Let's Quantify CT

Oh yeah.

Do you assume that all persons have the same knowledge about the matters, that they have the same background in general? Critical thinking can also mean not dismissing possibilities to quickly which will lead to more opinions in the Level 9 group. Therefore one could say that uniformity also depends on the persons' knowledge on the subjects and that the more knowledge means less ambiquity.

Yes, I also think that in the level 9 group the persons think more logically. (A higher percentage of the scientists is atheistic when compared to the general population.)

I assume a random selection.

What's the deal with this critical thinking. The problem is not that people think uncritically, it is that they don't think at all. Either you think or you don't think.

I think I'll do some critical thinking right after I've had a drink of this wet water.

This is a good site to get an idea what CT is about
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm

I think this is a lot of "blah blah blah." I read most of it...seems like a waste of time for the writer and the reader if you don't mind me saying so.

Coberst, your original proposition is that better thinkers will have less variance in their conclusions because they are based more on emotion or ideology.

It is entirely possible to have absolutely rational and objective thinking while giving a high weight to emotional factors. Considering that emotions drive our happiness, it seems to me that a good critical thinker would therefore weight matters of emotion very highly in their calculations.

Stu..

I contend that reason and emotion are the two forces driving human behavior. One or the other must be the "Supreme Court". Reason is capable of taken into consideration emotional matters. Emotion is not capable of taking into consideration reasonable matters. If reason is not the "Supreme Court" then there is no such thing and emotion rules all behaviors and reason has no force for behavior.

I'd have to say I agree with stuh. Sounds like a salespitch, though not neccesarily a bad one. Trouble is that what is referred to as CT is what I am familiar with as common sense. That good blend of all the forces that is a human being, in a combination that can enhance the quality of that individuals life.

All humans are driven by emotion and feeling, no exceptions. We may be guided by our intellect, but that is just a pilot, so to speak, and not always in control. What I find disturbing is how our societies aim to deprive this pilot of control, rather than to ensure he keeps it.

Our societies do that by arranging things so that no one needs this control. Speed limits are lowered so that people can be half asleep at the wheel. Climbing racks for children are removed, or scaled down, so that children don't have to worry about falling down.

Sorry for the digression, though it serves a purpose I realize. It goes to show that most people find thinking bothersome, and would rather just let it be.

As I understand CT, it is going the other way. Don't remove the dangers, but scool yourself to tackle them.

I'd like to ask those who see themselves as critical thinkers: Is critical thinking really a wise thing to be doing in this day and age? If you train yourself to go faster while everybody else wants to go slower, it will only be a source of endless frustration.

Cyracuz

Critical Thinking is the science of reason. CT attempts to teach the youngster not what to think but how to think. It might be compared to the adage of giving a man a fish rather than teaching him how to fish. If a person knows how to think or how to fish his life will be better for it.

Hogwash. People make decisions with their brains, not some abstract compartment you call "CT" and not with their emotions, either. A brain thinks to determine a course of action based on it's inputs; be those inputs emotional or sensory. "CT" is just the term used to describe someone who is able to think in a logical way.



This is a pretty typical spout of hogwash...the fact is, you don't need to teach people how to think. Our brains are already designed with the ability to think perfectly well.

It is completely un-analogous to the classic fish story. When you teach someone how to catch a fish, you are directly showing them one algorithm which can be used to get fish. You are not affecting in any way the way in which they think. Just as if you were to enter procedural commands into a computer program, you would be showing the computer an algorithm, but not affecting the way that it thinks (or, rather, does not think).

People will naturally figure out algorithms, or learn algorithms, as well as learn data, and naturally with all of this the way in which people think will evolve...and thus, by teaching in an entirely traditional sense, people will naturally become good thinkers. That is why we are not all running around banging our heads against brick walls. You cannot simply "teach someone how to think" by itself, if you were to try, you would just be wasting your time.

The separation of brain operations into into "intellectual", "emotonal" "intstinctive" etc, is an ancient idea reflected in common language by reference to "head, heart and guts". Heres one such quotation.

Gurdjieff called us "three-brained beings", each "brain" corresponding to an inner center: the intellectual center, the emotional center, the body-ruling instinctive/moving center. Each of these three centers is divided into sub-centers, for example, the intellectual segment of the instinctive center, which does most of our so- called "thinking" for us. Much of our "thinking" is simply a lower center's mis-use of intellectual faculties, a squandering of inner energies in desire-based brain activity. All our Centers are similiarly imbalanced. The Fourth Way* calls us to work on all three Centers at once, harmonizing them into one conscious, evolving being. "The modern person," says Professor Needleman, "has no conception of how self-deceptive a life can be that is lived in only one part of oneself. The head, the emotions, and the body each have their own perceptions and actions, and each, in itself, can live a simulacrum of human life."

* The Fourth Way could be seen as Gurdjieff's method for enhancing a form of critical thinking with the proviso that most meditational states can lead to evaporation of problems rather than their solution.

Ha, Ha just like the IQ tests? Can't imagine a soft science rating hard scientists and getting it right.

It is also an ancient idea to assume that everything is composed of the four elements: fire, water, earth, and air