Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2011 12:54:33 GMT -5
Open-mindedness We are thinking critically when we evaluate all reasonable inferences consider a variety of possible viewpoints or perspectives, remain open to alternative interpretations accept a new explanation, model, or paradigm because it explains the evidence better, is simpler, or has fewer inconsistencies or covers more data accept new priorities in response to a reevaluation of the evidence or reassessment of our real interests, and do not reject unpopular views out of hand.In the first place you either ARE or are NOT open-minded by nature. It is a matter of temperament and emotion rather than THOUGHT. You cannot FORCE yourself to become open-minded no matter how much 'critical thinking' you employ. 'Evaluate all reasonable inferences' - in the first place this begs the question and is a circular argument. Secondly, I have already written about the inadequacy of inference as a tool for discovering truth. The second part of the setnence is of course entirely contrary to the behaviour of the majority of members of message boards!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2011 12:56:03 GMT -5
Discipline We are thinking critically when we are precise, meticulous comprehensive, and exhaustive resist manipulation and irrational appeals, and avoid snap judgments.
On that point I agree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2011 13:01:00 GMT -5
Judgment We are thinking critically when we recognize the relevance and/or merit of alternative assumptions and perspectives recognize the extent and weight of evidence
That is not the same thing as judgement which has a number of precise meanings in philosophy but essentially its application is in terms of either evaluating sense data, analysing the meaning and logical validity of a statement or attempting to apply logical principles to a particular question.
The definition of 'judgement' given in the original quotation is simply a reformulation of the argument from induction on the one hand (which does NOT provide sufficient basis in itself for a successful truth claim) or a rehashing of the 'open-mindedness' claim.
|
|
|
Post by talisman on Feb 23, 2011 13:38:41 GMT -5
Dawkins desperately clinging on to the improbable notion of the uniqueness of human DNA and the consequent assumption that life exists nowhere else in the universe If that's true, Mike, it's absolutely astounding, and I've been missing it for years. I think he's even been known to hypothesise the exact opposite. What makes you think such a thing?
|
|
|
Post by talisman on Feb 23, 2011 13:41:39 GMT -5
From the point of view of critical thinking there is nothing wrong with that behaviour. Only in your view of what critical thinking is. In mine, the fact that you see it that way is just an example of your critical thinking.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 23, 2011 13:49:09 GMT -5
Dawkins desperately clinging on to the improbable notion of the uniqueness of human DNA and the consequent assumption that life exists nowhere else in the universe If that's true, Mike, it's absolutely astounding, and I've been missing it for years. I think he's evn been known to hypothesise the exact opposite. What makes you think such a thing? "There is no contradiction, of course, between a system being understood in terms of its information content and it being understood in terms of its material substrate. But when it comes down to the deepest understanding of what life is, how it works, and what forms it is likely to take elsewhere in the universe, Dawkins implies.... Yep, you're absolutely right, T
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2011 14:15:36 GMT -5
If that's true, Mike, it's absolutely astounding, and I've been missing it for years. I think he's evn been known to hypothesise the exact opposite. What makes you think such a thing? "There is no contradiction, of course, between a system being understood in terms of its information content and it being understood in terms of its material substrate. But when it comes down to the deepest understanding of what life is, how it works, and what forms it is likely to take elsewhere in the universe, Dawkins implies.... Yep, you're absolutely right, T I have not read Dawkins. But I cannot see how anyone could say that Life occurs only on Earth. Therefore I concur with T and Fret. Regards. Prashna
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 23, 2011 16:08:28 GMT -5
one can of course think far too much..thus never comming to any conclusion...
|
|
|
Post by peterf on Feb 24, 2011 2:19:58 GMT -5
"There is no contradiction, of course, between a system being understood in terms of its information content and it being understood in terms of its material substrate. But when it comes down to the deepest understanding of what life is, how it works, and what forms it is likely to take elsewhere in the universe, Dawkins implies.... Yep, you're absolutely right, T I have not read Dawkins. But I cannot see how anyone could say that Life occurs only on Earth. Therefore I concur with T and Fret. Regards. Prashna Dawkins has not said that life only occurs on earth, but that it is possible that it only occurs on earth. My guess is that we will never know. So we will be free to speculate for the next 20 million year or so before our species goes extinct.
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Feb 24, 2011 12:05:18 GMT -5
Basically most of these theories are just put out by people who think message boards are beneath them.
They're exercises in deliberate mystification rather than trying to achieve anything constructive.
As for Dawkins, he HAS gone on record (like Jacques Monod) as saying that he believes that DNA is a lucky accident that almost certainly only heppena on earth.
Still, when you watch him being interviewed or interviewing other people who disagree with him, it's pretty obvious that Dawkins not only fails the 'niceness' test but also fails the 'criticial thinking' one!
I think life is almost everywhere and Dawkins and the others who don't feel that way are just wrong.
What little evidence there IS (based on reports by astronauts like Pete Conrad and the so-called Martian meteorite) suggests very much that there IS life on other planets.
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Feb 24, 2011 12:40:35 GMT -5
I don't like Richard Dawkins. To me, he is no different from the people he most likes to attack: far too up himself to bother with more than the most superficial analysis so he can refute his own ideas of what he wants theirs to be. Reminds me of somebody I used to 'know'. We do not know is not the same thing as We do know not. There are huge clouds of organic molecules out there, several bodies covered in them and scientists pushing to explore for other forms of non-DNA life right here that we may not have recognized as 'life'. There are even science-fiction stories that have speculated on interstellar clouds, asteroids and stars being 'alive' (and intelligent), one from Fred Hoyle, who was scarcely a romanticist.
|
|
watcheroo42
Affiliate
Posts: 61
Email: shipshaper@hotmail.com
|
Post by watcheroo42 on Feb 20, 2016 6:44:17 GMT -5
Thinking critically - Heard on the bus: "She read out to me: ‘Breakfast Platter – Poached eggs’ – but having a mild hearing impediment I thought she said ‘BUTCHED’ eggs – envisioning eggs that would, given half a chance, hatch into swaggering little chicks with hairy legs."
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 20, 2016 7:19:40 GMT -5
Wow! You had to dig deep for this one, Watcher. Interesting to browse through the thread .. see some folks I really miss. To me, the most important element of Critical Thinking is objectivity .. or at least attempting to be objective and see more than a personal (pet) point of view. Something to strive for, but I doubt anyone manages it all the time.
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Apr 4, 2016 13:39:07 GMT -5
Open-mindedness We are thinking critically when we evaluate all reasonable inferences consider a variety of possible viewpoints or perspectives, remain open to alternative interpretations accept a new explanation, model, or paradigm because it explains the evidence better, is simpler, or has fewer inconsistencies or covers more data accept new priorities in response to a reevaluation of the evidence or reassessment of our real interests, and do not reject unpopular views out of hand.
Discipline We are thinking critically when we are precise, meticulous comprehensive, and exhaustive resist manipulation and irrational appeals, and avoid snap judgments.
Judgment We are thinking critically when we recognize the relevance and/or merit of alternative assumptions and perspectives recognize the extent and weight of evidence
########
These are sometimes difficult but make all the difference in being capable of critical thinking.
Another point is that expressing critical thought is sometimes difficult and causes us to skip the whole process when we cannot communicate our reasoning to others.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Apr 4, 2016 16:05:33 GMT -5
This is an interesting discussion. There have been many good offerings here, and in particular, those that Mike offered I found to be quite expansive on this subject.
I would like to suggest that, if the goal is to arrive at definitive conclusions, then comments should be contextually offered. That is, while we can (that is, likely) agree on much of this, we are all of Western education and cultures, that is, people of different cultures may have a very different perspective.
For example, those residing in a tribal society many have quite different perspectives and quite different rational. Even when arriving at the same or similar conclusions, the path coming to that conclusion may be quite different with very different justifications and differing value considerations. That difference may be so great as to have others from other cultures not relating to what has been said here to any degree.
My point is that while I feel at ease with what has been said here, we could easily look at this as an artificial construct that is used in the Western world to explain our existence. Other paths may bring a different world view. For example, in our Western world we have a certain and specific word usages for the world of snow, but there are many more words (word root) for snow in the Eskimo languages. The point being that this difference in language defining a common item in our world demonstrates a quite different view of understanding the world. (As an aside, this language difference is currently debatable between linguistic experts.)
I’ll also suggest that this process is, in part, from the thoughts of our consciousness which is something not yet defined. Therefore, not define these results should be suspect.
This process of rationality, is a generally accepted process in the West we use to communicate with each other and may mean nothing elsewhere. Moreover, within the Western world view there are differing concepts of this process when viewed within the context of differing specialties. That is, a mathematician will view this in a certain context, while a biologist may have a quite different view, and a farmer have another, and yet, a politician have another.
|
|