Critical Thinking

[Peter Morris]

Yes, it's wrong, as has been explained to you.
The requirement that critical thinking only be applied to "your own" thoughts is ridiculous.

Do you have any evidence to support your views? I have provided a number of cites supporting my definition. Can you give any actual evidence to refute it?

Can you offer any evidence, or will you just continue to "explain" that I'm wrong without evidence?

By the way, I didn't say that it can be applied only to your own thoughts. I said that examining your own thoughts is a very important part of it, but that's not all.

The other part of it is examining other people's thoughts to see if they present valid arguments that will change your mind. And you do this by listing and examining the evidence both for and against their ideas. If you only list the evidence against it, then it isn't critical thinking.

 

[Hawk one]

By the way, I didn't say that it can be applied only to your own thoughts. I said that examining your own thoughts is a very important part of it, but that's not all.

The other part of it is examining other people's thoughts to see if they present valid arguments that will change your mind. And you do this by listing and examining the evidence both for and against their ideas. If you only list the evidence against it, then it isn't critical thinking.

And this comes from the man that blatantly has refused to for example examinethe actual evidence of whether CFLarsen actually said that the JREF prize money was cursed. Priceless.

 

[Nex]

Peter Morris--

I am also taking Critical Thinking in college right now. Why don't I go get my textbook and see what it says?

R. Paul & L. Elder, Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge©2001, p. 397

Critical Thinking: (1) Disciplined, self-directed thinking that exemplifies the perfections of thinking appropriate to a specific mode or domain of thinking; (2) Thinking that displays mastery of intellectual skills and abilities; (3) The art of thinking about one's thinking while thinking, to make one's thinking better, more clear, more accurate, more defensible; (4) Thinking that is fully aware of and continually guards against the natural human tendency to self-deceive and rationalise to selfishly get what it wants.
Critical thinking can be distinguished into two forms: (1) "selfish" or "sophistic," and (2) fair-minded or open-minded.
In thinking critically, we use our command of the elements of thinking and the universal intellectual standards to adjust our thinking successfully to the logical demands of a type or mode of thinking.

...

Critical Person: One who has mastered a range of intellectual skills and abilities. If that person generally uses those skills to advance his or her own selfish interests, that person is only a critical person in a weak sense. If that person generally uses those skills fair-mindedly, entering empathically into the points of view of others, he or she is a critical thinker in the strong sense.

 

[Ashles]

Well this was quite an interesting thread up until Peter Morris' one single agenda (criticising Randi) leapt out once again with the grinding inevitability of a Greek tragedy.

Now it will inevitably collapse into a wearisome discussion of how Peter's definition of critical thinking is correct, thus Randi doesn't think critically etc. etc. ad nauseam.

Hans has already clearly explained why it doesn't mean it isn't critical thinking just because you don't verbally, or in writing outline every step that you went through to get there.

Which Peter appears to have ignored.

 

[apoger]

Do you have any evidence to support your views? I have provided a number of cites supporting my definition. Can you give any actual evidence to refute it?

Well now I don't need to since you have backed off your claim that critical thinking is only for your own thoughts.

Do you read your own posts?

The other part of it is examining other people's thoughts to see if they present valid arguments that will change your mind. And you do this by listing and examining the evidence both for and against their ideas. If you only list the evidence against it, then it isn't critical thinking.

Who has made the assertion that critical thinking is only examining evidence against and not for? Indeed, isn't the whole mission of the JREF an attempt to test for evidence?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Morris dance [n] : a strange pointless ritual in which an attention-seeking fool makes himself look as daft as possible and prances around flailing away ineffectually at nothing, while onlookers laugh at him and wonder if he's nuts, an idiot, or just completely lacking in self-awareness.

 

[kookbreaker]

Well this was quite an interesting thread up until Peter Morris' one single agenda (criticising Randi) leapt out once again with the grinding inevitability of a Greek tragedy.

Indeed. When I first saw this thread, I thought about replying, but I realised that it was a thinly disguised trap.

All Peter wanted was a definitions that he could pull out and say "See! By your own words Randi ain't critical thinker! Haw! Haw! Haw!"

 

[Ashles]

I wonder if anyone in the world could have possibly written anything in this thread, any possible combination of words, that Peter Morris wouldn't have considered support for his theory that Randi isn't critically thinking?

 

[RichardR]

My own understanding of CT is that it is a process of self-examination - the important word being self.

That’s your opinion, but I disagree with it. You examine your own beliefs for sure, but it is used to evaluate others’ claims too. You have defined it too narrowly so that you can make your views known on Randi. Perhaps you should apply critical thinking to your own views.

James Randi does is to attack other people's ideas, and smugly tell people what's wrong with their beliefs.

Based on the lack of evidence for their beliefs (or sometimes evidence against their beliefs). So he is applying critical thinking, your pejorative wording notwithstanding.

What would it actually mean to think critically about a paranormal claim? Or any other kind of claim for that matter.

A critical thinker suspends judgement, that is he neither believes nor denies the claim. He reviews the evidence in favour of the claim, and the evidence against. He takes an active role, taking an effort to seek out evidence for himself. Only after carefully weighing the evidence does he form a conclusion.

OK, please show that Randi does not weigh the evidence before forming a conclusion.

By contrast, Randi starts from a position of disbelief. He then takes a pasive role. He waits for other people to provide evidence to him. This may be logically valid in its way, but it isn't critical thinking.

Please show that his position of disbelief did not arise until after he had examined the evidence.

In my understanding, skepticism and Critical thinking are two entirely different things, with no connection between them. Critical thinking is a method of establishing and reviewing a point of view. Skepticism - in the specific sense of disbelieving paranormal claims - is a point of view.

You can define it that way if you want to, but the conclusions you derive will be faulty. Skepticism is not a belief system, it is a method.

Your post and the purpose of this thread is just one big straw man. You need to apply critical thinking to your own dislike of Randi, and not rely on logical fallacies (as no critical thinker should), to prove your viewpoint.

 

[RichardR]

Morris dance [n] : a strange pointless ritual in which an attention-seeking fool makes himself look as daft as possible and prances around flailing away ineffectually at nothing, while onlookers laugh at him and wonder if he's nuts, an idiot, or just completely lacking in self-awareness.

 

[Wally]

Just a quick thought, if there’s no evidence to be critical of, it doesn’t make much difference how you define critical thinking.

 

[Jyera]

...
Jyera is a fruitcake. Do you really want to hitch your wagon to his nonsense? ....

Apoger, Did I somehow offended you?

I find it objectionable for your statement to imply that whatever I say is totally nonsense.

I really have nothing against you.

 

[apoger]

My apologies Jyera.
I didn't mean for my lack of respect for your postings to cause you discomfort.

 

[Dragon]

Peter, for the sake of convenience and clarity, why not produce your own "glossary of tems" so that we can share in your redefinitions of words and phrases?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, then we can file it alongside the "Franko Dictionary", the "Interesting Ian Dictionary", the "Hammegk Dictionary, the "Iacchus Dictionary", the "Lifegazer Dictionary", etc, etc.

Only problem is that those dictionaries tend to be dynamic, with terms being constantly redefined to fit each discussion .

Hans

 

[Jyera]

My apologies Jyera.
I didn't mean for my lack of respect for your postings to cause you discomfort.

Apologies accepted.