• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Critical Thinking aka Good Thinking

kungfuhobbit

Student
K
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
32
Defining "critical thinking" clearly- in ten points decalogue style!

http://www.kungfuhobbit.com/2012/06/good-thinking.html

Id be grateful for thoughts/feedback/critiques.
(copied content below w/ possibly dodgy formatting)
If you think it's good please spread the link!



Good thinking

Some people are careful to note that critical thinking isn’t anything negative or mean and that there is no predisposition to finding flaws. This is BS.
A strong part of it is subjecting ideas to focused and savage criticism.

Criticism gets a bad press. Criticism is constructive; nothing ever improves or evolves without criticism.


The etymological roots kriticos and kriterion allude to discerning judgement and standards*. What on earth does this mean?!
Likewise, ask people what critical thinking is and few can explicitly delineate anything of substance or meaningful consequence.
Yet it is held to be the key skill that education develops. Unsettling...


Let’s lose the ambiguous and obfuscating phrase critical thinking.
It could be called ‘How to think, not what to think’.
It is a set of intellectual virtues and mental habits.
Essentially, it is Good Thinking.




The Ten Commandments of Good Thinking


1. Always be able to change your mind.
On anything.

Edited by Locknar: 
<SNIP>, breach of rule 4. The other 9 "Commandments" can be found at the url referenced above.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I.Thou shalt not commit the sin of equating correlation and causation.
II.It is a capitol crime to theorize before one has data.
III.Thou shalt not fabricate data.
IV.Thou shalt not propose a scientific theory which is not potentially falsifiable.
V.Thou shall take steps to control for any potential confounding variables in your experiments, paying special attention to experimenter bias and placebo effects.
VII.Thou shalt not fabricate data.

Well, there are probably a few more. A total of 13 in all would be fortutitous.
 
Last edited:
re: rule 4 breach
sorry

@PixyMisa
how do you mean?

@Wowbagger
agreed though I decided explicit emphasis was beneficial and it keeps individual points snappy

@Jeff Corey
I disagree with II.
And Im not sure about IV. I think because of the word science it's arguably a tautology and re: falsifiability - surely the question is what level of falsification we would accept. Although fundamentally maybe there are broader challenges to falsification as a necessary demarcation of science - I have yet to read Feyerabend but I think he and others would propose this?
 
kungfuhobbit said:
@Jeff Corey
I disagree with II.
And Im not sure about IV. I think because of the word science it's arguably a tautology and re: falsifiability - surely the question is what level of falsification we would accept. Although fundamentally maybe there are broader challenges to falsification as a necessary demarcation of science - I have yet to read Feyerabend but I think he and others would propose this?
Click to expand...

II? Shouting out your theory before collecting any data is clearly a case of premature ejaculation.
IV? Really? Can you think of any scientific theory that isn't testable? Sir Karl initially stated that the theory of evolution was one such theory, but he got better.
 
In the spirit of criticism, how about some critiques of your ideas:

#4: Doubt, challenge, and criticize everything? Are you sure? I say pick your battles wisely: what is your relationship to the person(s) invested in the object of your critique? Husband? Wife? Aunt? Friend? Stranger? It really does matter, if only for the sake that in order to actually make a difference, you need to exercise some tact in when/how you broach the topic. I can certainly conceive of situations where it would do me great harm if I directed criticism at the wrong time, if ever. Some battles are not worth fighting. Some definitely are. The wrong amount of antagonism at the wrong time only solidifies your opponent's point of view.

#6: I think you may need to rephrase this point to something like: "don't let emotions supersede your judgement". In its current form, your point seems like you're advocating that emotion has no place in criticism, when this is exactly not the case.

To be emotional and logical is not dichotomous. Emotional to the point of delusion, I will agree to that, but being emotionally void on a topic works against you. This is especially true of people who are hard-nosed and stubborn. You need to prime their brain to be accepting and non-combative; then you can lay out evidence, connect facts, and apply logic without seeming like a prick. Emotions play a huge role in our cognition, and to ignore this in yourself and your opponent is delusional and counterproductive.

The Hitch was a master at being impassioned and being emotionally invested in his thoughts and opinions. It seemed to only fuel his precisely-placed critiques and logic.

I think your list is good overall. I would take advice from other posters here and distill and refine the points a bit more (echoing another poster here: you may not need exactly ten); I'm sure you won't hesitate to make a better list and share it with us once it's complete.
 
Kundfuhobbit? Knockey, knockey.
You there?
Can you please reply to my questions? Or would you want me to elaborate a tad, to clarify the points I attempted to make?
 
@Jeff Corey
gathering data first might give you some ideas as starting points but science isnt fundamentally attached to it.
There's no reason one should avoid coming up with a creative theory before you 'have data'. Obviously empiricism will have the final say in deciding its value, but thats a different point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0&feature=player_embedded

firstly, verifiable and falsifiable are different things.
whether one can propose a 'scientific' theory that isnt falsifiable depends merely on how you want to define it.
To say there is fuzziness in demarcation of science is probably stating the obvious.
could you elaborate re: popper and evolution on the "but he got better" statement please- I didnt understand what you meant.
 
Last edited:
@majamin

That topic's a different essay on 'intellectual discourse' that Im preparing though.
agreed, being empathetic to people's emotions, where theyre coming from and sculpting one's angle towards them can be helpful.

I feel you've mischaracterised the sentiment of the point 6 though? (*Beware* being emotionally infused with and attached to an idea)

re:Hitch's emotional attachment
Being a master at being emotionally invested in one's opinion's isnt hard. Hitch was a master for other reasons than this and I do consider his level of attachment dangerous.
 
If I were to merge points, which ones would you all suggest be merged and how would they be reworded please?
 
kungfuhobbit said:
@Jeff Corey
gathering data first might give you some ideas as starting points but science isnt fundamentally attached to it.
There's no reason one should avoid coming up with a creative theory before you 'have data'. Obviously empiricism will have the final say in deciding its value, but thats a different point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0&feature=player_embedded

firstly, verifiable and falsifiable are different things.
whether one can propose a 'scientific' theory that isnt falsifiable depends merely on how you want to define it.
To say there is fuzziness in demarcation of science is probably stating the obvious.
could you elaborate re: popper and evolution on the "but he got better" statement please- I didnt understand what you meant.
Click to expand...

I think you never practiced science.
As to Popper and Evilution, mertsahinoglu.com/research/karl-popper-on-the-scientific-status-of-evolution
Oops, link not working. There's enough info in there to google it.
 
Last edited:
Why should I try to persuade you? You should try to learn how science works and doesn't. Take some science classes.
 
kungfuhobbit said:
re: falsifiability - surely the question is what level of falsification we would accept.
Click to expand...

What does this mean? A claim is either falsifiable, or it is not.

kungfuhobbit said:
Although fundamentally maybe there are broader challenges to falsification as a necessary demarcation of science - I have yet to read Feyerabend but I think he and others would propose this?
Click to expand...

What do you think it means when a claim is said to be falsifiable?
 
@Jeff
I could go to bed tonight and suddenly dream of the unified theory and it could turn out to be right when I verify it tuesday morning.
I dont see that science is necessarily attached to any meaningful observation/data collection before theorising
(though I suppose I should make the trivially obvious point that you always need some knowledge to develop from, but I dont think that's quite the sentiment of what you mean).
As well as science, Ive done some introductory philosophy of science but Im open to the idea that Im wrong. However, you've got to give me something more to go on please - as it stands I feel Ive put across a case that Im right and havent heard the flaw in it...and you arent pointing me in a specific enough direction by essentially saying 'study science' to make me think Im missing anything.

@Careyp74
all science is approximation to truth. newtonian mechanics was falsified (perihelion of mercury) but we dont abandon it etc. so the real question is 'how accurate does it have to be and in what domains is it accurate enough to be useful?'
re:falsifiability, a fair definition would be 'a contradiction of expectations' I think?
There are degrees of falsifiability -see asimov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wronger_than_wrong
also his great essay http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
popper also describes the most scientific theories as ones making bold predictions -if they are wrong, they are wrong in their predictions in a big way.
though Im also ignorant whether it's so cut and dried that falsification is a necessary demarcation of science?
 
Last edited:
kungfuhobbit said:
@Careyp74
all science is approximation to truth. newtonian mechanics was falsified (perihelion of mercury) but we dont abandon it etc. so the real question is 'how accurate does it have to be and in what domains is it accurate enough to be useful?'
re:falsifiability, a fair definition would be 'a contradiction of expectations' I think?
There are degrees of falsifiability -see asimov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wronger_than_wrong
also his great essay http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
popper also describes the most scientific theories as ones making bold predictions -if they are wrong, they are wrong in their predictions in a big way.
though Im also ignorant whether it's so cut and dried that falsification is a necessary demarcation of science?
Click to expand...

I see what the problem is. You are not using the term correctly.

Falsifiability is not proving something wrong, or any degree of wrongness.

Falsifiability is wording a claim in such a way that IF the claim is wrong, it COULD be proven wrong.

This is the problem of a lot of the woo claims around here. They are absolutely wrong, but they are not worded in a way to be proven wrong, so when something is shown to be false, the claim can be altered to include the newly disproved ideas.
 
Last edited:
point taken, Im carelessly mixing falsification with falsifiability when writing. Granting the necessary substitutions, would you disagree with anything Ive said though?
 
kungfuhobbit said:
point taken, Im carelessly mixing falsification with falsifiability when writing. Granting the necessary substitutions, would you disagree with anything Ive said though?
Click to expand...

I, unlike others, do not feel that the points you make should be condensed, except if you are trying to narrow it down into a short list of simple rules to follow. I can see the differences and importance of each one. I think everything so far is important for a skeptical mind.

The falsifiability suggestion goes both ways. Not only is it important to word your claims in a way to make them falsifiable, but also, if you don't like banging your head against the wall, don't try to discuss anyone else's claims if they haven't done this.

ETA: I don't think critical thinking has the bad rep that skepticism does. It doesn't need a new name for it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom