TromboneChat

Well of course we are!
That's what we DO.

 

Critical Thinking connected to an enormous over inflated ego.

Not Good. Kind of like giving a Corvette to a 17 year old!

Quote from: doubleslyde on Nov 23, 2012, 01:27PMWell of course we are!
That's what we DO.
 
 
 
Critical Thinking connected to an enormous over inflated ego.
 
Not Good. Kind of like giving a Corvette to a 17 year old!
Except that probably the most important aspect of sound critical thinking is intellectual humility--the acceptance (I'd argue embrace) of the fact that our perceptions and "raw" (uncritical) sensibilities are trivial as compared to evidence and reason and such (sound epistemology). Intellectual humility also always demands allowances for personal error, and I'd argue the cautionary and corrective power of the subjugation of personal sentiments and raw perceptions can't be easily overestimated. Critical thinking, like science, is mostly about being careful not to fool ourselves--bias management--and strong, premature conclusions are a good indication we're failing to be critical. That's why you tend to see critical thinkers arguing against conclusions rather than for them.
 
I think one of the problems many have in recognizing this is that the recognition of the opposite--of intellectual irresponsibility and the lack of intellectual integrity or rigor--can appear to be arrogant if you're not careful in your reading, and if you tend to imbue text with perceived emotion (it's often pure projection). The same problem is quite apparent with iconoclastic views--we're socialized to see criticism aimed at sacred religious views and values as hostile rather than critical. So iconoclasts, who tend (tend) to also be critically-minded have a dual perception/PR handicap--creates a lot of problems.

I think we need to enlist "partners in crime" as it were to evaluate our supposed intellectual integrity.
Not necessarily ones that agree with us philosophically or religiously but ones that we trust.
If we can do that or similar we can be more sure of correct conclusions.
In principle, we agree.
Who do you trust?   

 

The JREF has put up some pretty good lectures on this subject of critical thinking. Here's one that is particularly relevant to an online forum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DVkp-qjvUY&feature=g-u-u

I like 'em; they seem to be kind of like TED talks, except with the specific focus on the education of critical thinking. James Randi certainly has found himself a neat little career niche.

Quote from: Andrew Meronek on Nov 25, 2012, 08:41AMThe JREF has put up some pretty good lectures on this subject of critical thinking. Here's one that is particularly relevant to an online forum:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DVkp-qjvUY&feature=g-u-u
 
I like 'em; they seem to be kind of like TED talks, except with the specific focus on the education of critical thinking. James Randi certainly has found himself a neat little career niche.
Excellent! Thanks for posting that, man.
 
I've been hoping to see research on this. I need to check out the JREF forum to see how criticism is generally taken and how the community responds to reactions of aggression (and/or the presumption of particular emotions behind the criticism).
 
I hope she's right that the current social climate will self-regulate.

Quote from: doubleslyde on Nov 24, 2012, 09:04PMI think we need to enlist "partners in crime" as it were to evaluate our supposed intellectual integrity.


Yes.  That's the easy part though, the hard part is accepting that feedback may be correct. 

I just finished The Generals by Tom Ricks.  He examines the competence and philosophies of Army generals since WWI.  I highly recommend it to anyone interested in any aspect of the military or leadership. 

To oversimplify, he points to a tension between leaders who emphasize training, which ends up in correct response to known situations, and education which allows leaders to think strategically in response to new ones.  Critical thinking is a key part of that education.  The Army has something called the 360, which requires evaluation by your superiors, your peers, and your subordinates. 

In looking at recent wars in the middle East, he makes the point that troops and low level commanders performed superbly but there was a lack of strategic thinking at the higher levels. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Nov 25, 2012, 04:47PMIn looking at recent wars in the middle East, he makes the point that troops and low level commanders performed superbly but there was a lack of strategic thinking at the higher levels. 

I think that this is part of the reason behind the relatively recent trend of assigning CSMs to virtually all higher command positions, so that those commanders have easier access to some constructive criticism behind the scenes.

It is a timely book in terms of current events.

He makes the observation that relief (aka firing) of generals for lack of competence progress was once commonplace.  However that has completely changed.  No general has been relieved by the military for professional reasons since Korea, and that's 60 years ago.  But relief for conduct violations (affairs, etc.) that would have been considered relatively minor in the past now happens quickly.

The book had just come out when Petraeus ended up resigning over personal conduct, while his job performance seems to have been outstanding. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Nov 25, 2012, 05:07PMIt is a timely book in terms of current events.

He makes the observation that relief (aka firing) of generals for lack of competence progress was once commonplace.  However that has completely changed.  No general has been relieved by the military for professional reasons since Korea, and that's 60 years ago.  But relief for conduct violations (affairs, etc.) that would have been considered relatively minor in the past now happens quickly.

The book had just come out when Petraeus ended up resigning over personal conduct, while his job performance seems to have been outstanding. 
" No general has been relieved by the military for professional reasons since Korea, and that's 60 years ago."  Really?  Several Admirals (equivalent to Generals) have been sacked in recent times due to job performance.  Many Ship and sub commanders are relieved yearly also. 

Quote from: ronkny on Nov 25, 2012, 05:28PM" No general has been relieved by the military for professional reasons since Korea, and that's 60 years ago."  Really?  Several Admirals (equivalent to Generals) have been sacked in recent times due to job performance.  Many Ship and sub commanders are relieved yearly also. 

Yes, really.  Generals work for the Army.  Admirals work for the Navy.  I made no claim about the Navy.   

Also note the prepositional phrase "by the military."  There have been generals relieved by civilian authority. 

I recommend you read the book.  I've greatly oversimplified and there is a great deal of thought provoking material there. 

"Yes.  That's the easy part though, the hard part is accepting that feedback may be correct." 

A humongus biggie! Sometimes hard to digest, but it has been mostly right in my experience.

It has changed my life for the better.

 

This "discussion" will seem eerily familiar to many in here (particularly those who have frequented PP in the last two or three years), even if it's just a tad exaggerated at times. And it's certainly not just regarding pseudoscience. Religious "discussions" are well known to frequently get just as ... chaotic, as are political.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 30, 2012, 07:00PMThis "discussion" will seem eerily familiar to many in here (particularly those who have frequented PP in the last two or three years), even if it's just a tad exaggerated at times. And it's certainly not just regarding pseudoscience. Religious "discussions" are well known to frequently get just as ... chaotic, as are political.

Nah, that's a horrible example of such a conversation. There's way too little circling back to already-lambasted talking points.

Quote from: Andrew Meronek on Nov 30, 2012, 07:44PMNah, that's a horrible example of such a conversation. There's way too little circling back to already-lambasted talking points.
Heh ... fair enough.
 
But I'd be quite happy to stop bringing up a lot of the things I repeatedly bring up. You can probably imagine some such things, and why repeatedly bringing them up is more than warranted, and why it would be very nice if those conditions no longer existed to the degree that they're a problem. Eh?

Interesting survey that measures philosophical consistency/inconsistency.
 
I'll leave it at that because it's a survey and people interested in taking it need to be able to do so with as little externally imposed biases as possible.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 30, 2013, 10:08AMInteresting survey that measures philosophical consistency/inconsistency.
 
I'll leave it at that because it's a survey and people interested in taking it need to be able to do so with as little externally imposed biases as possible.

Interesting test. I wonder how many different pairs of questions they have to cycle through.

Now that plenty of folks have had a chance, and before I wade into reading the 6 pages of discussion (so forgive me if someone has already made this point), I find this "logic" quiz suffers a major fallacy of its own.  It assumes only two possibilities with each question.  In some cases, that is appropriate, but in others it presents a false dichotomy.

Quote from: gpkimzey on Jul 02, 2013, 05:45PMNow that plenty of folks have had a chance, and before I wade into reading the 6 pages of discussion (so forgive me if someone has already made this point), I find this "logic" quiz suffers a major fallacy of its own.  It assumes only two possibilities with each question.  In some cases, that is appropriate, but in others it presents a false dichotomy.

Yes, it picks two contrasting questions. But I don't think that they assume that the two questions they pick are the only possible contradictions; I think that just paired them so that a contradiction exists.

Quote from: gpkimzey on Jul 02, 2013, 05:45PMNow that plenty of folks have had a chance, and before I wade into reading the 6 pages of discussion (so forgive me if someone has already made this point), I find this "logic" quiz suffers a major fallacy of its own.  It assumes only two possibilities with each question.  In some cases, that is appropriate, but in others it presents a false dichotomy.
From the first page--before you start the test:QuoteAll you've got to do is to indicate whether you agree or disagree with each statement. If you're not sure, then select the response that is closest to your opinion (and then take this into account at the analysis stage).
 
You should note that the PHC does not judge whether your responses are right or wrong. The important thing is simply to respond as honestly as possible. Each statement is carefully worded, so you need to pay at least a little bit of attention!
So there aren't any right or wrong answers, just personal judgments.
 
The problem is that it doesn't necessarily measure philosophical tensions. Careful reading (which it seems they should stress rather than de-emphasize), and thinking according to the test parameters are also required, for starters. Perhaps more important, I suspect a lot of the "tensions" people do have would go away immediately if the questions' parameters were more clear. IOW, you have to be comfortable with accepting that what the answer doesn't specify or eliminate is available as an option or exception. You have to read outside the lines, as the kids say, rather than to allow the wording to overly limit the questions' and answers' parameters. For example, in many cases you have to consider; Is this true in all cases/are there possible exceptions? Then determine, for example, that if the answers are yes/no the answer falls in the positive, if no/yes the answer falls in the negative. That sort of thing. It also puts subjects in the position of either agreeing with an absolute or disagreeing with something that's generally very uncool to disagree with, but for which there are exceptions, meaning most aren't really going to agree according to how the question is worded. So it also tests that kind of comfort/discomfort level (implied appearances/implications).
 
All in all I'm not sure whether or not it really does test for what it claims to, and I'm not sure how that could be tested. I find the whole situation intriguing--mostly the responses and defenses of less than perfect scores (the internal justifications/apologetics).
 
Also note, though, from the results page:QuoteThe PHC does not aim to identify which of your beliefs are true or false, but where the beliefs you hold might not be compatible with each other.

The test identifies a pair of beliefs as being in tension, where (a) there is a direct contradiction between them, or (b) some sophisticated reasoning is required to allow both beliefs to be held consistently. If two of your beliefs are in tension, we advise that either giving one of them up, or developing some rationally coherent way of reconciling them (assuming you have not already done so).
 
It may help to think of the idea of 'tension' in terms of an intellectual balancing act. Where there is little or no tension between two beliefs, no particular intellectual effort is required to balance them. But where there is a lot of tension, either one has to "jump off the highwire" by abandoning one belief; keep one's balance by intellectual effort and dexterity; or else "fall off the highwire" by failing to deal with the tension.
Also:QuoteYou should note this test only detects tensions between pre-selected pairs of beliefs - it does not detect all the possible tensions between all permutations of beliefs. So there may well be additional tensions between beliefs you hold which are not detected by this test.
The results for those who score within the threshold for "excellent performance", whatever that threshold may be (under 20, I'm pretty sure, but that's as precise as I can be according the results I've seen):QuoteThere are a number of possible explanations for your excellent performance:
 
1. You have a very consistent set of beliefs;
2. You've done this test before;
3. You got lucky.
I strongly suspect most who haven't taken the test before and see this analysis when they finish can't tell you how much answers 1 and 3 figured into their results.
 
Personally that makes me happy.

A HUGE part of critical thinking--fundamental, really--is to recognize and accept our/your limitations. Here are a couple of articles about some of the limitations inherent to human memory for which sound critical thinkers must account:
 
Our Brains Rewrite Our Memories, Putting Present In The Past
 
How Your Memory Rewrites Your Past
 
Also along these same lines I highly recommend Elizabeth Loftus' book Eyewitness Testimony. Understanding these kinds of things on a basic/layman level (most of us can't reasonably be expected to study the field in depth since we're not neurologists and psychologists and such) is incumbent upon any potential juror who would take the Juror's Oath seriously--i.e. if honoring an oath/your word means much to you, quite frankly (not necessarily meaning that you have to read this book or read there articles of course, but that you make an honest effort to understand these issues once you've been made aware of them).

I've been watching the original Cosmos (A Personal Voyage) in anticipation of the new Cosmos (A Spacetime Odyssey). Some poignant bits throughout about intellectual courage and integrity/the valud of real critical thinking. Here's a good example from the final episode, Who Speaks for Earth?. Sagan's talking about having discovered Earth's destruction from his "spaceship of the imagination" in a rather preachy but poetic bit, and then from the "vision of a dream" ... :
QuoteI saw East Africa and thought a few million years ago we humans took our first steps there.
Our brains grew and changed.
The old parts began to be guided by the new parts.
And this made us human with compassion and foresight and reason.
But instead, we listened to that reptilian voice within us counseling fear, territoriality aggression.
We accepted the products of science.
We rejected its methods.

Here's what I'd consider a good example of being right for the wrong reasons (i.e. being wrong but landing on a correct answer by mistake).

An excellent article on breakfast!

Intellectual humility is fundamentally just understanding and accepting (ideally internalizing) how our normal/default sense of what we "know" is seriously flawed. Learning how flawed it is, how easily our raw senses can be fooled, can go a long way toward that end. Here's a good source for just that:
 
Wikipedia List of Common Misconceptions
 
!!! WARNING !!!
The Wikipedia List of common Misconceptions can be a serious time sink!
 
 --
 
Along these lines, it’s really a shame that understanding intellectual cowardice* is rare enough that openly demonstrating and even vigorously and overtly defending it in public has become a respected standard of Public Square™ “discussion”.
 
If basic critical thinking were a significant part of our cultural ethos, a huge amount of the rhetoric people are eager to preach from their various soap boxes would embarrass the hell out of them instead, which would provide a far more healthy social climate, which would in turn prevent a great deal of the nonsense—the end result of conversational intolerance.
 
A pretty picture.
 
Unfortunately we couldn’t be a whole lot further from such an ethos in a society that values freedom of speech. I wonder how close we are to the point at which that freedom becomes threatened by intellectual depravity like this?
 
 
 
 
 
*Regarding that link, for those disinclined to parse this conundrum--cowardice would be the antithesis of courage.

Baron, now I know that you live in a fantasy world!

Here's a good one from the New Yorker:
Why Do People Persist In Believing Things That Just Aren't True?
 
Which takes us back to:
The Science Of Why We Don't Believe Science
 
 --
 
It's crucial that we understand and accept these aspects of our nature if we want to address them effectively in order to be truly conscientiously honest--if we want to really take honesty seriously--and develop the means by which we can correct for them and better understand things.

What if we don't want to?

Quote from: bhcordova on May 21, 2014, 02:09PMWhat if we don't want to?
No problem, if you don't pretend otherwise, and if you don't impose it upon others in any legal or otherwise invasive manner, and if you don't judge others negatively for not playing the game along with you.
 
For example non-state sponsored evangelism isn't really an issue (just bothers some people ... they'll get over it), but voting to impose your religious doctrines or other casual/uncritical beliefs on others is not okay--neither is presuming others should respect your beliefs in the sense of agreeing they're credible and reasonable and that sorta thing, or expecting them to pretend they do (respecting the believer as an individual is a different matter). But if you choose to be uncritical about your beliefs and you don't try to impose that upon others, that's entirely your thing, and you can still be a good neighbor, and you can even still be respectable and honorable and all that kinda shite if you choose to go that route.
 
Yup.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on May 21, 2014, 02:22PMNo problem, if you don't pretend otherwise, and if you don't impose it upon others in any legal or otherwise invasive manner, and if you don't judge others negatively for not playing the game along with you. hm....

Uncritical about your own beliefs, constantly pushing your own religion, pretending otherwise, and judging others for not playing the game with you.

So you have a problem then.


btw, if something can be completely ignored as long as it's done in a friendly way, it's not "crucial".

Quote from: Baron von Bone on May 21, 2014, 02:22PMQuote from: bhcordova on May 21, 2014, 02:09PMQuote from: Baron von Bone on May 21, 2014, 04:54AMIt's crucial that we understand and accept these aspects of our nature if we want to address them effectively in order to be truly conscientiously honest--if we want to really take honesty seriously--and develop the means by which we can correct for them and better understand things.What if we don't want to?No problem, if you don't pretend otherwise, and if you don't impose it upon others in any legal or otherwise invasive manner, and if you don't judge others negatively for not playing the game along with you.
 
For example non-state sponsored evangelism isn't really an issue (just bothers some people ... they'll get over it), but voting to impose your religious doctrines or other casual/uncritical beliefs on others is not okay--neither is presuming others should respect your beliefs in the sense of agreeing they're credible and reasonable and that sorta thing, or expecting them to pretend they do (respecting the believer as an individual is a different matter). But if you choose to be uncritical about your beliefs and you don't try to impose that upon others, that's entirely your thing, and you can still be a good neighbor, and you can even still be respectable and honorable and all that kinda shite if you choose to go that route.
I started to disclose what I just realized this AM is an unspoken caveat (that you can't apply the "I don't want to" schtick to much/many paradigms because you'd be dangerous), but I'm working on whether that's necessarily true, or even very likely the case at all in real world application, or if the stipulations above already have it covered ...
 
Productive (or just genuine) fat chewing on the matter would be welcome.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on May 22, 2014, 05:43AM(that you can't apply the "I don't want to" schtick to much/many paradigms because you'd be dangerous)
Sure you can. "Dangerous" does not describe a limiter, but the risk of possible consequence. And in this case, the consequence and potential negative results are rather subjective.

Or for examples:
Limiter: I can't run without my legs.
Consequence: If you don't use a harness when working up high, you might fall.

And then the equivalent of this situation: If I don't apply the type of thought patterns an internet troll wants me to (though refuses to himself), he won't like me.

Not all consequences even matter.

I see this as a really critical paradigm in terms of the wellbeing and psychological, sociopolitical development of humanity, perhaps The Key Issue™--one of those things that ends up resulting in dramatic, far-reaching gains across the board--and this research as potentially some of the most important in history. Here's what jumps out most at me:
 
QuoteOne thing he learned early on is that not all errors are created equal. Not all false information goes on to become a false belief—that is, a more lasting state of incorrect knowledge—and not all false beliefs are difficult to correct. Take astronomy. If someone asked you to explain the relationship between the Earth and the sun, you might say something wrong: perhaps that the sun rotates around the Earth, rising in the east and setting in the west. A friend who understands astronomy may correct you. It’s no big deal; you simply change your belief.

But imagine living in the time of Galileo, when understandings of the Earth-sun relationship were completely different, and when that view was tied closely to ideas of the nature of the world, the self, and religion. What would happen if Galileo tried to correct your belief? The process isn’t nearly as simple. The crucial difference between then and now, of course, is the importance of the misperception. When there’s no immediate threat to our understanding of the world, we change our beliefs. It’s when that change contradicts something we’ve long held as important that problems occur. ... QuoteNormally, self-affirmation is reserved for instances in which identity is threatened in direct ways: race, gender, age, weight, and the like. Here, Nyhan decided to apply it in an unrelated context: Could recalling a time when you felt good about yourself make you more broad-minded about highly politicized issues, like the Iraq surge or global warming? As it turns out, it would. On all issues, attitudes became more accurate with self-affirmation, and remained just as inaccurate without. That effect held even when no additional information was presented—that is, when people were simply asked the same questions twice, before and after the self-affirmation.
I'm tentatively optimistic that progress in understanding how our own minds function may be huge in improving life amongst the humans.

Really? How much is your life improved by thinking the earth revolves around the sun rather then the sun revolving around the earth?

I'd wager that unless your field is in an area like astronomy, higher physics, or space the actual amount of difference that makes is 0. Hardly something with great, far reaching impacts on quality of life.


Per ease in changing, well, as the champion of those ideas, you've been stuck on the same things in the same ways for over a decade now. Not that those measures have been effective or really borne great fruit. Nor have you adjusted for the problems you know you have with your approach. But you keep at it anyway. Ironically enough, you are a great example of why that type of fantasy just doesn't play out in the real world.

Quote from: B0B on May 22, 2014, 09:48AMReally?
Absolutely!
 
If we can make almost any significant improvement in terms of self-correction in our thinking on any kind of scale at all, that could be huge! It's a matter of improving how effectively we think--fundamentally. How could that not be huge if at all successful? By its very nature it's potentially revolutionary, though as I said I'm tentatively optimistic about the effects this research might have.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on May 22, 2014, 10:25AMAbsolutely!

Great, then you should be able to easily answer:

How much is your life improved by thinking the earth revolves around the sun rather then the sun revolving around the earth? And in what ways?

So in short, something you think is "crucial" to do then is "no problem" if we don't do.

At the same time, for something that is "absolutely" an improvement, you can't actually say how the basic concrete example you gave is really any better or even just has an impact on practical life applications.

All the while, you continue to push these these things to hope to attain the simple goal of, "A friend who understands ___________ may correct you. It’s no big deal; you simply change your belief." Only, despite the numerous contradictions that are pointed out, you keep your head down and continue in the same direction.

Critical thinking indeed.

Quote from: B0B on May 23, 2014, 04:24AMSo in short, something you think is "crucial" to do then is "no problem" if we don't do.Context.
 
I see this as a really critical paradigm in terms of the wellbeing and psychological, sociopolitical development of humanity ...
 
With such large scale societal matters, individuals and individual paradigms aren't necessarily much of a factor in the overall picture. It's highly unrealistic to think all people and all aspects of our cognition must adapt to The Next Level of Human Intellectual and Social Development™ in order for the adaptation to have a significant effect. Besides that, such matters generally develop at the social analog to a geological pace. We don't necessarily see something like this developing as we go along--we have to look back. This one may be an exception though, on the order of the development of science, or even greater.
 
Quote from: B0B on May 23, 2014, 04:24AMAt the same time, for something that is "absolutely" an improvement, you can't actually say how the basic concrete example you gave is really any better or even just has an impact on practical life applications.You can't get much more fundamental in terms of effects on humanity than getting at how our minds work and how to improve their function. Asking for a concrete example is about like asking for a concrete example of a benefit of functional breathing. It's beyond obvious that understanding how our minds work will give us insight into how we think and perceive, and it's just as obvious this would be of tremendous benefit to us. I don't think it's at all likely anyone who's genuinely considering these matters would really have any such a question, much less any trouble recognizing these things. The more natural question might be what in terms of human experience wouldn't be positively effected by such understanding. So I don't think the question is sincere in the slightest. I can say, I'm just generally ignoring you because there's quite clearly no point in trying to answer your questions or to actually attempt to engage you in genuine discussion. (Do you think that's what I'm actually doing here?) It doesn't really matter whether what I post has no merit or a lot, you've made it quite clear what you're going to see, regardless. You've already demonstrated, repeatedly, that you can respond to a pretty straightforward answer to one of these kinds of "questions" as if the text just isn't there.
 
Don't feel too bad though, I do usually read your posts just in case they offer something to address for those who are genuinely engaging this material (whether they're inclined to try and navigate the purely antagonistic social climate you try to impose in here in order to engage in the discussion or not). I also check you stuff in case there's something I may feel should actually be corrected, though you've so thoroughly obliterated your credibility regarding anything that has to do with me that's becoming less and less likely to be an actual issue.
 
Quote from: B0B on May 23, 2014, 04:24AMAll the while, you continue to push these these things to hope to attain the simple goal of, "A friend who understands ___________ may correct you. It’s no big deal; you simply change your belief." Only, despite the numerous contradictions that are pointed out, you keep your head down and continue in the same direction.
 
Critical thinking indeed.Actually, Bob, lately you've been serving quite well as the poster boy for unmitigated motivated reasoning (the lack of applied measures to improve/mitigate the problems with how our minds work) and how it can do serious damage to one's thinking skills, and the fact that when self-discipline and intellectual humility aren't applied to keep these issues in check, smarts tend to work against you rather than serving as an asset, as they do with those self checks in place. It's rarely so clear when someone's biases drive their thinking and perceptions to the point that the information on the table is actually secondary, at best. You'd provide a much better example, though, if you could tone it down at least a little. It's too over the top as-is--too easily dismissed as only an issue when one has a rational blowout. Still, often more extreme examples serve as illustrations, and those who are really "getting it" can then extrapolate/key into to more subtle, more mundane/standard issue manifestations.

And so, when you can't say how knowledge of the relationship between the sun and the earth effect people, you lash out at the person who points out the conflict. If you don't like the message, shoot the messenger.

Because that is critical thinking.

Sorry, that's just a defensive reaction. It's actually quite common in things that are held as more important when they are challenged. That thought of, "A friend who understands ___________ may correct you. It’s no big deal; you simply change your belief."...

You just provided a wonderful demonstration of why that may sound nice philosophically, but fails miserably in real life.


ps.  "I don't think it's at all likely anyone who's genuinely considering these matters would really have any such a question, much less any trouble recognizing these things. The more natural question might be what in terms of human experience wouldn't be positively effected by such understanding."

That would require the base assumption that it is valid. If you're already assuming something is good before any actual analysis, then questioning built of top of this is inherently flawed. But that's basic logic and you already knew that, right?

If you have to Critically think about taking honesty seriously - there may be a problem with your character or morals....

 
So to some people (that have morals, and good character, and take honestly as a good attribute), the title of this threat seems... well... oxymoron-ish.

Just saying.

T.

Quote from: tsmart on May 23, 2014, 07:29AMIf you have to Critically think about taking honesty seriously - there may be a problem with your character or morals....
 
So to some people (that have morals, and good character, and take honestly as a good attribute), the title of this threat seems... well... oxymoron-ish.
 
Just saying.
That's what's known as a subtitle--a further note on an important aspect of the title within the content the title covers (just like when they do that in news headline subtitles and in every other instance in which you've seen subtitles).
 
In this case:
Critical Thinking [which is really] Taking Honesty Seriously
 or:
Critical Thinking  [=] Taking Honesty Seriously
 
The question is why you saw it that way ... unless you're actually unfamiliar with what a subtitle is.
 
So you got it, but you missed the fact that it was the point--thought you were the only one who got that I guess ... ?

Quote from: tsmart on May 23, 2014, 07:29AM

 
So to some people (that have morals, and good character, and take honestly as a good attribute), the title of this threat seems... well... oxymoron-ish.

Just saying.

T.


You have a point.  There is an application of critical thinking possible though.  

There are many people who would never tell a lie.  Yet they blissfully pass on false information on a constant basis.  There is no attempt to deceive.  But they have uncritically accepted that information, when even a small amount of critical thinking makes it obvious it's either wrong or needs to be fact checked.

Then it becomes a matter of your definition of honesty.  I think passing on a lie that you could easily have determined to be false is as bad as telling the lie yourself.  Others are content to let it slide.  "Global warming is impossible.  Pastor XX told me so and I'm sure he must have checked it."  

Quote from: timothy42b on May 23, 2014, 07:51AMThere is an application of critical thinking possible though ... Besides the fact that Taking Honesty Seriously is obviously a subtitle (that's what the colon is for behind a title, separating the title and the following subtitle).
 
Quote from: timothy42b on May 23, 2014, 07:51AMThere are many people who would never tell a lie.  Yet they blissfully pass on false information on a constant basis.  There is no attempt to deceive.  But they have uncritically accepted that information, when even a small amount of critical thinking makes it obvious it's either wrong or needs to be fact checked.
 
Then it becomes a matter of your definition of honesty.  I think passing on a lie that you could easily have determined to be false is as bad as telling the lie yourself.  Others are content to let it slide.  "Global warming is impossible.  Pastor XX told me so and I'm sure he must have checked it."There's also the willful application of bias (proactively imposing the burden of doubt, for example) or even the negligent failure to recognize bias (never considering if one's perceptions may be misguided or just in error). I'd consider those things dishonesty as well when they're irresponsible and the offender is unwilling to acknowledge them and/or has no inclination to correct such problems in spite of the obvious fact they produce false and/or inappropriate results. Self-deception is also dishonesty if it's willful.
 
Those are all things that are anathema to critical thinking. Also, these are the kinds of things science corrects or just flat out rejects. I'd argue that in many cases this is precisely why some do such a freak out when these principles are applied and their rhetoric doesn't make it past these filters. This also hits on traditional religious/biblical faith (Hebrews 11), which is often clearly a major factor in the problem as well.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on May 23, 2014, 07:54AMThere's also the willful application of bias (proactively imposing the burden of doubt, for example) or even the negligent failure to recognize bias (never considering if one's perceptions may be misguided or just in error). I'd consider those things dishonesty as well when they're irresponsible and the offender is unwilling to acknowledge them and/or has no inclination to correct such problems in spite of the obvious fact they produce false and/or inappropriate results.So to apply to current context, your inherent and untested assumption that critical thinking absolutely improves the human condition is dishonest.

So maybe the subtitle needs a subtitle:
"Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously: Dishonestly with Assumptions."

Damn those consistently applied standards.

Quote from: timothy42b on May 23, 2014, 07:51AMYet they blissfully pass on false information on a constant basis.  There is no attempt to deceive.  But they have uncritically accepted that information, when even a small amount of critical thinking makes it obvious it's either wrong or needs to be fact checked...Then it becomes a matter of your definition of honesty.  I think passing on a lie that you could easily have determined to be false is as bad as telling the lie yourself.  

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." ... "I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year." (B.O.)

10 Scientific Ideas That Scientists Wish You Would Stop Misusing

Scalia is an exceptional model for motivated reasoning and how a high IQ can work against you if you lack intellectual humility.

I don't follow the SC as much as I could, but seems to me that Thomas always goes along with Scalia, no matter what.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/04/cruel_but_not_unusual.html

Well, a google search proved me wrong, and Justice Thomas has indeed written his own opinions.  But, Scalia agreed with this one. 

Sometimes they disagree.

http://www.frumforum.com/why-scalia-and-thomas-wont-always-agree/

How to properly manage and operate your noodle.
 
This is about how to deal with (correct for) The Real Issue™.

Kewl!