|
Musicmystery -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 11:46:17 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
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
No, he's just making sounder arguments.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
quote:
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.
True. As for the rest of your post, MM, if I could give up my day job and just research everything my heart desired, I would. When I say it is not my area of study, it isn't a cop out, it's a question of time management and focussing getting this doctorate finished ;-)
- LA
Actually, you just completely ignored the rest of that post. No one's suggesting you research it yourself. I even made that point:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
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.
|
|
|
|
