What Does Critical Thinking Mean To You?

In your opinion, based on your worldview. In your opinion, based on your worldview. 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.

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.

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.

Actually all it takes is seeing the bridge, up until that point you are operating on assumptions based on your worldview. 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.

Seems you are the one insisting on going to silly extremes. No, you are assuming that other people's worldviews are exactly like yours, when that is an obvious fallacy. Which is still an assumption based on your worldview until the issue is tested. Assuming you are correct without actually testing it is not, imho, critical thinking but dogmatic thinking. 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. And yet you claim "virtually 100%" certainty ... 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. After you.

There are a lot of factors that should be reviewed, and continually reassessed.Assuming the same result will always apply is not critical thinking.The probability of throwing a seven with a pair of dice does not change with the last throw, and the possibility of getting cat's eyes is always the same. And that's when you know the odds.Last year a bridge was our near me ... ... but it was out because of an accident that had just occurred, and there were no signs. This occurs about once a year here.The other way to the other side is somewhat longer, but going back to it is a considerably longer trip. If one ABSOLUTELY HAD to be at their destination by a specific time the prudent course is to avoid the bridge.Critical thinking would mean assessing the results of error in judgement as well as assumed likelihoods of success, and if a perceived blockage\error would be fatal to the mission where another path would yield positive results, then you go with the known positive.Edited by RAZD, : .

In your opinion based on your worldview. Always assuming that what happened yesterday will happen again today will always fail on the day it is not the same no matter how infrequently it occurs.Failing to recognize that is not critical thinking but dogmatic thinking.Critical thinking also assesses the risks for when it fails. Glad to see that you will be stopping it then.

Options:

1. Assume the bridge is there
2. Assume the bridge is not there
3. Conclude that "I don't know" until evidence observed that the bridge is there or not there

Options:

1. Assume god/s exist
2. Assume god/s do not exist
3. Conclude that "I don't know" until evidence observed that god/s exist or not.

From a logical\rational point of view you cannot blithely assume either existence or non-existence when you have insufficient for making such a conclusion.... what is wrong with saying "I don't know" ???Enjoy

As long as you recognize it is a belief\opinion and as long as it is not contradicted by objective empirical evidence.And as long as you are prepared to accept contrary evidence should it become available, and change your belief\opinion, then there should not be an issue:

1. I don't know if the bridge is there, I believe that it IS there, but I will accept evidence that it is NOT there,
2. I don't know if the bridge is there, I believe that it is NOT there, but I will accept evidence that it IS there,

Enjoy.

The same as someone that takes the position of non-belief (see Message 284): as long as you acknowledge that it is an opinion\belief that may be wrong I don't see any problems. How can you have any certainty when you don't know? Having certainty is illogical\irrational without evidence that would remove the doubt of not knowing.Enjoy

And of course, not to let the cat out of the bag, the bridge is neither there nor not there until the observation is made ...

Curiously that is not actual evidence that god/s do not exist. It is evidence that certain anecdotal concepts involving gods were not quite correct, that those god concepts can be allegorical rather than true representations. This is opinion not evidence. And I question the basis for this "almost certainly" opinion and what gives you such a firm opinion as opposed to saying "possibly wrong" -- which is what we have with the bridge scenario:

1. I don't know, I believe the bridge exists, but it is possibly this is wrong,
2. I don't know, I believe the bridge does not exists, but it is possibly this is wrong,
3. I don't know, whether the bridge exists or not, and I will await further information.

These are all open-minded skeptical positions.Enjoy.

Likely on what basis? Likely or probably imply some evidence of comparative likelihood\probability, some knowledge.Or you can say it is possible that your belief is wrong.Enjoy

By driving to the bridge you also show a lack of belief that the bridge is not there.In other words you have not formed an opinion until you have evidence for the bridge being there or not being there. Because you don't know ...Enjoy.

What I find curious in many discussions like this, is the nearly universal habit of adding criteria that support how people want the discussion to go. It is as if we are not willing to address just the bare bones arguments, but try to fit the scenario into our worldviews in a comfortable way. And the argument devolves into discussing whether or not the what ifs apply or were understood by others.So other than logic and evidenced based (scientific) procedures I think Critical Thinking involves recognizing:

1. when you don't know (with a lack of certainty regarding any opinions you have on the matter), and
2. when you don't know how much you don't know (when there are resources available that would increase your general knowledge on the topic, such as on evolution).

In the first stage I not only lack belief in the bridge being there (or not being there), but I lack certainty about the condition of the bridge's existence, so I just don't know if the bridge is there or not.In the second stage I could look up maps and articles on the bridge construction and the effect of weather on the bridge (was there a report that it was taken out by a storm). Or I could drive to the bridge.And if there are no resources that can show the probable existence of the bridge (one way or the other), then I have to fall back on stage one: I don't know.Enjoy