Notices
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: CT (Critical Thinking) and politics

  1. #1 CT (Critical Thinking) and politics 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    CT (Critical Thinking) and politics

    All of us who are interested in politics have a ring-side seat for viewing the CT skills of Obama and Hillary.

    How well these two candidates perform one of the most important aspects of CT in the next several months will determine, to a large extent, which party will occupy the White House for the next four years. These two candidates face a daunting task; they must control their race for the White House in such a manner that it will not severely harm the winner’s opportunity to win the 2008 election.

    Their struggle for supremacy between now and the convention could very well do significant harm to their party’s chance to win the WH. While they fight against one another John McCann can sit back and prepare for the finals; they must somehow not only compete with one another in a grueling fight but they must do it in a way that will not seem unseemly to the American people who will be carefully watching.

    The daunting task these two must navigate in the next few months is to work together in dialogue so as to allow each to fight fiercely in the race while not doing harm to their party in the process. They must be expert at the task of dialogic.

    Dialogue combined with dialectical reasoning is equal to dialogic.

    In dialogue, person ‘A’ may state a thesis; in return person ‘B’ does not respond with exactly the same meaning as does ‘A’. The meanings are generally similar but not identical; thus ‘A’ listening to ‘B’ perceives a disconnect between what she said and what ‘B’ replies. ‘A’ then has the opportunity to respond with this disconnect in mind, thereby creating a response that takes these matters into consideration; ‘A’ performs an operation known as a dialectic (a juxtaposition of opposed or contradictory ideas). And so the dialogical process proceeds.

    A dialogical process is not one wherein individuals reason together in an attempt to make common, ideas that are already known to each individual. ”Rather, it may be said that the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating something new together.” Dialogical reasoning together is an act of creation, of mutual understanding, of meaning.

    Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other. Each must be prepared to “drop his old ideas and intentions. And be ready to go on to something different, when this is called for…Thus, if people are to cooperate (i.e., literally to ‘work together’) they have to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive instruments of this authority.”
    Quotes from “Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life”


    “On Dialogue” was written by “The late David Bohm, one of the greatest physicists and foremost thinkers this century, was Fellow of the Royal Society and Emeritus Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, University of London”.

    Bohm is convinced that communication is breaking down as a result of the crude and insensitive manner in which it is transpiring. Communication is a concept with a common meaning that does not fit well with the concepts of dialogue, dialectic, and dialogic.

    I claim that if we citizens do not learn to dialogue dialogically we cannot learn to live together in harmony sufficient to save the species.

    Have you ever tried to dialogue dialogically?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    When we engage in a dialogue what happens? The first thing we find is that dialogue is unlike anything in which we have previously been involved. Group discussions generally digress quickly into verbal food fights and nothing positive is accomplished. Discussions become venues for shouting at one another. The most important thing discovered--provided you wished to advance your thinking so as to develop a means for solving intractable problems--is that skills and attitudes not presently possessed must be developed.

    In a dialogue one discovers that advancement of the group toward solutions requires that each member be part of a coherent body wherein all agree to certain standards and procedures. It is necessary to form a solid foundation for the house under construction. The foundation must be solid and the structure true to a standard. In a house construction one sees carpenters using plumb-bobs and levels constantly. What are the plumb-bobs and levels of thought? What are the standards and principles of successful dialogue?

    Each member of the dialogue discovers that things never thought of before are the first matters that must be resolved. The science of thought is the first and fundamental consideration that dawn on the participants. What are the fundaments of thought that must be examined?

    The science of epistemology imposes itself immediately as a first consideration. Epistemology is the theory and craft of knowing. If the members of the group cannot agree on what knowledge is that group can go no further.

    What can the group agree upon as to what is knowledge and what is truth? For all those who have never given such matters any thought this sounds a bit silly. Everyone knows what knowledge is and what truth is. That is a problem. Those never engaged in dialogue are likely to have ever questioned such basic concerns. This whole matter of introducing the concept of dialogue faces the bootstrap problem. The bootstrap problem is one of accomplishing an end when the end to be accomplished is necessary for considering the end to be accomplished. Can the dog ever catch it’s tail?

    Only after the group agrees on the nature of the plum bobs and levels of thought will the group be ready to move to the next step. The next barrier that it is likely to face is of the distinction between awareness and consciousness.

    Before Americans can dialogue there must be preparation. That preparation is not furnished by our educational system. The only way that Americans can prepare themselves for dialogue is through a process of self-actualizing self-learning. It is here that we must begin our effort to dialogue.//


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    On a basic level you are right; but I feel like your assuming to many things about all people, and aren't taking into consideration many of the other factors involved....maybe you are only assuming that we know the other details and that is why you didn't mention them?

    I mainly got from your argument that, "We need to start understanding each other instead a blatantly negating others opinions based off of predetermined negativity". When you see the democrats debate each other, its as if they want to start a fight. Obama could say a benine statement and have Hillary attack him as if he just stated that we should just nuke the middle east and get it over with! Its like they are trying to make the debate more interesting, I don't feel like it is natural. They are really behaving like children, and like you said, not following certain rules of dialogue.

    Your quote in the first post is true. I often see people putting words in other peoples mouths; it is a technique that deals with stating something with such certainty as if it is true, while it is far from the truth, so that the other person thinks that it must be true! Jack***'s do that to me all the time. We cold be debating something, then all of a sudden they will make a claim that is so illogical that I can do nothing but say that they are wrong; then they come back and say, "how do you know I am wrong?"...well, you cannot break down a stream of conscious retardation, for there is nothing to it but lies! You explaining how it is wrong would almost be like following what it says! So you just stand there while they smile at you with that imbecilic look on their face as if they have won. I hate people that do that, yet 98% of all people love to use that tactic....specially politicians, lawyers, and republicans....yes, republicans deserve two spots in the circle of "badness". Not that I am saying that all republicans are bad! Just most; at least the really active republicans. Why are religious people not in there? Because they are too mentally incapacitated to even use such tactics.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    We debate rather than dialogue. Winning is number one and reasoning together is for the “girly man”. Training youngsters to be good soldiers is more important than educating them to become Critical Thinking citizens. In fact our concept of reasoning seldom examines the aspect of consciously seeking harmony. Speaking of harmony, we rap or roll rather than snuggle in poetic symphony.

    I suspect the competitive mode of being is very important for our survival. However, I think that this competitive mode will make it difficult for our civilization to survive another two hundred years.

    When we couple this strong competitive mode with a strong technological expertise and a weak communicative rationality we are flirting with Armageddon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    I give us 30.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    The sky is falling. The sky is falling.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    We debate rather than dialogue. Winning is number one and reasoning together is for the “girly man”. Training youngsters to be good soldiers is more important than educating them to become Critical Thinking citizens. In fact our concept of reasoning seldom examines the aspect of consciously seeking harmony. Speaking of harmony, we rap or roll rather than snuggle in poetic symphony.
    I have just started to actively campaign the government and education authorities to introduce Critical Thinking into the curriculum. I think it is a vital skill to learn and improves many aspects of academic study as well as enabling people to sift through the masses of information we are bombarded with through the media.

    It is being offered in only very few schools at the moment at GCSE and A level. I think it should be taught right from the start.

    I believe critical thinking skills are a key to preventing fundamental ideology as well as many other imbalances in perception which are encouraged by ignorance and lack of thinking skills.

    Youngsters would be less susceptible to brain washing, cults and being led astray or easily fooled by so called leaders and their excuses for warmongering.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Selene

    I wish you luck. I suspect one of the bigdifficulties is that teachers will have tyo be prepared to teach this subject. I wonder how many of our educational colleges teach a good course in CT.

    I have copied some stuff from the Internet that was taken from workbooks for children in K-12 that might be of use to you.

    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  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    Ahhh, the art of how to teach idio....ahuhuhuh, the new generation.

    They will still be idiots since they did not seek the information themselves, but it is a start and will perhaps make the world a little better.

    "It is more important to ask questions then to give answers"

    -Some random guy whose name I am too lazy to find right now

    By the way, whats this, "It has been too soon since your last post to post again". Are you kidding me? I POWER post sometimes, what am I to do now?
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Thankyou Cobert for the info

    I have been studying CT for some time now and i hope to do the A level. Unfortunately there are not many adult colleges that take part and only a few schools. If i want to do the A level i need to find a school to do the admin for the OCR.

    It's something i'd like to be able to teach in the future.

    CT is very akin to Philosophy. In fact i would say it is the mechanics and methodology of Philosophical enquiry. It's the essential art of being able to see through fallacy and formulate good arguments.

    Philosophy is the art of analysing different ways of thinking and asking if they work or not.

    CT teaches people how to think and not what to think.

    It's a good way to go and i would have appreciated some critical thinking skills when i was a youngster. It would have saved me a lot of hard work and struggles in order to have been able to do better things and think things through in a more beneficial way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Selene

    I agree. I consider CT to philosophy lite.
    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
  •