RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur

RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

LadyAngelika -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 7:55:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. Indeed. But please quote your sources. That statement is not yours but from Walton, Douglas, 1996's Arguments From Ignorance. Actually, I indented it to show it was a quote, and not my exact words. And it's great that you found someone who claims those words, even though there were unattributed in Wikipedia. Oh my, I'm interested in having a good, solid argument with you on the subject, but you aren't going to win points with me with that argument. All you had to do what go a little further down that very same page to the section called "Origin of the expression" and find that the origin is attributed to John Locke. You could have then pointed out that I was incorrect in saying that that quote was in Walton's book but as a quote to Locke (serves me right for conducting research before drinking coffee). quote: The different types of logical fallacies should be common knowledge, and not need attribution. Especially in a discussion about critical thinking. Do I really need to point out the obvious irony in that statement? quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY If you believe that the article (one of several links I gave) "prove" domi's point, then your logical reasoning abilities appear to be sorely lacking. Actually no, because you've transposed Domiguy's argument on me. He and I might agree on certain things, but we do not have the same argument. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY The issue was dumiguy's statement, "There is no way you can possess the ability for critical thinking and then talk about religious beliefs and the impact of God on one's life. The two are not synonymous." I would never have made a claim in such absolutes myself. On this, you two have a point. But the data does prove that faith amongst scientist is on the decline. Perhaps Domi's error is that he didn't state as this before nor is he correcting himself that he misstated it. Yes, domi's problem was that his thinking is unclear and cloudy, and he is invested in his position too much to admit new evidence into his thoughts. Your supposition that faith is in decline among scientist is interesting, and perhaps worth discussion, but it does not change the basic fallacy of domi's argument. On this we agree. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY Firm merely pointed to evidence to the contrary. He made no claim. Actually, he did make a claim of percentages. "The same percentage of scientists believe in God today as did some 81 years ago, a new study shows." The problem is that he did what most people do when they try to rush through research. They take the first level of information they are given without digging deeper to really look at the data. Critical thinking requires this. Actually, no, I did not make a claim of percentages. I quoted the article, and gave a link. That should be apparent from the indention, and the link. The "level" of data is immaterial to the destruction of the claim that religious belief and critical thinking skills are incompatible. A single incidence disproves this argument. You (and he) apparently now wish to argue the percentages, and their significance. Different case. Different argument. There is a lot of data in the article. You extracted a passage that discussed one set of data. That is called being selective. It's ok to do so, researchers do it all the time. You just have to admit that this is what you did. I find transparency to be refreshing. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY I wouldn't waste time looking for some poll... it doesn't matter what the percentage is. I'd actually be interested in seeing it. Not that I'm going to conduct a meta-analysis on this topic, I would be interested in seeing if there is a trend of decline of faith amongst scientists. As I said, and you now acknowledge: different case, different argument. Firm Actually, right on topic is more like it! What happened is that you got stuck on Domiguy's argument and not my OP. This question I brought forward is directly related to the questions that I brought forward in my OP. - LA

LadyAngelika -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 8:00:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys quote: Could it be that the fundamental thought process in religion to not question the word of authority generally hinders critical thinking because the two ways of thinking have difficulty co-existing in one's mind? That's a very good point but could it also be that the need to question authority hinders those two thing from co-existing in a mind? I'd say to both of those questions..No if that mind was rational and less hindered by ego, bias and a number of other things aligned with what has been stated. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Could you expand please? quote: All of this is interesting but it doesn't change the price of vegetables at your local grocery..I've got crap to do.. have a good day LA. Oh gosh, you never know! It might actually through some kind of weird butterfly effect ;-) Have a good day too and please do come back and explain your point to me. I am truly wishing to understand your perspective. - LA

domiguy -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 8:17:39 AM)
In my haste to post I admit that my original statement bordered on an absolute which we all know can usually be disproved. However, that Domiguy guy did add this into the conversation..... quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY domi made the claim that critical thinking skills and religious belief were mutually exclusive. I gave him examples that refute his assertion. If you aren't sure what I am quoting, following the links is always helpful. Firm Firm there is a far cry from having religious beliefs and believing in God. God is the last bastion. How many scientists believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God? How many believe that the Bible is the word of God.....That is a religion. A belief in some God, not so much. At times of stress or when immersed in deep shit I have heard that folks have been known to pray....A there are no atheists in fox holes...Doesn't mean that they have any type of a strong religious conviction. I was once neck deep in a river, caught in the current, sporting a pair of waders filled to the brim with several hundred pounds of river water. I had no way of knowing how deep the water was behind me as I was being pushed down stream. I believe I might have mentioned to God something about being in a bit of a pickle and that "a little help here" might be appreciated. Almost immediately a boat came from around the bend and pulled our hero to shore. I spoke with God and God answered. Pretty cool shit. I never believed that JC was the son of God or that the bible held any infinite wisdom other than being chocked full of interesting tales as well as explaining how Jesus continually suggested that we should all love one another. There could be a very valid argument on whether I failed to recognize the impact of that moment or that it was just a random event (the boat pulling me to safety) and that it should be discounted. Thousands before me have drowned without any miraculous intervention. I figure I must be special. The only thing we can learn from my experience is that God loves a-holes.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 8:22:07 AM)
quote: The only thing we can learn from my experience is that God loves a-holes. Domi, your logical deduction abilities are truly astounding! ;-) - LA

domiguy -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 8:26:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: The only thing we can learn from my experience is that God loves a-holes. Domi, your logical deduction abilities are truly astounding! ;-) - LA I have a very big brain. It's my sexiest organ. Domi, is that a bulge in your forehead or.............. Anywhooo, I dare anyone to refute my conclusion.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 8:39:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika Oh my, I'm interested in having a good, solid argument with you on the subject, but you aren't going to win points with me with that argument. All you had to do what go a little further down that very same page to the section called "Origin of the expression" and find that the origin is attributed to John Locke. You could have then pointed out that I was incorrect in saying that that quote was in Walton's book but as a quote to Locke (serves me right for conducting research before drinking coffee). I was aware of that origin was with Locke. I simply saw your comments on it as a rhetorical "gotcha" attempt, and wished to address it as succinctly as possible and go on to the meat of the discussion. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: The different types of logical fallacies should be common knowledge, and not need attribution. Especially in a discussion about critical thinking. Do I really need to point out the obvious irony in that statement? Nope. I was being ironic when I made it. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY Firm merely pointed to evidence to the contrary. He made no claim. Actually, he did make a claim of percentages. "The same percentage of scientists believe in God today as did some 81 years ago, a new study shows." The problem is that he did what most people do when they try to rush through research. They take the first level of information they are given without digging deeper to really look at the data. Critical thinking requires this. Actually, no, I did not make a claim of percentages. I quoted the article, and gave a link. That should be apparent from the indention, and the link. The "level" of data is immaterial to the destruction of the claim that religious belief and critical thinking skills are incompatible. A single incidence disproves this argument. You (and he) apparently now wish to argue the percentages, and their significance. Different case. Different argument. There is a lot of data in the article. You extracted a passage that discussed one set of data. That is called being selective. It's ok to do so, researchers do it all the time. You just have to admit that this is what you did. I find transparency to be refreshing. Was the data I quoted inaccurate? False? Or are you making the argument that it was incomplete? I used the least amount of data required under the law of falsifiability to complete my refutation. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY I wouldn't waste time looking for some poll... it doesn't matter what the percentage is. I'd actually be interested in seeing it. Not that I'm going to conduct a meta-analysis on this topic, I would be interested in seeing if there is a trend of decline of faith amongst scientists. As I said, and you now acknowledge: different case, different argument. Firm Actually, right on topic is more like it! What happened is that you got stuck on Domiguy's argument and not my OP. This question I brought forward is directly related to the questions that I brought forward in my OP. I didn't "get stuck" anywhere. A declarative statement was made, which is demonstratively false. Both you and domi continue to defend it, while claiming to be using logic and critical thinking. In fact, it seems like you both claimed just the opposite of the facts to support the false claim. I do not have any disagreement that critical thinking is a necessary and desirable skill that our children (and adults) should learn. I do have a problem with the rhetorical subtext of your OP, and the subsequent attacks against religious beliefs. My assumption was that this thread was just another attempt to discredit religion as a whole, and Christianity in particular, and I've yet to see much of anything to disabuse me of that assumption from posters who claim "critical thinking" as a skill and that anyone who claims religiosity as lacking such skills. Firm

TreasureKY -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 8:41:48 AM)
LA, thank you for the well thought out response. I cannot guarantee that I'll be able to give this much attention today, but I'll take the time right now to address the issues you've brought up below. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika 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. Perhaps this is a general failing of educators... to assume they've presented their information in a sufficient manner that the recipient should logically reach the desired conclusion. For future consideration, you might keep in mind that sometimes what seems like an "off-the-wall" question may have roots in genuine contemplation. Shutting down someone who asks questions is discouraging individual critical thinking. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika I will tell you this before I continue. You did misunderstand and misinterpret my words, big time. I appreciate that you've gone to the trouble of deciding what I do and do not understand, but I'd ask for the courtesy of allowing me to present my own thoughts myself. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika 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. Assuming a position of superiority and judgment can lead to very poor communication. Perhaps trying to accept that you may not have communicated your original position as clearly as you thought, and considering that you may not know everyone else's mind as well as you think, might be a good place to start. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika Alright, lets start with a definition. The bit you snipped from Dewey is a start but it is far from being complete. Of course it's not complete, but to give a comprehensive overview would have required much more time than I cared to put into it. The small portion I did give was sufficient for my point. I'm not here to try to impress anyone with my vast knowledge. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika Actually, pushing individuals, especially children, to cram facts in their skull without thinking about them critically does discourage critical thinking. I'm not sure I agree, but more so on the point that this is a blanket definitive statement presented without any support. Even with evidence, I'd be hesitant to declare it an indisputable truth. Critical thinking does require information... how that information is gained not withstanding. It would seem to me that the only way to actively discourage critical thinking is to present selected information in a vacuum and forbid questions. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika 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. You appear to have gleaned a great deal more from this 4 minute video than what was actually presented. How can you expect to arrive at any reasonable conclusion with so little factual evidence? It appears you have filled in the gaps with your own personal conjecture and are again making judgments from your "superior" position. At any rate, did you watch the entire 4 minutes? You claim you saw no conversations, but toward the end one of the speakers specifically walks his audience through an interactive deductive process. Granted, it isn't one I'd consider terribly logical, but it's there nonetheless. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika 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. Again, you seem focused on the content and not the delivery. This isn't a case of, "this is a fact because the Bible says so... end of story." Whether you agree with the reasons or not, or believe them accurate or not, what is being presented is a line of reasoning. I'm not suggesting that the logic is good; just that it is presented in a way that illustrates rudimentary critical thinking skills. And by the way, there were actually two different workshops presented in that video. The song that you refer to was from the second workshop and does not appear to deny the existence of dinosaurs (as would appear to be the claim of the first workshop) but suggests the possibility that unidentified creatures (specifically the behemoth) mentioned in the Bible might possibly be dinosaurs. The words of the song: Let's look at the Bible Let's look in the Book of Job Turn to Chapter 40 in verse 15, we're told of a might creature that Job must have known in the jungle of the reeds and ferns Behemoth made his home Behemoth is a dinosaur a dinosaur is he "He eateth grass as an ox" "His tail's like a cedar tree" "His bones are strong as bars of iron" "He's chief, in the ways of God" Could Behemoth be a Dinosaur? a mighty sauropod? While whoever wrote the song had a bit of a declarative problem with "Behemoth is a dinosaur, a dinosaur is he", most of the lyrics posit a question. Questions tend to encourage critical thinking. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika ... in order to teach children to think critically, ... What I'm having is issues with the way that children are taught deductive reasoning Yet you go on to say... quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika ... Critical thinking can be enhanced )*I have a hard time saying taught* because while I can't say for sure that it is impossible, I am sceptical that it, like common sense, is not engrained in us*) and this enhancement starts at a young age ... So you have problems with how critical thinking skills are taught, but you admit that you're not sure you can teach them? quote:* ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika If it sounds like that to you, that is because you want to hear it that way. You know... it gets rather annoying when someone continually tries to tell me what I know, what I understand, what I think, and what I want. Shall I declare that you are an arrogant academician whose constant references to your education, your position... even your mother's education, are evidence that you believe yourself to be superior? That you craft questions with the intent of displaying your intellectual prowess and wowing readers into believing your superior standing? quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika ... 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. See... here you go again. Look at me! I'm good... I think critically, but I'm humble about it! lol... Way to go to toot your own horn. How about we just agree that neither of us is in an omniscient position to rule on each other's motives? quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika 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. And you turned out okay? You feel you are fully able to employ critical thinking and reasoning? Then why do you not believe that others are perfectly capable? Has it occurred to you that perhaps your upbringing actually facilitated your growth, rather than stifled it? quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika 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. Actually, much of what you've said throughout this thread supports the idea that you do think that way. Nevertheless, I don't find further discussion on it to be intriguing. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika 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. Accepted. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika One thing I hope I never come across as is someone who discriminates based on a level of formal education... Unfortunately, in my opinion you have already failed in this area.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 8:50:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy In my haste to post I admit that my original statement bordered on an absolute which we all know can usually be disproved. However, that Domiguy guy did add this into the conversation..... Thank you. quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy The only thing we can learn from my experience is that God loves a-holes. Perhaps it demonstrates God's ability to love even the most unlovable? [:)] Firm

taleon -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 9:02:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika I call for a higher critical analysis of current paradigms in much of my research (I've often stated that not everyone with a PhD is a good researcher or a good critical thinker and some people manage to wiggle their way through academia). I agree. For example, I've seen how you can get a PhD in history, just by re-iterating the program of the faculty. That's not how it should work, but, sometimes, practice doesn't follow a more nobler theory. quote: They start with a position and research deeper, bringing their assumptions and beliefs into the arena and re-examining them. They revise their theories, accept them to be tested, debate them, all with the purpose of advancing knowledge. Above mentioned exception aside, I do believe you are right. The scientific method is one that includes peer review in an open arena. If you make a claim, prepare to defend it with arguments that can be tested by your peers. quote: I see very little of that in religion. Religion is dogma and it's static, and to a degree, that is ok (in fact, I find it even important that it be static because since religion is premised in the fact that it represents the word of God, no religion has the authority to rewrite the laws of heaven and hell like it was done in Vatican II). Indeed, religion wants you to take a leap of faith and believe the established doctrine, rather than to take a step back and examine what it is you are asked to believe. quote: What concerns me is when the dogmatic approach of religion becomes the model to understanding everything else. And there might be the crux of the problem. Now I know I'm going to get flack for this but I'm going to propose something that I'm not even sure is true, but it just a wild theory I bring forward for discussion. Could it be that the fundamental thought process in religion to not question the word of authority generally hinders critical thinking because the two ways of thinking have difficulty co-existing in one's mind? I'm not sure about that. I get the idea that religion is a very personal matter for some. Which makes it a more tricky subject to deal with critically than, say, decisions considering your stock portfolio. Or, think of it this way, imagine a person raised in a devout Christian family. To denounce her faith, she will have to go against her own mother, father, grandmother... most likely her entire known family tree. And her church. That's a big deal, if your family ties are rather close and you live in a small Christian community. And I'm not surprised at all that, when challenged on her belief, she will react defensively and cling to any argument - however flimsy it might be - to avoid facing a rather unpleasant truth. That same person, however, will have no such issues when she goes to university, joins a class in advanced logic, and tries to answer a question on the exam. She can approach that without any emotional baggage, and deal with the question objectively. The authorities she is led to believe, her church and family, have no influence here. Whether people actually work like that, I don't know. But it would explain how religious folk can actually make informed and rational decisions in other fields which have no overlap with the religion they hold dear. They might have blindly accepted the church dogma when it comes to the supernatural, but, most of them will still be able to critically examine their stock options or which new car to buy.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 9:04:42 AM)
I believe in Evolution as a theory. Keyword being theory. There are many unanswered questions in evolution. To say that the theory is wholly logical and comes from a basis of logical thought isn't correct. God isn't a theory. It is a belief. No one can prove God to you. If you seek proof then you will never find it. That, ultimately, is the point. Take for instance your Dinosaurs. Why are they now extinct? There is no logical reason why they are. Most scientists reach for the "they were obviously destroyed by an event or catastrophy....well where is the proof of that? I just think that pointing to evolution as an absolute is a slippery slope.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 9:05:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy I have a very big brain. It's my sexiest organ. Domi, is that a bulge in your forehead or.............. Anywhooo, I dare anyone to refute my conclusion. Refutation: Macrocephaly Nothing about increased sexual function. In fact, most - if not all - of the associated conditions mitigate against normal sexual function. [8D][:D] Firm

heartcream -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 9:44:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk I believe in Evolution as a theory. Keyword being theory. There are many unanswered questions in evolution. To say that the theory is wholly logical and comes from a basis of logical thought isn't correct. God isn't a theory. It is a belief. No one can prove God to you. If you seek proof then you will never find it. That, ultimately, is the point. Take for instance your Dinosaurs. Why are they now extinct? There is no logical reason why they are. Most scientists reach for the "they were obviously destroyed by an event or catastrophy....well where is the proof of that? I just think that pointing to evolution as an absolute is a slippery slope. I didnt read all of these posts but some of them. I dont think faith and reason are separate. Perhaps atheists are closer to who God really is than many of the godists. Maybe all the things atheists dont believe are out of the way so they have space to believe in what they do believe in. Many ways, many ways. I heard back in Atlantis right before it sunk, they were at the stage of amping up crystals. Ginormous pillars of crystals they over-amped them and blew the place to smithereens. Dinasours go boom.

Musicmystery -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 9:51:04 AM)
quote: quote: The different types of logical fallacies should be common knowledge, and not need attribution. Especially in a discussion about critical thinking. Do I really need to point out the obvious irony in that statement? He already has--you just missed it. He's right--definitions of fallacies are common knowledge. That he would need to raise this point to someone attempting to arbitrate a discussion about critical thinking is indeed ironic. That you would then attack the point, and so superfluously, goes beyond irony to red herring and simply an erroneous point. You made a similar illogical jump back on page five, and chose to leave it unanswered: quote: I cannot prove (and at this time do not wish to prove) that is causality between being an atheist and being a critical thinker. I do however believe that there definitely is a correlation. Much more accurately, there could be a correlation. It's a possibility, not a certainty as you present. A critical thinker would consider possible alternate explanations, such as rejecting religion merely to be contrary. A scientist would observe enough to postulate how such a connection might occur, then test it. A definite belief in something you cannot prove is a far cry from critical thinking. It's egotistical and irrational--exactly the traits that contribute to the dearth of skills you lament. One recent commentator noted that, in politic debates, people no longer acknowledge even facts. Everything has become a matter of opinion, even when matters of fact, and those matters of opinion are taken as fact, with all incoming evidence sifted for justification. The difference comes down to methodology. Slipping one's pre-conclusions into an argument as self-evident is a common mistake and easy to do, especially when one is attempting to "win" an argument vs. truly explore an issue.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 10:14:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika Oh my, I'm interested in having a good, solid argument with you on the subject, but you aren't going to win points with me with that argument. All you had to do what go a little further down that very same page to the section called "Origin of the expression" and find that the origin is attributed to John Locke. You could have then pointed out that I was incorrect in saying that that quote was in Walton's book but as a quote to Locke (serves me right for conducting research before drinking coffee). I was aware of that origin was with Locke. I simply saw your comments on it as a rhetorical "gotcha" attempt, and wished to address it as succinctly as possible and go on to the meat of the discussion. Seriously, I realise that is how a lot of people debate, but that isn't my motivation. And if you knew it was Locke, you should have corrected me. I'm not really sure I buy it (you had 2 opportunities to say it) but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But bottom line, no one benefits from misinformation. I can handle it when someone points out an error I made, no worries ;-) quote: quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: The different types of logical fallacies should be common knowledge, and not need attribution. Especially in a discussion about critical thinking. Do I really need to point out the obvious irony in that statement? Nope. I was being ironic when I made it. That was not evident in the way you wrote it, but again, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. quote: Was the data I quoted inaccurate? False? Or are you making the argument that it was incomplete? I used the least amount of data required under the law of falsifiability to complete my refutation. Well sometimes when data is taken out of context, it can be misleading and therefore false. That is what I was pointing out. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: I didn't "get stuck" anywhere. A declarative statement was made, which is demonstratively false. Both you and domi continue to defend it, while claiming to be using logic and critical thinking. In fact, it seems like you both claimed just the opposite of the facts to support the false claim. I do not have any disagreement that critical thinking is a necessary and desirable skill that our children (and adults) should learn. I do have a problem with the rhetorical subtext of your OP, and the subsequent attacks against religious beliefs. My assumption was that this thread was just another attempt to discredit religion as a whole, and Christianity in particular, and I've yet to see much of anything to disabuse me of that assumption from posters who claim "critical thinking" as a skill and that anyone who claims religiosity as lacking such skills. Firm In all honesty, I'm having difficulty understanding what you are trying to say here. Domi have disagreed as much as we have agreed (which is pretty novel for the 2 of us given the history of our interactions) so I'm not sure to which statement you are referring to. If you still think that my OP attacks religious belief, you need to read it and the rest of my posts here again. I'm not going to go through this again as most got it. I think the main issue with your not being able to comprehend is that you are too used to debating with people who have hidden agendas and not enough with people who have a quest for knowledge. Sad. - LA

LadyAngelika -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 10:47:34 AM)
You know Treasure, when you started off your post with ... quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY LA, thank you for the well thought out response. I cannot guarantee that I'll be able to give this much attention today, but I'll take the time right now to address the issues you've brought up below. ... but then I started reading and realised you were more interested in being snarky to me. I'm not going to be engaged in that part of your response. I will however address the few points where you did ask questions. quote: You appear to have gleaned a great deal more from this 4 minute video than what was actually presented. How can you expect to arrive at any reasonable conclusion with so little factual evidence? It appears you have filled in the gaps with your own personal conjecture and are again making judgments from your "superior" position. At any rate, did you watch the entire 4 minutes? You claim you saw no conversations, but toward the end one of the speakers specifically walks his audience through an interactive deductive process. Granted, it isn't one I'd consider terribly logical, but it's there nonetheless. This video was used as an example of something that I have observed. Even seekingOwnertoo who is a theist observed this. Even my mother who is a theist, observes this. This is not just my atheist perspective. As for the exit questions, I wrote to you: "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." Put another way, questions that test rote memory retention aren't the kind of questions that lead to critical thinking. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika ... Critical thinking can be enhanced )I have a hard time saying taught because while I can't say for sure that it is impossible, I am sceptical that it, like common sense, is not engrained in us) and this enhancement starts at a young age ... So you have problems with how critical thinking skills are taught, but you admit that you're not sure you can teach them? For the most part, the body of literature on critical thinking debates regularly whether or not it can be taught. Sidenote: you keep referring to me with "superior" in quotation marks which I find quite comical to be honest, but what is even funnier is when I admit I don't have an answer for something, you attempt to mock me. Think about that one for a moment. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika 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. And you turned out okay? You feel you are fully able to employ critical thinking and reasoning? Then why do you not believe that others are perfectly capable? Has it occurred to you that perhaps your upbringing actually facilitated your growth, rather than stifled it? I think I turned out not too bad. I'll tell you however that I think my mother and father were the key for really reinforcing critical thinking with me, not the schools. Most teachers didn't have the patience for my constant questioning of things. It really wasn't until graduate school that I really started applying critical thinking full fledge and that is when I noticed that many of the individuals sitting in the classroom with me barely mastered it. I consider myself to be an average academic. I'm not the most intelligent one in my doctoral level class nor am I the most knowledgeable one. I have however earned the reputation of being the one who asks the questions that makes everyone reconsider the data, even the professors. Now before you go on telling me that I have some kind of superiority complex, let me point something out to you. If I truly had a superiority complex, I wouldn't want anyone else to be able to do the things I do, lest I lose my edge. But I want a world of critical thinkers, many of them. I truly feel it is the way we will be able to move beyond a lot of what is plaguing humanity. You seem to have made up your opinion of me and it is unfortunate. I know however that those who know me well don't hold that opinion. That is really all I need. - LA

LadyAngelika -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 10:54:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: I cannot prove (and at this time do not wish to prove) that is causality between being an atheist and being a critical thinker. I do however believe that there definitely is a correlation. Much more accurately, there could be a correlation. It's a possibility, not a certainty as you present. I didn't say I had proof that there was a correlation. I said that I believed and in retrospect, a better word would have been I suspect. As this is not my area of research, I'll have to wait for someone else to do the study. - LA

LadyAngelika -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 11:30:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: taleon quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika What concerns me is when the dogmatic approach of religion becomes the model to understanding everything else. And there might be the crux of the problem. Now I know I'm going to get flack for this but I'm going to propose something that I'm not even sure is true, but it just a wild theory I bring forward for discussion. Could it be that the fundamental thought process in religion to not question the word of authority generally hinders critical thinking because the two ways of thinking have difficulty co-existing in one's mind? I'm not sure about that. I get the idea that religion is a very personal matter for some. Which makes it a more tricky subject to deal with critically than, say, decisions considering your stock portfolio. Or, think of it this way, imagine a person raised in a devout Christian family. To denounce her faith, she will have to go against her own mother, father, grandmother... most likely her entire known family tree. And her church. That's a big deal, if your family ties are rather close and you live in a small Christian community. And I'm not surprised at all that, when challenged on her belief, she will react defensively and cling to any argument - however flimsy it might be - to avoid facing a rather unpleasant truth. That same person, however, will have no such issues when she goes to university, joins a class in advanced logic, and tries to answer a question on the exam. She can approach that without any emotional baggage, and deal with the question objectively. The authorities she is led to believe, her church and family, have no influence here. Whether people actually work like that, I don't know. But it would explain how religious folk can actually make informed and rational decisions in other fields which have no overlap with the religion they hold dear. They might have blindly accepted the church dogma when it comes to the supernatural, but, most of them will still be able to critically examine their stock options or which new car to buy. You make really good points. I'm not sure people really work like that either. When you share your example, the ones that have an internal rebellion aren't blindly accepting dogma, their inner voice is screaming to be heard but they silence it. They might be at a first level of critical thinking. - LA

FirmhandKY -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 11:34:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika Oh my, I'm interested in having a good, solid argument with you on the subject, but you aren't going to win points with me with that argument. All you had to do what go a little further down that very same page to the section called "Origin of the expression" and find that the origin is attributed to John Locke. You could have then pointed out that I was incorrect in saying that that quote was in Walton's book but as a quote to Locke (serves me right for conducting research before drinking coffee). I was aware of that origin was with Locke. I simply saw your comments on it as a rhetorical "gotcha" attempt, and wished to address it as succinctly as possible and go on to the meat of the discussion. Seriously, I realise that is how a lot of people debate, but that isn't my motivation. And if you knew it was Locke, you should have corrected me. I'm not really sure I buy it (you had 2 opportunities to say it) but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But bottom line, no one benefits from misinformation. I can handle it when someone points out an error I made, no worries ;-) What "misinformation"? You are the only one who has provided misinformation on this point. This is another "gotcha" attempt. A red herring. A distraction from the points under discussion. You attempted to belittle my overall argument, by intimating that I was somehow "stealing" or plagarizing. When I point out the fallacy of that "gotcha point", you just keep on going, even when I attempt to minimize the issue so as not to distract from the main point. This is a rhetoric technique on your part which does not include critical thinking, nor logic. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY The different types of logical fallacies should be common knowledge, and not need attribution. Especially in a discussion about critical thinking. Do I really need to point out the obvious irony in that statement? Nope. I was being ironic when I made it. That was not evident in the way you wrote it, but again, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Damning with faint praise - another rhetoric technique that does not involve logic or critical thinking. The word "Especially" might have tipped you off. Mystery seems to have gotten it. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: Was the data I quoted inaccurate? False? Or are you making the argument that it was incomplete? I used the least amount of data required under the law of falsifiability to complete my refutation. Well sometimes when data is taken out of context, it can be misleading and therefore false. That is what I was pointing out. Was the data taken out of context? Was it misleading, in the context I quoted it? No. So why attempt a second time to throw doubt upon the statistics and my usage of them? Again, a rhetoric technique not involving good logic or critical thinking. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I didn't "get stuck" anywhere. A declarative statement was made, which is demonstratively false. Both you and domi continue to defend it, while claiming to be using logic and critical thinking. In fact, it seems like you both claimed just the opposite of the facts to support the false claim. I do not have any disagreement that critical thinking is a necessary and desirable skill that our children (and adults) should learn. I do have a problem with the rhetorical subtext of your OP, and the subsequent attacks against religious beliefs. My assumption was that this thread was just another attempt to discredit religion as a whole, and Christianity in particular, and I've yet to see much of anything to disabuse me of that assumption from posters who claim "critical thinking" as a skill and that anyone who claims religiosity as lacking such skills. In all honesty, I'm having difficulty understanding what you are trying to say here. Domi have disagreed as much as we have agreed (which is pretty novel for the 2 of us given the history of our interactions) so I'm not sure to which statement you are referring to. If you still think that my OP attacks religious belief, you need to read it and the rest of my posts here again. I'm not going to go through this again as most got it. I think the main issue with your not being able to comprehend is that you are too used to debating with people who have hidden agendas and not enough with people who have a quest for knowledge. Sad. domi is blantant and obvious in his beliefs, his biases and his positions. He has no issues with taking a position openly and pushing anyone who disagrees with him hard, so that if they can not support their position, they crash and burn. I find that honesty refreshing, if sometimes vexing. You appear to be more subtle in your line of argument and in your biases. You use non-logical rhetoric techniques, obfuscation, distraction and dismissive red herrings to attempt to paint your position as more "worthy" and correct, in the very thread where you are bemoaning the lack of critical thinking and logical accuracy in argumentation. I find that ironic, in case you miss it this time. As to your lack of attacks against religion and "my" failure to apprehend that you "have no hidden agenda", I respectfully disagree. While you may believe that you have no agenda, the entire format and rhetoric methods you use to frame your OP and later responses were an attack on religion in general and Christianity in particular. And most everyone did indeed "get it" pretty quickly. My simple illustration of the falsity of an absolute statement made by domi has you coming back time and again and attacking the logic of my position (that one can be religious and have critical thinking skills) with extraneous, immaterial comments and lines of attack, even when you vaguely agree that my position is possible. We all have a difficult time seeing through our own biases. Sleep on it for a while, and be open to the possibility that you are human. Firm

Musicmystery -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 11:35:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: I cannot prove (and at this time do not wish to prove) that is causality between being an atheist and being a critical thinker. I do however believe that there definitely is a correlation. Much more accurately, there could be a correlation. It's a possibility, not a certainty as you present. I didn't say I had proof that there was a correlation. I said that I believed and in retrospect, a better word would have been I suspect. As this is not my area of research, I'll have to wait for someone else to do the study. - LA Suspect would have been a better choice, yes. It would then call into question "definitely," though. It's also rooted in belief vs. a logical causality, which was the context in which you raised the point, a contradiction. Granted, you aren't going to study this yourself. But I've little patience for the "this is not my area" disclaimer I hear so often in academia, as if educated people are unable to access the books and articles the rest of society reads. Maybe that's just my bias as a writer, where research is key. At the very least, those who take that tact should then refrain from making claims in that area, especially when only supported by consequently running back to "not my area." This thread illustrates one of the points Poe explores. The Minister, a very accomplished and very clever operator, falls for an obvious "Look over there!" type ploy while Dupin pulls the same substitution the Minister pulled on the "certain personage." Doesn't that seem incredibly suspect--especially given that he knows Dupin is her partisan and lover, as well as his political and perhaps romantic rival? How could such a smart man be so fantastically foolish? Same reason the Prefect, whom we are told is the best at what he does, fails to solve a mystery right in front of him. Both are blinded by emotion and overconfidence. The Prefect laughs more and more when Dupin explains that the problem might be more simple. The Minister is so smug and power-drunk he doesn't even consider the possibility someone could trick him. Poe goes on to explore another point relevant to this thread--different ways of knowing, of thinking, of analysis, which he separates into poetry and mathematics. The Prefect finds poets fools, and is unable to make the mental leaps necessary to see past his own extremely thorough and meticulously methodical approach (much like seeing science as the end all and be all). Both Dupin and the Minister, on the other hand, are expert poets and mathematicians--we are told they've published monographs on both. Dupin solves the mystery, despite his emotional attachment (romantic involvement), by detachment--the narrator asks for details, Dupin calmly adds, "Or not." He waits for the Prefect to raise the issue even when the letter has already been regained. He calmly leaves the allusion to Atreus and Thyestes in its place, without gloating, allowing the Minister to continue his blackmail, but without the leverage he thinks he has--this will end the Minister's career. How does the Minister not see this? Dupin gets him laughing (like the Prefect), and allows the Minister's ego to blind him to what's happening right in front of him. Delicious irony. What we have here are strings of false dilemma (either/or reasoning) fallacies. Religion and science are not diametrically opposed--or if they are, make a case for it. Science is not the only way of knowing. Yes, if I claimed to have logically established something, then that's neither scientific nor reasonable. But to deny any other ways of knowing belies experience. As long as we don't present false claims and conclusions from that experience, it's a valid way of exploring the world--without this, we'd even have to toss the atheist religions (Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc.). If someone said "I've proved the nature of Tao," then yes, unreasonable. But to say "There's an apparent energy that works when we tap into it" as a matter of experience, along with "We do not know what it is or from whence it comes" is reasonable. And we've plenty of examples of understanding we can't explain--the Aborigine's "Dream Time," for example. They can demonstrate it; we don't understand it. I have great respect for science. But as an accomplished musician, I also know we can think and experience well in other means. To deny this is to deny our own experiences. If someone said, "I had this experience, and this proves there's a God," then yes, I'd agree this is not a logically sound conclusion in the demonstrable scientific sense. If someone said, "I had this experience; I believe it is because of a God," I also have no real problem with this presented as a matter of personal belief. When someone can say, "I had this experience. I can't explain it, but I can show you how to have the same experience," we have to accept this as demonstrable and replicable--two main tenets any scientist would respect.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 11:41:52 AM)
quote: I find that honesty refreshing, if sometimes vexing. You appear to be more subtle in your line of argument and in your biases. Frankly, I think you have no idea how to have discussion with someone with an open mind. I have no hidden agenda and I admitted my biases from the start. I am not subtle in stating them. You continue to think that I'm trying to attack you when I'm simply trying to have discussion. FYI, I don't attack like a shark ;-) - LA

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125