LadyAngelika
Posts: 8070
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
TreasureKY, I am not suggesting any of that. What you posted to me in an interrogatory manner was your spin on bits of information and I'm not really sure how you come to such conclusions. Do you mind walking me through your deductive process?
Others, like SeekingOwnertoo, seem to have understood mu OP very clearly. You might read it again if you want to understand what discussion I am trying to encourage.
If you want to know what assumption I have and that I'm openly willing to discuss, you might want to read this post.
- LA
edited a lot...
My reading comprehension skills are quite high, thank you very much.
While I might otherwise have commented directly on your preferred subject, I found myself initially much more confused by what appeared to be your inductive reasoning and critical thinking skills.
Firstly, this wasn't an attack but rather a suggestion that you might want to go back to the source. As an educator by profession, I tend to do that. This might have been one of those instances in which the tone of my voice might have indicated my intent.
I will tell you this before I continue. You did misunderstand and misinterpret my words, big time. But that doesn't get under my skin unless it is used to attack me. Misunderstanding are human. Deliberate twisting of words is just childish. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that in your case, it was the first, misunderstanding of my words and am trying to figure out how you came to the conclusions you did.
When I posted this original message to you, I did it because I was baffled honestly. I tried to craft my OP as democratically as possible, exposing my own assumptions that I was willing to have contested in the hopes of understanding things further and you come at me with your deductions which didn't reflect anything I said. Rather than attack you and call you names (which I try very hard not to do in my life), I asked you to walk me through your deductive process in order to understand where you might have been mislead in your interpretation of my words. Simply.
quote:
You asked that I walk you through my deductive process. Very well, let us look at portions of your original post and subsequent comment, inserting my thoughts where appropriate. Let me say right now that I neither support nor sanction the ideas presented in the video. As you pointed out, this is not about evolution vs. religion.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
I have absolutely no problem accepting other people's opinions, but they really need to make arguments that are logically deduced and derive from critical thinking.
My first thought here was to question your knowledge of just how critical thinking is defined. John Dewey, oft referred to as the "father" of the modern critical thinking tradition, described it as "active, persistent, and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds which support it and the further conclusions to which it tends."
In other words, actively thinking through things for yourself, raising questions, and seeking information.
Alright, lets start with a definition. The bit you snipped from Dewey is a start but it is far from being complete.
In a seminal study on critical thinking and education in 1941, Edward Glaser defines critical thinking as follows (I permitted myself to bold a few parts that I find particularly important):
The ability to think critically, as conceived in this volume, involves three things: ( 1 ) an attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experiences, (2) knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, and (3) some skill in applying those methods. Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends. It also generally requires ability to recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems, to gather and marshal pertinent information, to recognize unstated assumptions and values, to comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination, to interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments, to recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions, to draw warranted conclusions and generalizations, to put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives, to reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience, and to render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life.
(Edward M. Glaser, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking, Teacher’s College, Columbia University, 1941 as cited here: http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/define_critical_thinking.cfm).
That said, I'm quite fond of this conceptualisation of critical thinking from Linda Elder (September, 2007) which I pulled from the same source above (again, I permitted myself to bold a few parts that I find particularly important):
Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking which attempts to reason at the highest level of quality in a fair-minded way. People who think critically consistently attempt to live rationally, reasonably, empathically. They are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left unchecked. They strive to diminish the power of their egocentric and sociocentric tendencies. They use the intellectual tools that critical thinking offers – concepts and principles that enable them to analyze, assess, and improve thinking. They work diligently to develop the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in reason. They realize that no matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always improve their reasoning abilities and they will at times fall prey to mistakes in reasoning, human irrationality, prejudices, biases, distortions, uncritically accepted social rules and taboos, self-interest, and vested interest. They strive to improve the world in whatever ways they can and contribute to a more rational, civilized society. At the same time, they recognize the complexities often inherent in doing so. They avoid thinking simplistically about complicated issues and strive to appropriately consider the rights and needs of relevant others. They recognize the complexities in developing as thinkers, and commit themselves to life-long practice toward self-improvement. They embody the Socratic principle: The unexamined life is not worth living, because they realize that many unexamined lives together result in an uncritical, unjust, dangerous world.
quote:
While not commenting on the specific topic presented in the video, I don't see how the instructional method used varies much from any other rote type of learning that children are exposed to. I agree that drilling information isn't the best way to encourage critical thinking, however, I do think that it isn't exactly discouraging it, either.
Actually, pushing individuals, especially children, to cram facts in their skull without thinking about them critically does discourage critical thinking.
quote:
From what little was actually contained in the video, I certainly wouldn't agree with the conclusions made by the presenter, but was he actively encouraging the children to not think critically? It would seem to me that, intended or not, he's actually teaching the children to reason.
To teach children to reason, you have to have a conversation with them. I saw no conversations, only sermons. To teach children to reason, you have to ask them questions to get them to talk through their logical deductions. Oh sure there were interviews in the video, but they were post sermon interviews to ascertain what the children retained from the sermon, not to get them to come to any logical deductions. The fact that the animators of the workshop had a message to promote makes the whole exercise the antithesis of having children learn to come to their own conclusions.
quote:
How do you teach someone to think critically? One of the most effective methods is by demonstration... walking them through your own critical thinking process. While we may not agree with the presenter's information and conclusions, he is showing them how he examined his beliefs, considered questions, sought information, and came to his decision.
Faulty, I agree. But an introduction to the process, nonetheless.
It is actually so faulty that it serves the opposite purpose. It says to children that because your grandparents didn't look like monkeys and because there are no references to them in the bible, that means there were no dinosaurs. And it reinforces this belief by having them sing a song about it so that it is embedded in their mind. This is how dogma is cultivated.
As I mentioned before, it is through discussion. If you want to give someone an example of how to think critically, you shouldn't be doing it with an example of the subject at hand as it influences the one learning to think critically. Also, in order to teach children to think critically, one has to know how to think critically and from what I saw in that videoclip, Buddy does not demonstrate critical thinking skills like those listed in the two definitions I posted above.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
The opinions shared in the video I present have no grounding in any deductive logic. The logic that evolution doesn't exist because there are no dinosaurs in the Bible? Really? Come on!
Here it begins to look as if you're having more of an emotional reaction to the conclusions, rather than to whether or not children are being taught to think critically.
What I'm having is issues with the way that children are taught deductive reasoning. If someone told kids God didn't exist because we can't touch him, I'd have the same reaction. It isn't about what is being argued. It is about how it is being argued. This is an example of critical thinking in action as I'm setting aside my own beliefs in order to discuss the methodology of critical thinking. It is not important for me for people to agree with me. It is important for me to people to dispute what I am saying with logical and critically constructed arguments.
"The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything...nothing is left to chance...logic can be happily tossed out the window." - Stephen King
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
You'd think, but there are adults in the video that believe this as well. I can respect that you don't want to watch the video, so let me share a stat in the video with you: Approximately 54 million Americans over the age of 18 do not believe in evolution.. They don't state the source of that statistic, but it isn't surprising to me.
It sounds as if you are twisting this statistic as proof that lack of belief in evolution is evidence of lack of critical thinking skill. This is why I asked the questions I did.
If it sounds like that to you, that is because you want to hear it that way. That line was information that I provided tazzy girl who said that adults outgrow this type of belief. I also implied that I had issues with the validity of the statement as there was no reference. This is an example of critical thinking in action where I present information but also analyse the data critically and add it might be flawed.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
Are you suggesting that the 54 million Americans who don't believe in evolution are all like the adults in the video who don't believe dinosaurs existed because they aren't mentioned in the Bible?
Or are you saying that 54 million Americans lack critical thinking and logical deduction skills because they don't believe in evolution?
I don't hold either of those positions.
quote:
You see, understanding your position helps me to come to better decision on whether or not I agree with your original premise. I wasn't, and am still not entirely sure why you felt that statistic was of any importance.
Ok, then let me say that the statistic was me reporting to tazzy what was in the video as she didn't feel at ease watching it given the potential security threat to her computer. When she said adults didn't believe this, I provided her with a statistic in the video which was unverified. I followed this up with more stats from a reliable source. What I was doing was providing food for though and for the discussion.
Here is a bit of information about me that might help you better understand my threads. I don't come here with a mission to sway people to my way of thinking. What i do is share my perceptions and try to be as objective as possible. My goal is to understand things. I admit my own biases (we all have them) and see if people can help me deconstruct them further as I want to get to the root of them. My own ego does not get in the way in my quest for understanding humanity.
quote:
It doesn't seem directly related to the idea that children are not being taught to think for themselves. Unless, of course, your own inductive reasoning is (in syllogism form):
- I am educated, smart and think critically.
- I believe in evolution.
- Therefore, people who believe in evolution are educated, smart and think critically.
And... those who don't, aren't.
Actually, my observation was that most people who think critically adhere to some kind of theory of evolution. I didn't come to a conclusion of causality that faith makes people void of critical thinking skills. I was actually trying to get to the root of the problem which is that the way faith is taught to children, i.e.: just believe, is hindering their critical thinking skills.
I was taught religion in school, in church and by my mother. The few times I questioned faith in school, I got reprimanded, even once detention. The private catholic secondary school I attended called my parents in, accusing me of heresy. The only one who pushed me to think critically about faith was my mom.
"If they think that an artist can destroy their faith, then their faith is rather fragile." - Marilyn Manson (About Catholics trying to ban one of his concerts)
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
Are you suggesting that the evidence of dinosaurs proves the theory of evolution?
My bad on the way this question was worded. I'd actually gone back and edited it once, but probably should have left it off all together. I realize that it would appear to be a challenge related to the discussion of evolution vs. creation. It wasn't intended that way... more a segue into the notion that there are individuals who have reasonable critical thinking skills, recognize the existence of dinosaurs, yet don't believe in the theory of evolution.
Ok, no problem.
quote:
Of course, if you are convinced that belief in the theory of evolution is a necessary criteria for having critical thinking skills, then I doubt you'd be open to the idea.
No I don't. I hope that my prior arguments in this post have cleared that matter up. If not, lets discuss it further.
quote:
And by the way, my comments were posted in an interrogatory manner because they were questions. That's what that little squiggly thing at the end of a sentence implies; that I'm requesting further information. Had I been expounding upon my conclusions, they would have been presented in the form of a statement.
Question marks are indeed useful, but they are also used as a clever way of concealing a statement. In legal terms, it is call this leading. But as I started out my post, the absence of a tone of voice can often lead us to misinterpret intentions. If I misinterpreted your intention, apologies.
quote:
Perhaps I cannot brag about possessing a higher education, I do generally know how to express myself in written form.
One thing I hope I never come across as is someone who discriminates based on a level of formal education as that is not a point of view that I adhere to. Academia has enabled me to have coaches to develop my critical thinking methodology further and have guides and mentors for my research. That's all. I do not believe it is the only way to access knowledge.
- LA
_____________________________
Une main de fer dans un gant de velours ~ An iron hand in a velvet glove
|
RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming ... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread