Notices
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: China incline USA decline?

  1. #1 China incline USA decline? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    China incline USA decline?

    America now has an open society but few Americans have the Critical Thinking skills and intellectual sophistication required to maintain that status. The question becomes: "can a democracy survive in a world where technology is driving change at a very rapid pace?” Darwin informs us that if a species cannot adapt to its changing environment that species will soon become toast.

    I suspect that China represents an example of how such a fact plays out. China, an authoritarian form of capitalism, is likely destined to become the dominant power in the 21st century because an authoritarian system can better adapt to a rapidly changing world. America displays a nation unable to quickly adapt to a rapidly changing world.

    Karl Popper argues, in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies, that all ideology shares a common characteristic; a belief in infallibility.

    The concept Popper illustrates in this book sounds much like the concept of a liberal democracy but his concept is more epistemological than political. It is based upon our imperfect comprehension of reality more than our structure of society. Such infallibility is an impossibility, which leads such ideological practitioners to use force to substantiate their views and such repression brings about a closed society.

    Popper proposed that the open society is constructed on the recognition that our comprehension of reality is not perfect—there is realty beyond our comprehension and our will cannot compensate for that lack of comprehension. Even though the will of the power structure can manipulate the opinions of the citizens sooner or later reality will defeat the will. Truth does matter and success will not always override truth—truth being reality.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,294
    Hmmm, I wonder how long it will take this thread to come round to the US population lacking that nebulous concept "CT"?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Hmmm, I wonder how long it will take this thread to come round to the US population lacking that nebulous concept "CT"?
    CT (Critical Thinking) is virtually unknown to American citizens but it is not a nebulous concept. CT is the art and science of good judgment.

    Making good judgments is an important and complex matter. There are bad judgments, good judgments, and better judgments. To make better judgments requires many kinds of knowledge, skills, and character traits all working together.

    Our schools and colleges are beginning to teach these things but it is an effort that is just beginning and it is a difficult one to accomplish.

    Just to give you an idea of what CT is about I have copied the following info from the Internet:

    This info was taken from workbooks for classes K-12. This list is found in the following handbooks: Critical Thinking Handbook: k-3, Critical Thinking Handbook: 4-6, Critical Thinking Handbook: 6-9, Critical Thinking Handbook: High School.


    A. Affective Strategies
    S-1 thinking independently
    Thru
    S-9 developing confidence in reason

    B. Cognitive Strategies - Macro-Abilities
    S-10 refining generalizations and avoiding oversimplifications
    Thru
    S-26 reasoning dialectically: evaluating perspectives, interpretations, or theories

    C. Cognitive Strategies - Micro-Skills
    S-27 comparing and contrasting ideals with actual practice
    Thru
    S-35 exploring implications and consequences

    S-1 Thinking Independently

    Principle: Critical thinking is independent thinking, thinking for oneself. Many of our beliefs are acquired at an early age, when we have a strong tendency to form beliefs for irrational reasons (because we want to believe, because we are praised or rewarded for believing). Critical thinkers use critical skills and insights to reveal and reject beliefs that are irrational.

    S-2 Developing Insight Into Egocentricity or Sociocentricity

    Principle: Egocentricity means confusing what we see and think with reality. When under the influence of egocentricity, we think that the way we see things is exactly the way things are. Egocentricity manifests itself as an inability or unwillingness to consider others' points of view, a refusal to accept ideas or facts which would prevent us from getting what we want (or think we want).

    S-3 Exercising Fairmindedness

    Principle: To think critically, we must be able to consider the strengths and weaknesses of opposing points of view; to imaginatively put ourselves in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them; to overcome our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions or long-standing thought or belief.

    S-4 Exploring Thoughts Underlying Feelings and Feelings Underlying Thoughts

    Principle: Although it is common to separate thought and feeling as though they were independent, opposing forces in the human mind, the truth is that virtually all human feelings are based on some level of thought and virtually all thought generative of some level of feeling. To think with self-understanding and insight, we must come to terms with the intimate connections between thought and feeling, reason and emotion.

    S-5 Developing Intellectual Humility and Suspending Judgment

    Principle: Critical thinkers recognize the limits of their knowledge. They are sensitive to circumstances in which their native egocentricity is likely to function self-deceptively; they are sensitive to bias, prejudice, and limitations of their views. Intellectual humility is based on the recognition that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness.

    S-6 Developing Intellectual Courage

    Principle: To think independently and fairly, one must feel the need to face and fairly deal with unpopular ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints. The courage to do so arises when we see that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions or beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading.

    S-7 Developing Intellectual Good Faith or Integrity

    Principle: Critical thinkers recognize the need to be true to their own thought, to be consistent in the intellectual standards they apply, to hold themselves to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to which they hold others, to practice what they advocate for others, and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in their own thought and action. They believe most strongly what has been justified by their own thought and analyzed experience.

    S-8 Developing Intellectual Perseverance

    Principle: Becoming a more critical thinker is not easy. It takes time and effort. Critical thinking is reflective and recursive; that is, we often think back to previous problems to re-consider or re-analyze them. Critical thinkers are willing to pursue intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations.

    S-9 Developing Confidence in Reason

    Principle: The rational person recognizes the power of reason and the value of disciplining thinking in accordance with rational standards. Virtually all of the progress that has been made in science and human knowledge testifies to this power, and so to the reasonability of having confidence in reason.

    S-10 Refining Generalizations and Avoiding Oversimplifications

    Principle: It is natural to seek to simplify problems and experiences to make them easier to deal with. Everyone does this. However, the uncritical thinker often oversimplifies and as a result misrepresents problems and experiences.

    S-11 Comparing Analogous Situations: Transferring Insights to New Contexts

    Principle: An idea's power is limited by our ability to use it. Critical thinkers' ability to use ideas mindfully enhances their ability to transfer ideas critically. They practice using ideas and insights by appropriately applying them to new situations. This allows them to organize materials and experiences in different ways, to compare and contrast alternative labels, to integrate their understanding of different situations, and to find useful ways to think about new situations.

    S-12 Developing One's Perspective: Creating or Exploring Beliefs, Arguments, or Theories

    Principle: The world is not given to us sliced up into categories with pre-assigned labels on them. There are always many ways to "divide up" and so experience the world. How we do so is essential to our thinking and behavior. Uncritical thinkers assume that their perspective on things is the only correct one. Selfish critical thinkers manipulate the perspectives of others to gain advantage for themselves.

    S-13 Clarifying Issues, Conclusions, or Beliefs

    Principle: The more completely, clearly, and accurately an issue or statement is formulated, the easier and more helpful the discussion of its settlement or verification. Given a clear statement of an issue, and prior to evaluating conclusions or solutions, it is important to recognize what is required to settle it. And before we can agree or disagree with a claim, we must understand it clearly.

    S-14 Clarifying and Analyzing the Meanings of Words or Phrases

    Principle: Critical, independent thinking requires clarity of thought. A clear thinker understands concepts and knows what kind of evidence is required to justify applying a word or phrase to a situation. The ability to supply a definition is not proof of understanding. One must be able to supply clear, obvious examples and use the concept appropriately. In contrast, for an unclear thinker, words float through the mind unattached to clear, specific, concrete cases. Distinct concepts are confused.

    And so on

    ================================================== ==========

    S-33 Giving Reasons and Evaluating Evidence and Alleged Facts

    Principle: Critical thinkers can take their reasoning apart in order to examine and evaluate its components. They know on what evidence they base their conclusions. They realize that un-stated, unknown reasons can be neither communicated nor critiqued. They are comfortable being asked to give reasons; they don't find requests for reasons intimidating, confusing, or insulting.

    S-34 Recognizing Contradictions

    Principle: Consistency is a fundamental-some would say the defining-ideal of critical thinkers. They strive to remove contradictions from their beliefs, and are wary of contradictions in others. As would-be fairminded thinkers they strive to judge like cases in a like manner.

    S-35 Exploring Implications and Consequences

    Principle: Critical thinkers can take statements, recognize their implications-what follows from them-and develop a fuller, more complete understanding of their meaning. They realize that to accept a statement one must also accept its implications. They can explore both implications and consequences at length. When considering beliefs that relate to actions or policies, critical thinkers assess the consequences of acting on those beliefs.

    {This list is found in the following handbooks: Critical Thinking Handbook: k-3, Critical Thinking Handbook: 4-6, Critical Thinking Handbook: 6-9, Critical Thinking Handbook: High School.}

    http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issu...ee/sa3crit.htm

    /
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,294
    and away we go.....*sarcasm*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Not long ! Ha !

    Coberst ... what are you trying to do ? Do you think if you scream louder people are going to hear you ?

    Here's a question. What if nobody wants to learn CT ? What then ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: China incline USA decline? 
    Lyn
    Lyn is offline
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    America now has an open society but few Americans have the Critical Thinking skills and intellectual sophistication required to maintain that status.
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    S-10 Refining Generalizations and Avoiding Oversimplifications
    Looks like someone isn't reading their handbook.



    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    S-34 Recognizing Contradictions
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/What-...%21-20443t.php



    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    S-33 Giving Reasons and Evaluating Evidence and Alleged Facts

    Principle: Critical thinkers can take their reasoning apart in order to examine and evaluate its components. They know on what evidence they base their conclusions. They realize that un-stated, unknown reasons can be neither communicated nor critiqued. They are comfortable being asked to give reasons; they don't find requests for reasons intimidating, confusing, or insulting.
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/How-c...ine-21051t.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    Not long ! Ha !

    Coberst ... what are you trying to do ? Do you think if you scream louder people are going to hear you ?

    Here's a question. What if nobody wants to learn CT ? What then ?
    Unfortunately such is the case and only time will tell. Can our democracy survive an unsophisticated and irresponsible citizenry?

    America now has an open society but few Americans have the Critical Thinking skills and intellectual sophistication required to maintain that status. The question becomes: "can a democracy survive in a world where technology is driving change at a very rapid pace?” Darwin informs us that if a species cannot adapt to its changing environment that species will soon become toast.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    Not long ! Ha !

    Coberst ... what are you trying to do ? Do you think if you scream louder people are going to hear you ?

    Here's a question. What if nobody wants to learn CT ? What then ?
    Unfortunately such is the case and only time will tell. Can our democracy survive an unsophisticated and irresponsible citizenry?

    America now has an open society but few Americans have the Critical Thinking skills and intellectual sophistication required to maintain that status. The question becomes: "can a democracy survive in a world where technology is driving change at a very rapid pace?” Darwin informs us that if a species cannot adapt to its changing environment that species will soon become toast.
    No, the question then becomes : if this CT thing isn't going to work, what are we going to do instead ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Lyn
    Lyn is offline
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    No, the question then becomes : if this CT thing isn't going to work...
    I don't think even this much can be considered "the question" because this question assumes that there is a way to test whether CT is working, and so far Coberst has not given us any means of testing his hypothesis. In order for a hypothesis to be testable, it must be able to predict specific phenomena or data; at the very least it must be able to account for observed facts. But as we've seen, specific phenomena, data, and facts are exactly what Coberst refuses to give because he doesn't want us to testing his claims at all (despite item S-33 in the handbook he just cited).

    So far the closest thing we've been given to a method of assessment is this:

    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    America now has an open society but few Americans have the Critical Thinking skills and intellectual sophistication required to maintain that status. The question becomes: "can a democracy survive in a world where technology is driving change at a very rapid pace?”
    Coberst, what if the answer turns out to be "yes"? If democracy does survive, does this mean Americans do have enough intellectual sophistication?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    After the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    A chatbot is more receptive.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Lyn
    Lyn is offline
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    After the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.
    Was that a yes or a no, Coberst? If democracy survives, does this mean Americans do have enough intellectual sophistication?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Lyn

    Was that a yes or a no, Coberst? If democracy survives, does this mean Americans do have enough intellectual sophistication?
    That is a hypothetical; too improbable to warrant my consideration. We have, perhaps, already past the tipping point. However, this probability, of having passed the tipping point, does not allow the responsible citizen to give-up and hit the snooze button.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,294
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Quote Originally Posted by Lyn

    Was that a yes or a no, Coberst? If democracy survives, does this mean Americans do have enough intellectual sophistication?
    That is a hypothetical; too improbable to warrant my consideration. We have, perhaps, already past the tipping point. However, this probability, of having passed the tipping point, does not allow the responsible citizen to give-up and hit the snooze button.
    Sorry Lyn, hes still avoiding the question
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Quote Originally Posted by Lyn

    Was that a yes or a no, Coberst? If democracy survives, does this mean Americans do have enough intellectual sophistication?
    That is a hypothetical; too improbable to warrant my consideration. We have, perhaps, already past the tipping point. However, this probability, of having passed the tipping point, does not allow the responsible citizen to give-up and hit the snooze button.
    Sorry Lyn, hes still avoiding the question
    I have given everybody the option of expressing opinions on this matter in the poll stickied to the top of this sub-forum.

    If you all prefer coberst-baiting to coberst-banning then that's what you might get...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Lyn
    Lyn is offline
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    109
    I'm happy to weigh in on the poll as well, but in the meantime it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to be able to ask simple yes or no questions, especially questions aimed having Coberst (or anyone else) simply clarify their point. I don't think requesting an answer to such a question counts as "baiting."

    Which means the floor is still open to you, Coberst. Can you answer my question so we can better understand your point? If you find the question too hypothetical, then please explain why your own point is also not too hypothetical--namely, your assertion that if democracy does not survive then the cause must be a lack of intellectual sophistication. Why are you willing to consider the fate of democracy when it paints our intellectual sophistication in a negative light, but unwilling to consider it when it paints our intellectual sophistication in a positive one? If we're allowed to blame the hypothetical failure of democracy on poor intellectual sophistication, why are you hesitant to attribute the hypothetical survival of democracy on healthy intellectual sophistication?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    This all reminds me of my experience training puppies. If I failed to wait long enough for them to mature sufficiently so that they could distinguish between serious and play actions my attempt to prepare them for disciplined behavior always failed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Lyn
    Lyn is offline
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    109
    That in no way answered my question, so I'll ask again: if we're allowed to blame the failure of democracy on poor intellectual sophistication, why are you hesitant to attribute the survival of democracy on healthy intellectual sophistication? Why the double standard?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,294
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Quote Originally Posted by Lyn

    Was that a yes or a no, Coberst? If democracy survives, does this mean Americans do have enough intellectual sophistication?
    That is a hypothetical; too improbable to warrant my consideration. We have, perhaps, already past the tipping point. However, this probability, of having passed the tipping point, does not allow the responsible citizen to give-up and hit the snooze button.
    Sorry Lyn, hes still avoiding the question
    I have given everybody the option of expressing opinions on this matter in the poll stickied to the top of this sub-forum.

    If you all prefer coberst-baiting to coberst-banning then that's what you might get...
    Already voted, and have now elucidated that vote with commentary
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Lyn
    Lyn is offline
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    109
    As have I.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    hmm.. When I was in high school I was taught languages, history, mythology, religion, mathematics, politics, mechanics, chemistry, physics, literature, art, etc. I didn't care too much but , in comparison I was a pretty good student. I've forgotten a good chunk of what I was taught. I think before we simply teach critical thinking we must first put some critical thinking to how we can manage to have students retain and, better yet, care about what they learn.

    I say we need to start with attention spans and concentration. Namely these little plastic boxes we carry around next to our ears and the larger boxes (or should I now call them panels) that are awarded most of our spare time. Or how about diet, exercise, or stress management. My high school health class spent half the time on STD's and all together taught me about 2% of what I know about health/fitness in general.

    The point is, critical thinking alone is not the problem. And, in my opinion, without concentration skills critical thinking is useless. In fact, the act of concentration usually inspires critical thinking.

    Also, my understanding is that the West's "rise" is do to industrialization. The west had the resources and knowhow. Now the East has the resources and knowhow. Before industrialization the East ruled with their materials, spices, and teas.The East also has a more dense population, which, I would argue, equals more competition and faster production. Is all this related to critical thinking?
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •