing the bridge,
As you are now determined to be ridiculous, you don't actually know whether the bridge is made out of marshmallow until you drive onto it and you may never know if it's been put there by magic.
up until that point you are operating on assumptions based on your worldview.
I sure am. That's the entire point. I'm working on everyone in the world's view - including yours - that the bridge is more likely to be there than not and I'll be correct in virtually 100% of normal circumstances so to think otherwise would be an error in critical thinking.
I guess I travel in a different world, as I've had instances of bridges being out, and I've seen newscasts of bridges being taken out, so no it is not 100%, and it depends on a lot of factors, all of which go into your evaluation of the situation depending on your worldview.
In normal circumstances the chance of the bridge being there is as near to 100% that makes no difference. The antecedent probability principle deals with likelihoods, not certainties.
You travel in the same world as I do and you know that, all things being equal, the bridge will be there. If you've got no reason to suspect otherwise, it's an error in critical thinking not to expect the bridge to be there.
Now stop being silly.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2014 8:15 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2014 10:55 AM Tangle has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 208 of 339 (722700)
03-24-2014 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Tangle
03-24-2014 8:57 AM


As you are now determined to be ridiculous, you don't actually know whether the bridge is made out of marshmallow until you drive onto it and you may never know if it's been put there by magic.
Seems you are the one insisting on going to silly extremes.
I sure am. That's the entire point. I'm working on everyone in the world's view ...
No, you are assuming that other people's worldviews are exactly like yours, when that is an obvious fallacy.
... that the bridge is more likely to be there than not ...
Which is still an assumption based on your worldview until the issue is tested.
... and I'll be correct in virtually 100% of normal circumstances so to think otherwise would be an error in critical thinking.
Assuming you are correct without actually testing it is not, imho, critical thinking but dogmatic thinking.
In normal circumstances the chance of the bridge being there is as near to 100% that makes no difference. ...
In your opinion based on your worldview. There are places in this world where this is not true, and people living there would have different assumptions based on their worldviews.
... The antecedent probability principle deals with likelihoods, not certainties.
And yet you claim "virtually 100%" certainty ...
You travel in the same world as I do and you know that, all things being equal, the bridge will be there. If you've got no reason to suspect otherwise, it's an error in critical thinking not to expect the bridge to be there.
Curiously there are roads that I have taken because the bridge is out, a fact I am very confident of being the case based on past observation and the likelihood of it remaining so for a long time. The road less traveled and all that.
I also travel a lot of back roads where the possibility is real that bridges are out. What one expects is based on what one knows and has experienced and all the other elements that go into the worldview one has.
The default is "I don't know" and it doesn't matter how much you convince yourself that you can be sure of the result.
Now stop being silly.
After you.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2014 8:57 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2014 11:33 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 209 of 339 (722701)
03-24-2014 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coyote
03-12-2014 11:06 AM


Jesus and Critical Thinking
Coyote writes:
To me, critical thinking means following evidence rather than beliefs, especially when evidence contradicts beliefs.
To me, I agree with the second part, but prefer to accept the belief that I have embraced rather than dismiss it simply due to lack of physical evidence. There have been many instances in which I have witnessed people blessed and/or changed by God. Now, whether or not this process happened due to their own efforts or actions and they simply didn't realize it is unimportant to me...and in that sense I suppose that I am guilty of confirmation bias in regards to my beliefs..but oh well... to each his own, I suppose. Because at the end of the day, it all boils down to what we want to believe anyway.
Diomedes writes:
Ultimately, from my view, faith at its core level means accepting something with limited to no evidence.
In my experience, the subjective evidence(perhaps perception is a better word) was good enough to sway me. Again, confirmation bias plays a part when a believer is persuaded to think as their church body/group thinks, however. That is one reason I like hanging out here at EvC. It does nobody any good to hang too heavily with likeminded people...and this goes for atheist/humanists and otherwise critical thinkers also. Having critical thinking skills as a philosophy of belief (based on evidence) is not a superior position to take...it is simply different.
Again, at the end of the day I prefer to believe one way while others prefer other ways.
If I have learned anything here at EvC it is that there is no such thing as a superior objective belief. Jesus may be the only way in my mind and heart, but it is up to Him (and not me) to convince anyone of that.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 03-12-2014 11:06 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 210 of 339 (722702)
03-24-2014 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by RAZD
03-24-2014 10:55 AM


RAZD writes:
In your opinion based on your worldview. There are places in this world where this is not true, and people living there would have different assumptions based on their worldviews.
This is not about my opinion, nor my world view - it's a general principle that applies to all people everywhere.
In the places of the world where bridges are regularly washed away in the night, the probability principle tells those people who live there that they can't ever be certain whether there's a bridge where they expect it to be or not. That's why it's called the ANTECEDENT probability principle. It relies on previous knowledge to establish a probability of something being true or false.
Here in the UK, I can be sure to virtual certainty that the bridge across the River Ooze will be there if I needed it this afternoon. You would be a little less sure, but you'd still consider it more likely than not because you know that I live in a modern country with established road infrastructure.
To apply any other logic to these situations would be irrational and to deny that we can know things about the world.
After you
The sillyness ends here; for me at least.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2014 10:55 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-24-2014 11:48 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 213 by Phat, posted 03-24-2014 2:56 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 232 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2014 5:31 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024