Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Of course your thinking is perfectly sound, obviously, but ideally this will provide structure and terminology to solidify everyone else's understanding and appreciation of that fact. It also has the potential to provide a good resource for quality control in here, if people take advantage of it--we can certainly use more of that!
Scientific Skepticism
"Skepticism" and Ignorance
Open-mindedness
Critical Thinking - How To:
Critical Thinking 101
Wikipedia's List of Fallacies
Popular Fallacies (should be very familiar to everyone here, esp. PP, or any other forum, or those who live amongst humans)
Austhink: Critical Thinking on the Web
The Fallacy Zoo
Logic & Fallacies: Constructing Logical Arguments
Logical Fallacies Handlist
Virtual School: Constructing A Logical Argument
Test and hone your reasoning skills:
Argument analysis practice
Critical thinking blog with exercises and real world tests and examples
I'll look into my own notes, surf the interwebs and consult my professional philosopher friends on other good resources and post the links here. Please feel quite free to submit more links to me so they can be posted here.
Scientific Skepticism
"Skepticism" and Ignorance
Open-mindedness
Critical Thinking - How To:
Critical Thinking 101
Wikipedia's List of Fallacies
Popular Fallacies (should be very familiar to everyone here, esp. PP, or any other forum, or those who live amongst humans)
Austhink: Critical Thinking on the Web
The Fallacy Zoo
Logic & Fallacies: Constructing Logical Arguments
Logical Fallacies Handlist
Virtual School: Constructing A Logical Argument
Test and hone your reasoning skills:
Argument analysis practice
Critical thinking blog with exercises and real world tests and examples
I'll look into my own notes, surf the interwebs and consult my professional philosopher friends on other good resources and post the links here. Please feel quite free to submit more links to me so they can be posted here.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 14, 2011, 05:47AMOf course your thinking is perfectly sound, obviously, but ideally this will provide structure and terminology to solidify everyone else's understanding and appreciation of that fact. It also has the potential to provide a good resource for quality control in here, if people take advantage of it--we can certainly use more of that!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I'll look into my own notes, surf the interwebs and consult my professional philosopher friends on other good resources and post the links here. Please feel quite free to submit more links to me so they can be posted here.
Yippee, we're invited to an "Intellectual Arrogance" pile-on, moderated by non other than the king of such...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I'll look into my own notes, surf the interwebs and consult my professional philosopher friends on other good resources and post the links here. Please feel quite free to submit more links to me so they can be posted here.
Yippee, we're invited to an "Intellectual Arrogance" pile-on, moderated by non other than the king of such...
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Nolabone on Nov 16, 2011, 08:53AMYippee, we're invited to an "Intellectual Arrogance" pile-on, moderated by non other than the king of such...
It's about taking responsible measures in order to ensure your thinking is sound, actually, which is a critical aspect of being genuinely honest.
It's about taking responsible measures in order to ensure your thinking is sound, actually, which is a critical aspect of being genuinely honest.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:37 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
What does forensics have to do with taking honesty seriously????? If you are talking about the study of formal logic, there are definite limits to logic - limits that you either are unaware of or simply choose to ignore. You can be perfectly honest without being logical. And you can be perfectly logical without being honest. Logic has nothing to do with honesty.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:37 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 16, 2011, 09:32AM
It's about taking responsible measures in order to ensure your thinking is sound, actually, which is a critical aspect of being genuinely honest.
Nope, being honest is a habit. Logic has nothing to do with it.
It's about taking responsible measures in order to ensure your thinking is sound, actually, which is a critical aspect of being genuinely honest.
Nope, being honest is a habit. Logic has nothing to do with it.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: bhcordova on Nov 16, 2011, 09:33AMWhat does forensics have to do with taking honesty seriously?????
If you're serious about honestly considering what you understand to be true about X, then you'll take measures to ensure you do in fact understand, and that you're not mistaken or misled. You can be honest and not worry about being mistaken or misled, but if you're really serious about it (because the issue is important to you) it would be irresponsible and counterproductive (and foolish) to just presume and drive on--it would in fact, in many cases, be quite arrogant as well as presumptuous. Hence "Taking Honesty Seriously" rather than just "Being Honest".
I suspect that's why so many people notice arrogance when that's illuminated by others who do take honesty seriously, and if they're intellectually irresponsible they'll have no trouble just presuming the one who caused it to be illuminated is actually the source.
There's arguably a kind of dishonesty behind that (you're claiming, even if only internally, to know and understand something you really don't), but it's not quite what I'd just call flat out dishonesty until it's taken to the level of rhetoric. It's more an issue of intellectual integrity in the sense of structure or effectiveness--the integrity of your thinking.
Quote from: bhcordova on Nov 16, 2011, 09:33AMIf you are talking about the study of formal logic, there are definite limits to logic - limits that you either are unaware of or simply choose to ignore. You can be perfectly honest without being logical. And you can be perfectly logical without being honest. Logic has nothing to do with honesty.
Yup ... that's why I'm talking about "critical thinking" rather than just logic, and why I linked to a bunch of critical thinking material.
If you're serious about honestly considering what you understand to be true about X, then you'll take measures to ensure you do in fact understand, and that you're not mistaken or misled. You can be honest and not worry about being mistaken or misled, but if you're really serious about it (because the issue is important to you) it would be irresponsible and counterproductive (and foolish) to just presume and drive on--it would in fact, in many cases, be quite arrogant as well as presumptuous. Hence "Taking Honesty Seriously" rather than just "Being Honest".
I suspect that's why so many people notice arrogance when that's illuminated by others who do take honesty seriously, and if they're intellectually irresponsible they'll have no trouble just presuming the one who caused it to be illuminated is actually the source.
There's arguably a kind of dishonesty behind that (you're claiming, even if only internally, to know and understand something you really don't), but it's not quite what I'd just call flat out dishonesty until it's taken to the level of rhetoric. It's more an issue of intellectual integrity in the sense of structure or effectiveness--the integrity of your thinking.
Quote from: bhcordova on Nov 16, 2011, 09:33AMIf you are talking about the study of formal logic, there are definite limits to logic - limits that you either are unaware of or simply choose to ignore. You can be perfectly honest without being logical. And you can be perfectly logical without being honest. Logic has nothing to do with honesty.
Yup ... that's why I'm talking about "critical thinking" rather than just logic, and why I linked to a bunch of critical thinking material.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
being honest is character
character is how you act when you think no one is looking
character is how you act when you think no one is looking
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: sly fox on Nov 16, 2011, 09:49AMbeing honest is character
character is how you act when you think no one is looking
Yeah, but you can't very well critically evaluate ideas or claims without the tools you need in order to do the evaluation, and you can't form sound opinions about ideas or claims without critically evaluating them. If you want to hold true opinions rather than just opinions, then you need to develop your tools and apply them. If you profess to hold true opinions without taking the responsibility to vet them properly (or at least reasonably close), then you're being dishonest by virtue of irresponsibility--laziness or bias/investment. It's not quite the same as "active" dishonesty or lying, but it can get pretty damn close. It's like the differences between homicide and manslaughter.
character is how you act when you think no one is looking
Yeah, but you can't very well critically evaluate ideas or claims without the tools you need in order to do the evaluation, and you can't form sound opinions about ideas or claims without critically evaluating them. If you want to hold true opinions rather than just opinions, then you need to develop your tools and apply them. If you profess to hold true opinions without taking the responsibility to vet them properly (or at least reasonably close), then you're being dishonest by virtue of irresponsibility--laziness or bias/investment. It's not quite the same as "active" dishonesty or lying, but it can get pretty damn close. It's like the differences between homicide and manslaughter.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
i think the better analogy, if I may, offer one is:
"ommission/commission"
just a thought.
I was expressing my view on honesty
not the rest of the thread
"ommission/commission"
just a thought.
I was expressing my view on honesty
not the rest of the thread
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:25 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
In addition to understanding logical fallacies, it is also interesting to read about how the brain interprets information imperfectly. I recently read a book by Dan Ariely entitled "The Upside Of Irrationality" which was about some ways in which the brain interprets information irrationally, but in ways which still may sometimes be beneficial.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/books/review/Dunn-t.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/books/review/Dunn-t.html
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
As always, someone else has made my case better than I likely can (at least in essay form):
"Skepticism" and Ignorance
Keep in mind that being "accused" of ignorance isn't inherently an insult--it's what we have before we know something. We're all ignorant of everything we don't already know, and we all were ignorant about everything we now know before we knew it.
"Skepticism" and Ignorance
Keep in mind that being "accused" of ignorance isn't inherently an insult--it's what we have before we know something. We're all ignorant of everything we don't already know, and we all were ignorant about everything we now know before we knew it.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Funny...
According to the narrow-minded logic here, one could never honestly state their emotions including love, hate, joy, and sorrow. At their core, emotions are the antithesis to logic and while influences may be understood the emotions themselves are not. They are also bound within the mind of the beholder and grouped together under common terms based on presumptions. They cannot be verified, effectively recreated, or experienced by others. The best that can be done is to take a scan of the brain during a given emotional period and theorize on it.
So we couldn't "honestly" state our feelings about each other.
And yet... we can and we do.
You know, logical thought, critical thinking, and such can be very beneficial but they aren't even half of our brain's processing capability. It's a funny thought to say that of a full brain we should attempt to restrict it's processing to less then half of it's capability as much as possible. And this is supposedly needed to advance. That's akin to saying to best use our hands we need to limit ourselves to the middle finger as much as possible.
According to the narrow-minded logic here, one could never honestly state their emotions including love, hate, joy, and sorrow. At their core, emotions are the antithesis to logic and while influences may be understood the emotions themselves are not. They are also bound within the mind of the beholder and grouped together under common terms based on presumptions. They cannot be verified, effectively recreated, or experienced by others. The best that can be done is to take a scan of the brain during a given emotional period and theorize on it.
So we couldn't "honestly" state our feelings about each other.
And yet... we can and we do.
You know, logical thought, critical thinking, and such can be very beneficial but they aren't even half of our brain's processing capability. It's a funny thought to say that of a full brain we should attempt to restrict it's processing to less then half of it's capability as much as possible. And this is supposedly needed to advance. That's akin to saying to best use our hands we need to limit ourselves to the middle finger as much as possible.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: B0B on Nov 16, 2011, 11:18AMFunny...
According to the narrow-minded logic here, one could never honestly state their emotions including love, hate, joy, and sorrow.
Yup ... except that it's not at all the logic here, unless of course you're talking about the logic you're applying.
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 16, 2011, 09:49AMYou can be honest and not worry about being mistaken or misled, but if you're really serious about it (because the issue is important to you) it would be irresponsible and counterproductive (and foolish) to just presume and drive on--it would in fact, in many cases, be quite arrogant as well as presumptuous. Hence 'Taking Honesty Seriously' rather than just 'Being Honest'.
Obviously you don't critically assess emotions in the sense you're talking about in the same way you do ideas and claims and such. Emotions come into play when we fail to take proper account for them and we allow them to corrupt the application of our analytical capacities.
According to the narrow-minded logic here, one could never honestly state their emotions including love, hate, joy, and sorrow.
Yup ... except that it's not at all the logic here, unless of course you're talking about the logic you're applying.
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 16, 2011, 09:49AMYou can be honest and not worry about being mistaken or misled, but if you're really serious about it (because the issue is important to you) it would be irresponsible and counterproductive (and foolish) to just presume and drive on--it would in fact, in many cases, be quite arrogant as well as presumptuous. Hence 'Taking Honesty Seriously' rather than just 'Being Honest'.
Obviously you don't critically assess emotions in the sense you're talking about in the same way you do ideas and claims and such. Emotions come into play when we fail to take proper account for them and we allow them to corrupt the application of our analytical capacities.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 16, 2011, 11:27AMYup ... except that it's not at all the logic here, unless of course you're talking about the logic you're applying.followed by...
QuoteEmotions come into play when we fail to take proper account for them and we allow them to corrupt the application of our analytical capacities.Which supports exactly what I said about your views. Again, there is no logic in emotions. So tell me oh great fount of logical know-how, how can we "honestly" tell each other that we love one another if honestly is dependent upon logic?
Emotions and non-logical thought are not just the bad left when logic fails. And in fact, they are much more the reasons our species is still here then logical capabilities. Your reflexes? Those aren't logic. Logic is far too slow and dim-witted.
QuoteEmotions come into play when we fail to take proper account for them and we allow them to corrupt the application of our analytical capacities.Which supports exactly what I said about your views. Again, there is no logic in emotions. So tell me oh great fount of logical know-how, how can we "honestly" tell each other that we love one another if honestly is dependent upon logic?
Emotions and non-logical thought are not just the bad left when logic fails. And in fact, they are much more the reasons our species is still here then logical capabilities. Your reflexes? Those aren't logic. Logic is far too slow and dim-witted.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:37 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 16, 2011, 09:49AM
If you're serious about honestly considering what you understand to be true about X, then you'll take measures to ensure you do in fact understand, and that you're not mistaken or misled. You can be honest and not worry about being mistaken or misled, but if you're really serious about it (because the issue is important to you) it would be irresponsible and counterproductive (and foolish) to just presume and drive on--it would in fact, in many cases, be quite arrogant as well as presumptuous. Hence "Taking Honesty Seriously" rather than just "Being Honest".
I suspect that's why so many people notice arrogance when that's illuminated by others who do take honesty seriously, and if they're intellectually irresponsible they'll have no trouble just presuming the one who caused it to be illuminated is actually the source.
There's arguably a kind of dishonesty behind that (you're claiming, even if only internally, to know and understand something you really don't), but it's not quite what I'd just call flat out dishonesty until it's taken to the level of rhetoric. It's more an issue of intellectual integrity in the sense of structure or effectiveness--the integrity of your thinking.
Yup ... that's why I'm talking about "critical thinking" rather than just logic, and why I linked to a bunch of critical thinking material.
Honesty is a virtue, a habit, a characteristic of an individual. What you are talking about is examining your beliefs. A better title would be "Seriously Examining Your Beliefs." No confusion that way.
If you're serious about honestly considering what you understand to be true about X, then you'll take measures to ensure you do in fact understand, and that you're not mistaken or misled. You can be honest and not worry about being mistaken or misled, but if you're really serious about it (because the issue is important to you) it would be irresponsible and counterproductive (and foolish) to just presume and drive on--it would in fact, in many cases, be quite arrogant as well as presumptuous. Hence "Taking Honesty Seriously" rather than just "Being Honest".
I suspect that's why so many people notice arrogance when that's illuminated by others who do take honesty seriously, and if they're intellectually irresponsible they'll have no trouble just presuming the one who caused it to be illuminated is actually the source.
There's arguably a kind of dishonesty behind that (you're claiming, even if only internally, to know and understand something you really don't), but it's not quite what I'd just call flat out dishonesty until it's taken to the level of rhetoric. It's more an issue of intellectual integrity in the sense of structure or effectiveness--the integrity of your thinking.
Yup ... that's why I'm talking about "critical thinking" rather than just logic, and why I linked to a bunch of critical thinking material.
Honesty is a virtue, a habit, a characteristic of an individual. What you are talking about is examining your beliefs. A better title would be "Seriously Examining Your Beliefs." No confusion that way.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: B0B on Nov 16, 2011, 11:38AMfollowed by...Which supports exactly what I said about your views.
Only by your spin, again.
Let me connect all the dots (hopefully I won't miss any).
Emotions come into play when we fail to take proper account for them and we allow them to corrupt the application of our analytical capacities. Otherwise they're inconsequential--another matter entirely. Just as desserts help us enjoy life, but the failure to exercise discipline regarding desserts--desserts taking over our meals, corrupts our enjoyment and robs us of our health.
Now, Bob, did I just say desserts are bad? You are able to recognize the difference between use and misuse ... no?
Only by your spin, again.
Let me connect all the dots (hopefully I won't miss any).
Emotions come into play when we fail to take proper account for them and we allow them to corrupt the application of our analytical capacities. Otherwise they're inconsequential--another matter entirely. Just as desserts help us enjoy life, but the failure to exercise discipline regarding desserts--desserts taking over our meals, corrupts our enjoyment and robs us of our health.
Now, Bob, did I just say desserts are bad? You are able to recognize the difference between use and misuse ... no?
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 16, 2011, 11:49AMLet me connect all the dots (hopefully I won't miss any).
Emotions come into play when we fail to take proper account for them and we allow them to corrupt the application of our analytical capacities. Otherwise they're inconsequential--another matter entirely.
Emotions are their own form of analytical capability, and by no means inconsequential. They are just as much a part of our thought process as logical capability, and are often much quicker and more accurate at processing complicated situations then logic. I didn't say that you were advocating chopping off the rest of our fingers, just advocating the overuse of one and calling it the most effective way to use our hands.
So, I ask yet again, if logic is an integral part of honesty, then how could someone honestly state that they love another person?
Emotions come into play when we fail to take proper account for them and we allow them to corrupt the application of our analytical capacities. Otherwise they're inconsequential--another matter entirely.
Emotions are their own form of analytical capability, and by no means inconsequential. They are just as much a part of our thought process as logical capability, and are often much quicker and more accurate at processing complicated situations then logic. I didn't say that you were advocating chopping off the rest of our fingers, just advocating the overuse of one and calling it the most effective way to use our hands.
So, I ask yet again, if logic is an integral part of honesty, then how could someone honestly state that they love another person?
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Andrew Meronek on Nov 16, 2011, 10:54AMIn addition to understanding logical fallacies, it is also interesting to read about how the brain interprets information imperfectly. I recently read a book by Dan Ariely entitled "The Upside Of Irrationality" which was about some ways in which the brain interprets information irrationally, but in ways which still may sometimes be beneficial.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/books/review/Dunn-t.html
Yeah, absolutely. You have to acknowledge and accept your (our) limitations, and incorporate them into your critical thinking tool kit in order for that kit to be sound, and if you take honesty seriously you have to be motivated to develop a sound critical thinking tool kit.
Struggling against it, by contrast, is telling.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/books/review/Dunn-t.html
Yeah, absolutely. You have to acknowledge and accept your (our) limitations, and incorporate them into your critical thinking tool kit in order for that kit to be sound, and if you take honesty seriously you have to be motivated to develop a sound critical thinking tool kit.
Struggling against it, by contrast, is telling.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: B0B on Nov 16, 2011, 11:54AMEmotions are their own form of analytical capability, and by no means inconsequential.
Go back to the dessert analog. Does the fact that the failure to exercise discipline in our dessert habits can be seriously detrimental, even fatal, mean that desserts are inconsequential to our lives, or, in fact, quite the contrary?
--
You're coming up with almost random objections here, and presenting them as if you were hurling them at me, seemingly thinking they're going to hurt me or something (intellectually or argumentatively speaking). That's fine, I suppose--your own emotions are your own business and what emotions may be behind what you "throw" aren't technically pertinent. But you're hurling these objections pretty wildly, so they aren't even in play in the field in which this is going on. You need to get some control, and ironically I think you're demonstrating precisely the point I'm making in the effort to refute it.
Quote from: B0B on Nov 16, 2011, 11:54AMThey are just as much a part of our thought process as logical capability, and are often much quicker and more accurate at processing complicated situations then logic.
Yes, but they can also corrupt and even block our analytical process when they take over and suppress our critical intellect. Or are you arguing that it's bad to be too logical, but perfectly okay to be as emotional as you want?
Quote from: B0B on Nov 16, 2011, 11:54AMI didn't say that you were advocating chopping off the rest of our fingers, just advocating the overuse of one and calling it the most effective way to use our hands.
Yes, but you're bringing that position with you--it's not part of what I'm saying. You just don't seem to be willing to interpret what I've posted in any other way. No matter how much I correct you and try to explain it to you, you're still seeing what you want to see.
Quote from: B0B on Nov 16, 2011, 11:54AMSo, I ask yet again, if logic is an integral part of honesty, then how could someone honestly state that they love another person?
Critical thinking, Bob ... critical thinking.
The analysis of ideas and claims and such.
Does critical analysis factor into embracing or kissing the object of your affection?
Well, scratch that ... that could be a sore spot--might get overly personal and reveal too much about your demeanor here. Forget that angle ...
You don't generally engage in critical analysis in the process of hand-to-hand combat either. And speaking of desserts, the enjoyment we derive from them isn't generally about sound analyses or critical reasoning. Do you think those points also invalidate anything I might say about critical thinking?
Go back to the dessert analog. Does the fact that the failure to exercise discipline in our dessert habits can be seriously detrimental, even fatal, mean that desserts are inconsequential to our lives, or, in fact, quite the contrary?
--
You're coming up with almost random objections here, and presenting them as if you were hurling them at me, seemingly thinking they're going to hurt me or something (intellectually or argumentatively speaking). That's fine, I suppose--your own emotions are your own business and what emotions may be behind what you "throw" aren't technically pertinent. But you're hurling these objections pretty wildly, so they aren't even in play in the field in which this is going on. You need to get some control, and ironically I think you're demonstrating precisely the point I'm making in the effort to refute it.
Quote from: B0B on Nov 16, 2011, 11:54AMThey are just as much a part of our thought process as logical capability, and are often much quicker and more accurate at processing complicated situations then logic.
Yes, but they can also corrupt and even block our analytical process when they take over and suppress our critical intellect. Or are you arguing that it's bad to be too logical, but perfectly okay to be as emotional as you want?
Quote from: B0B on Nov 16, 2011, 11:54AMI didn't say that you were advocating chopping off the rest of our fingers, just advocating the overuse of one and calling it the most effective way to use our hands.
Yes, but you're bringing that position with you--it's not part of what I'm saying. You just don't seem to be willing to interpret what I've posted in any other way. No matter how much I correct you and try to explain it to you, you're still seeing what you want to see.
Quote from: B0B on Nov 16, 2011, 11:54AMSo, I ask yet again, if logic is an integral part of honesty, then how could someone honestly state that they love another person?
Critical thinking, Bob ... critical thinking.
The analysis of ideas and claims and such.
Does critical analysis factor into embracing or kissing the object of your affection?
Well, scratch that ... that could be a sore spot--might get overly personal and reveal too much about your demeanor here. Forget that angle ...
You don't generally engage in critical analysis in the process of hand-to-hand combat either. And speaking of desserts, the enjoyment we derive from them isn't generally about sound analyses or critical reasoning. Do you think those points also invalidate anything I might say about critical thinking?
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: bhcordova on Nov 16, 2011, 11:43AMHonesty is a virtue, a habit, a characteristic of an individual. What you are talking about is examining your beliefs. A better title would be "Seriously Examining Your Beliefs." No confusion that way.
Except that it really is about taking honestly seriously and I wanted to make that point, and "beliefs" tends to put a spin on the idea that limits it and sends it in a direction I'd rather avoid.
Except that it really is about taking honestly seriously and I wanted to make that point, and "beliefs" tends to put a spin on the idea that limits it and sends it in a direction I'd rather avoid.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Byron, you are SO DAMN SMUG. Sometimes, I just want to grab hold of you and give you a really good smacking. Either that, or knee you in the privates. Yep, this is an emotional reaction, but my goodness, it would make me feel better.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: RedHotMama on Nov 16, 2011, 12:22PMByron, you are SO DAMN SMUG. Sometimes, I just want to grab hold of you and give you a really good smacking. Either that, or knee you in the privates. Yep, this is an emotional reaction, but my goodness, it would make me feel better.
To what are you referring?
The OP?
Bob's version of my argument re: emotion?
... ?
To what are you referring?
The OP?
Bob's version of my argument re: emotion?
... ?
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Byron, you never cease to amuse.
Logic is at it's most fundamental the equivalent of an on and off switch. It just is. Right or wrong... those are not logical ideas. Good and bad are not either. Logically, if you walk off a cliff as is, you will fall. And logical doesn't care. A logical debate is not logical because logic does not have a motivation for being correct. That is another part of our brain. Your persistence to proselytize logic as exemplified by this thread is not logical. Your arguments are not logical either. Logic just is.
So we have examples like:
QuoteYes, but they can also corrupt and even block our analytical process when they take over and suppress our critical intellect. Or are you arguing that it's bad to be too logical, but perfectly okay to be as emotional as you want?This is not a logical evaluation. My analogy is that logic is like the middle finger on a hand. It is an important and strong part of the hand, but it is only a part. Yours is that emotion is a dessert. Something that is nice, but should not be a major part of subsistence but rather can be done without entirely. Of the two examples given, only yours assumes artificially minimizing one or the other, yet you accuse me of minimizing logic. That is known as projection, and no, it is not logical.
And more like:
QuoteCritical thinking, Bob ... critical thinking.
The analysis of ideas and claims and such.
Does critical analysis factor into embracing or kissing the object of your affection?The major thing logic excels at is essentially cause and result, question and answer. Yet... I have asked a simple question based on your initial premise multiple times. The above is the only time you have attempted to address it and yet you avoid giving an answer. You instead throw out vague and meaningless terms with no relation and then attempt to avoid the question with another question. That would generally be called avoidance.
In fact, for all of your dislike of my position, you offer no logical refutation of my points or position. Instead, it is a list of emotional distractions, labels, blind reiterations of your own points, and miscues that in now way actually address any of the points.
You show all of the logical integrity of a kid who was taught abstinence and resorts to oral and anal sex to avoid having "real" sex.
You have very well developed emotionally defensive capabilities, and yet you use them to insist for logical operations in completely illogical ways.
I don't know why, but the irony is just amusing to me.
B0B
Logic is at it's most fundamental the equivalent of an on and off switch. It just is. Right or wrong... those are not logical ideas. Good and bad are not either. Logically, if you walk off a cliff as is, you will fall. And logical doesn't care. A logical debate is not logical because logic does not have a motivation for being correct. That is another part of our brain. Your persistence to proselytize logic as exemplified by this thread is not logical. Your arguments are not logical either. Logic just is.
So we have examples like:
QuoteYes, but they can also corrupt and even block our analytical process when they take over and suppress our critical intellect. Or are you arguing that it's bad to be too logical, but perfectly okay to be as emotional as you want?This is not a logical evaluation. My analogy is that logic is like the middle finger on a hand. It is an important and strong part of the hand, but it is only a part. Yours is that emotion is a dessert. Something that is nice, but should not be a major part of subsistence but rather can be done without entirely. Of the two examples given, only yours assumes artificially minimizing one or the other, yet you accuse me of minimizing logic. That is known as projection, and no, it is not logical.
And more like:
QuoteCritical thinking, Bob ... critical thinking.
The analysis of ideas and claims and such.
Does critical analysis factor into embracing or kissing the object of your affection?The major thing logic excels at is essentially cause and result, question and answer. Yet... I have asked a simple question based on your initial premise multiple times. The above is the only time you have attempted to address it and yet you avoid giving an answer. You instead throw out vague and meaningless terms with no relation and then attempt to avoid the question with another question. That would generally be called avoidance.
In fact, for all of your dislike of my position, you offer no logical refutation of my points or position. Instead, it is a list of emotional distractions, labels, blind reiterations of your own points, and miscues that in now way actually address any of the points.
You show all of the logical integrity of a kid who was taught abstinence and resorts to oral and anal sex to avoid having "real" sex.
You have very well developed emotionally defensive capabilities, and yet you use them to insist for logical operations in completely illogical ways.
I don't know why, but the irony is just amusing to me.
B0B
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: B0B on Nov 16, 2011, 01:00PMLogic is at it's most fundamental the equivalent of an on and off switch. It just is.
Critical thinking, Bob. The topic here is still critical thinking, not just logic.
Quote from: B0B on Nov 16, 2011, 01:00PMMy analogy is that logic is like the middle finger on a hand. It is an important and strong part of the hand, but it is only a part. Yours is that emotion is a dessert. Something that is nice, but should not be a major part of subsistence but rather can be done without entirely. Of the two examples given, only yours assumes artificially minimizing one or the other, yet you accuse me of minimizing logic. That is known as projection, and no, it is not logical.
Perhaps it appears that way because I was trying to make a point that you're absolutely refusing to accept I was trying to make, and you're shifting the point to the point you want me to be trying to make?
Again, you choose to spin rather than to make any sincere attempt at understanding my actual point.
The hand analogy doesn't work very well, because it's hard to work out how the hand could be made ineffective because another finger had overpowered the middle one (or vice-versa ... whatever). Sugar works though, instead of dessert. Without sugar we simply don't function, and I'd argue that without emotion life would be pretty meaningless.
Now can you actually try and consider the correct context of my comments about emotion?
Quote from: B0B on Nov 16, 2011, 01:00PMAnd more like:The major thing logic excels at is essentially cause and result, question and answer. Yet... I have asked a simple question based on your initial premise multiple times.
No, you've repeatedly asked a question based upon your inaccurate version of my premise, whereas if you weren't dogmatically clinging to your distorted spin on it, you'd realize the question is actually pretty much non-sequitur. This has become the norm with you, Bob. When you come after me you spend all your time arguing some detached version of my points that you've created, and you absolutely will not release your death grip on them, no matter how much correction and explanation you're presented with to straighten it out.
Quote from: B0B on Nov 16, 2011, 01:00PMThe above is the only time you have attempted to address it and yet you avoid giving an answer.
Because there's a fundamental underlying error that would reveal how utterly impertinent the question is if you would allow yourself to recognize it, and because it's purely distraction and distortion.
Also because of all of that, if I just answer your question it will just confuse and probably anger you, and that pattern is tiresome, besides being a complete waste of time. But, if you insist:
"If logic is an integral part of honesty, then how could someone honestly state that they love another person?"
By stating that they love someone whom they love.
But, again, I'm talking about critical thinking here, not just logic. In fact the only time I've even used the term is in links, and in trying to correct you and Billy for using it instead of critical thinking.
Critical thinking, Bob. The topic here is still critical thinking, not just logic.
Quote from: B0B on Nov 16, 2011, 01:00PMMy analogy is that logic is like the middle finger on a hand. It is an important and strong part of the hand, but it is only a part. Yours is that emotion is a dessert. Something that is nice, but should not be a major part of subsistence but rather can be done without entirely. Of the two examples given, only yours assumes artificially minimizing one or the other, yet you accuse me of minimizing logic. That is known as projection, and no, it is not logical.
Perhaps it appears that way because I was trying to make a point that you're absolutely refusing to accept I was trying to make, and you're shifting the point to the point you want me to be trying to make?
Again, you choose to spin rather than to make any sincere attempt at understanding my actual point.
The hand analogy doesn't work very well, because it's hard to work out how the hand could be made ineffective because another finger had overpowered the middle one (or vice-versa ... whatever). Sugar works though, instead of dessert. Without sugar we simply don't function, and I'd argue that without emotion life would be pretty meaningless.
Now can you actually try and consider the correct context of my comments about emotion?
Quote from: B0B on Nov 16, 2011, 01:00PMAnd more like:The major thing logic excels at is essentially cause and result, question and answer. Yet... I have asked a simple question based on your initial premise multiple times.
No, you've repeatedly asked a question based upon your inaccurate version of my premise, whereas if you weren't dogmatically clinging to your distorted spin on it, you'd realize the question is actually pretty much non-sequitur. This has become the norm with you, Bob. When you come after me you spend all your time arguing some detached version of my points that you've created, and you absolutely will not release your death grip on them, no matter how much correction and explanation you're presented with to straighten it out.
Quote from: B0B on Nov 16, 2011, 01:00PMThe above is the only time you have attempted to address it and yet you avoid giving an answer.
Because there's a fundamental underlying error that would reveal how utterly impertinent the question is if you would allow yourself to recognize it, and because it's purely distraction and distortion.
Also because of all of that, if I just answer your question it will just confuse and probably anger you, and that pattern is tiresome, besides being a complete waste of time. But, if you insist:
"If logic is an integral part of honesty, then how could someone honestly state that they love another person?"
By stating that they love someone whom they love.
But, again, I'm talking about critical thinking here, not just logic. In fact the only time I've even used the term is in links, and in trying to correct you and Billy for using it instead of critical thinking.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:37 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Please wake me when anyone in this topic has said anything substantial.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:25 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: B0B on Nov 16, 2011, 11:54AMEmotions are their own form of analytical capability, and by no means inconsequential. They are just as much a part of our thought process as logical capability, and are often much quicker and more accurate at processing complicated situations then logic. I didn't say that you were advocating chopping off the rest of our fingers, just advocating the overuse of one and calling it the most effective way to use our hands.
So, I ask yet again, if logic is an integral part of honesty, then how could someone honestly state that they love another person?
I don't think that you and Byron are that far different here. It may be helpful to point out here, for clarity, that the brain isn't really organized like a hand, with fingers implying rougly equal functions. In a conflict between emotion and logic in the brain, emotion always wins. It's just the way the brain works. Even when someone becomes swayed by a good logical argument, it means that this someone was swayed emotionally to accept a logical argument, or that this someone has an emotional value for logical argument which is stronger than whatever emotional value for other things which would sway opinion in another direction.
I think that Byron's point is to make sure that whenever possible, always tie our underlying beliefs that influence this emotional underpinning of brain function to fact and reason so that the times in which we are swayed away from reality by the emotional side of our brain are minimized. For example, it isn't just accepting the logical value of, say, eliminating the death penalty over an emotional response of revenge, it is preparing ourselves in advance so that revenge doesn't get a chance to push us in an irrational direction regarding the death penalty.
So, I ask yet again, if logic is an integral part of honesty, then how could someone honestly state that they love another person?
I don't think that you and Byron are that far different here. It may be helpful to point out here, for clarity, that the brain isn't really organized like a hand, with fingers implying rougly equal functions. In a conflict between emotion and logic in the brain, emotion always wins. It's just the way the brain works. Even when someone becomes swayed by a good logical argument, it means that this someone was swayed emotionally to accept a logical argument, or that this someone has an emotional value for logical argument which is stronger than whatever emotional value for other things which would sway opinion in another direction.
I think that Byron's point is to make sure that whenever possible, always tie our underlying beliefs that influence this emotional underpinning of brain function to fact and reason so that the times in which we are swayed away from reality by the emotional side of our brain are minimized. For example, it isn't just accepting the logical value of, say, eliminating the death penalty over an emotional response of revenge, it is preparing ourselves in advance so that revenge doesn't get a chance to push us in an irrational direction regarding the death penalty.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: bhcordova on Nov 16, 2011, 01:59PMPlease wake me when anyone in this topic has said anything substantial.
Alright Rip Van Winkle. Nap well.
Alright Rip Van Winkle. Nap well.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 16, 2011, 01:53PMBecause there's a fundamental underlying error that would reveal how utterly impertinent the question is if you would allow yourself to recognize it, and because it's purely distraction and distortion.
Also because of all of that, if I just answer your question it will just confuse and probably anger you, and that pattern is tiresome, besides being a complete waste of time.Your continual spouting off about the emphasis of logic and critical thinking is a tiresome pattern and a waste of time. After all, you've been saying the same thing to the same people for what, almost 10 years now? When has that ever stopped you? Even in this, how many words did you use to say you weren't really going to answer the question?
Quote"If logic is an integral part of honesty, then how could someone honestly state that they love another person?"
By stating that they love someone whom they love.And what part of that involved "critical thinking"?
Such an interesting answer for one who said:
QuoteQuoteWhat does forensics have to do with taking honesty seriously?????If you're serious about honestly considering what you understand to be true about X, then you'll take measures to ensure you do in fact understand, and that you're not mistaken or misled. You can be honest and not worry about being mistaken or misled, but if you're really serious about it (because the issue is important to you) it would be irresponsible and counterproductive (and foolish) to just presume and drive on--it would in fact, in many cases, be quite arrogant as well as presumptuous. Hence "Taking Honesty Seriously" rather than just "Being Honest".
So, if someone just states they love someone whom they love, how do they "ensure [they] do in fact understand [that they love that person], and that [they're] not mistaken or mislead"? After all, it "would be irresponsible and counterproductive (and foolish) to just presume [they loved them] and drive on".
Also because of all of that, if I just answer your question it will just confuse and probably anger you, and that pattern is tiresome, besides being a complete waste of time.Your continual spouting off about the emphasis of logic and critical thinking is a tiresome pattern and a waste of time. After all, you've been saying the same thing to the same people for what, almost 10 years now? When has that ever stopped you? Even in this, how many words did you use to say you weren't really going to answer the question?
Quote"If logic is an integral part of honesty, then how could someone honestly state that they love another person?"
By stating that they love someone whom they love.And what part of that involved "critical thinking"?
Such an interesting answer for one who said:
QuoteQuoteWhat does forensics have to do with taking honesty seriously?????If you're serious about honestly considering what you understand to be true about X, then you'll take measures to ensure you do in fact understand, and that you're not mistaken or misled. You can be honest and not worry about being mistaken or misled, but if you're really serious about it (because the issue is important to you) it would be irresponsible and counterproductive (and foolish) to just presume and drive on--it would in fact, in many cases, be quite arrogant as well as presumptuous. Hence "Taking Honesty Seriously" rather than just "Being Honest".
So, if someone just states they love someone whom they love, how do they "ensure [they] do in fact understand [that they love that person], and that [they're] not mistaken or mislead"? After all, it "would be irresponsible and counterproductive (and foolish) to just presume [they loved them] and drive on".
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
I give up ... you can't correct someone who refuses to accept he may not be right (or one who seems incapable of even conceiving such a thing in this case).
Andrew, you've got it ... I'll try to stay out of the way. I think maybe you can get through here, whereas the mere fact that I'm involved in my own attempts to do so will probably only make the problem worse.
Andrew, you've got it ... I'll try to stay out of the way. I think maybe you can get through here, whereas the mere fact that I'm involved in my own attempts to do so will probably only make the problem worse.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Andrew Meronek on Nov 16, 2011, 02:00PMIn a conflict between emotion and logic in the brain, emotion always wins.Define "wins" please.
When someone is swayed emotionally to accept a logical argument, is the logical part of that argument any less logical for it?
In another vein, is the fact that an argument has a large amount of logical properties somehow inherently better then one that does not have that much logic? And if so, is that not a logical argument?
When someone is swayed emotionally to accept a logical argument, is the logical part of that argument any less logical for it?
In another vein, is the fact that an argument has a large amount of logical properties somehow inherently better then one that does not have that much logic? And if so, is that not a logical argument?
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 16, 2011, 02:06PMI give up ... you can't correct someone who refuses to accept he may not be right (or one who seems incapable of even conceiving such a thing in this case).
Sure, though at no time have I indicated that I cannot be wrong. I have simply asked questions, and provided insight into my thoughts behind them. So unless you can provide examples that dispute the next part, it would not be me you are referring to.
You however, have not actually addressed and answered a single question that I or anyone else here has actually asked you. A very few you have quoted, misstated the position, and talked past, but still not actually answered. Using "logic" or "critical thinking" this is pretty easy to see. Since you make that comment as if you are referring to another person, it looks like you once again fall to emotional projection.
Again, oh the irony in a "critical thinking" discussion.
Sure, though at no time have I indicated that I cannot be wrong. I have simply asked questions, and provided insight into my thoughts behind them. So unless you can provide examples that dispute the next part, it would not be me you are referring to.
You however, have not actually addressed and answered a single question that I or anyone else here has actually asked you. A very few you have quoted, misstated the position, and talked past, but still not actually answered. Using "logic" or "critical thinking" this is pretty easy to see. Since you make that comment as if you are referring to another person, it looks like you once again fall to emotional projection.
Again, oh the irony in a "critical thinking" discussion.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:25 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: B0B on Nov 16, 2011, 02:06PMDefine "wins" please.
I'm too lazy. Use a dictionary.
QuoteWhen someone is swayed emotionally to accept a logical argument, is the logical part of that argument any less logical for it?
No.
QuoteIn another vein, is the fact that an argument has a large amount of logical properties somehow inherently better then one that does not have that much logic? And if so, is that not a logical argument?
Is this a rhetorical question?
I'm too lazy. Use a dictionary.
QuoteWhen someone is swayed emotionally to accept a logical argument, is the logical part of that argument any less logical for it?
No.
QuoteIn another vein, is the fact that an argument has a large amount of logical properties somehow inherently better then one that does not have that much logic? And if so, is that not a logical argument?
Is this a rhetorical question?
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: RedHotMama on Nov 16, 2011, 12:22PMByron, you are SO DAMN SMUG.
Funny enough, the thing he most reminds me of is when I heard a "devout Christian" emphatically state that Jesus did not drink wine because it was a sin. This person was also very proud to be an "intelligent" member of his church, in that he was wise in the underlying theology behind it.
Apparently in there he forgot that his church recognized only two sacraments: baptism, and communion. And that in one of those, he actually gave wine to his followers saying it was his blood and to drink said wine in remembrance of him.
Funny enough, the thing he most reminds me of is when I heard a "devout Christian" emphatically state that Jesus did not drink wine because it was a sin. This person was also very proud to be an "intelligent" member of his church, in that he was wise in the underlying theology behind it.
Apparently in there he forgot that his church recognized only two sacraments: baptism, and communion. And that in one of those, he actually gave wine to his followers saying it was his blood and to drink said wine in remembrance of him.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:25 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 16, 2011, 02:06PMAndrew, you've got it ... I'll try to stay out of the way. I think maybe you can get through here, whereas the mere fact that I'm involved in my own attempts to do so will probably only make the problem worse.
Well, that's good to know that I generally understand where you're coming from. However, I'm now off to play a gig. Cheerio!
Well, that's good to know that I generally understand where you're coming from. However, I'm now off to play a gig. Cheerio!
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Andrew Meronek on Nov 16, 2011, 02:16PMI'm too lazy. Use a dictionary. A dictionary does not define the use of "wins" in a contest of two non-competing things. I use my arms for picking things up, and my legs for walking. The fact that I can employ both at once to carry something across the room neither requires conflict nor a "winner". It is the same for grasping with multiple fingers and just about every other part of our body, mentally and physically, and that includes logical and various methods of non-logical thinking. So I'm wondering either how you feel that there can be a winner without competition, or where the competition is?
QuoteNo.Good.
QuoteIs this a rhetorical question?Nope.
QuoteNo.Good.
QuoteIs this a rhetorical question?Nope.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
I generally stay out of debates these days as I've discovered I don't debate well, but that doesn't make me wrong, it only makes me a poor debater. In other words, IMHO: all winning a debate proves is that you are the superior debater, it does not prove you are correct.
Forensics:
At its best, forensic science (as distinct from empirical science) is really just guessing and at its worst, wild speculation.
Logic (yes, I cherry picked these - make sure you read the last one):
QuoteLogic and mathematics are nothing but specialised linguistic structures.
Jean Piaget
QuoteLogic can often be reversed, but the effect does not precede the cause.
Gregory Bateson
QuoteLogic is a poor model of cause and effect.
Gregory Bateson
QuoteLogic is in the eye of the logician.
Gloria Steinem
QuoteLogic is like the sword - those who appeal to it, shall perish by it.
Samuel Butler
QuoteLogic is neither a science nor an art, but a dodge.
Benjamin Jowett
QuoteLogic teaches rules for presentation, not thinking.
Mason Cooley
QuoteLogic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.
Albert Einstein
QuoteLogic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.
Ambrose Bierce
QuoteLogic! Good gracious! What rubbish!
E. M. Forster
QuoteNo mistake is more common and more fatuous than appealing to logic in cases which are beyond her jurisdiction.
Samuel Butler
QuoteOne of the best things to come out of the home computer revolution could be the general and widespread understanding of how severely limited logic really is.
Frank Herbert
QuotePain always produces logic, which is very bad for you.
Frank O'Hara
QuoteThose who desire to rise as high as our human condition allows, must renounce intellectual pride, the omnipotence of clear thinking, belief in the absolute power of logic.
Alexis Carrel
QuoteWe especially need imagination in science. It is not all mathematics, nor all logic, but it is somewhat beauty and poetry.
Maria Montessori
QuoteWe live in a Newtonian world of Einsteinian physics ruled by Frankenstein logic.
David Russell
and finally:
QuoteLogic is the art of going wrong with confidence
Joseph Wood Krutch
Forensics:
At its best, forensic science (as distinct from empirical science) is really just guessing and at its worst, wild speculation.
Logic (yes, I cherry picked these - make sure you read the last one):
QuoteLogic and mathematics are nothing but specialised linguistic structures.
Jean Piaget
QuoteLogic can often be reversed, but the effect does not precede the cause.
Gregory Bateson
QuoteLogic is a poor model of cause and effect.
Gregory Bateson
QuoteLogic is in the eye of the logician.
Gloria Steinem
QuoteLogic is like the sword - those who appeal to it, shall perish by it.
Samuel Butler
QuoteLogic is neither a science nor an art, but a dodge.
Benjamin Jowett
QuoteLogic teaches rules for presentation, not thinking.
Mason Cooley
QuoteLogic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.
Albert Einstein
QuoteLogic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.
Ambrose Bierce
QuoteLogic! Good gracious! What rubbish!
E. M. Forster
QuoteNo mistake is more common and more fatuous than appealing to logic in cases which are beyond her jurisdiction.
Samuel Butler
QuoteOne of the best things to come out of the home computer revolution could be the general and widespread understanding of how severely limited logic really is.
Frank Herbert
QuotePain always produces logic, which is very bad for you.
Frank O'Hara
QuoteThose who desire to rise as high as our human condition allows, must renounce intellectual pride, the omnipotence of clear thinking, belief in the absolute power of logic.
Alexis Carrel
QuoteWe especially need imagination in science. It is not all mathematics, nor all logic, but it is somewhat beauty and poetry.
Maria Montessori
QuoteWe live in a Newtonian world of Einsteinian physics ruled by Frankenstein logic.
David Russell
and finally:
QuoteLogic is the art of going wrong with confidence
Joseph Wood Krutch
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 16, 2011, 02:24PMI generally stay out of debates these days as I've discovered I don't debate well, but that doesn't make me wrong, it only makes me a poor debater. In other words, IMHO: all winning a debate proves is that you are the superior debater, it does not prove you are correct. . . .
every debate contest, academic debate that I am aware of, was judged not on the "merit" - who was correct - but rather on the way the debate was conducted.
that is what I was told to judge on when I was a judge for them.
jmvho, ymmv
every debate contest, academic debate that I am aware of, was judged not on the "merit" - who was correct - but rather on the way the debate was conducted.
that is what I was told to judge on when I was a judge for them.
jmvho, ymmv
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Thank you Sly Fox, you make my point nicely, but not all debates are formal contests. witness this thread...
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: sly fox on Nov 16, 2011, 02:27PMevery debate contest, academic debate that I am aware of, was judged not on the "merit" - who was correct - but rather on the way the debate was conducted.
that is what I was told to judge on when I was a judge for them.
jmvho, ymmv
Which is quite sensible when you consider that all a debate really is is a set of emotional appeals of persuasion.
It's part of what I find funny about these persuasive attempts to say that we shouldn't be swayed by persuasion. It's like talking about silence. The very act of what Byron attempted to do is in direct conflict with his stated goals.
that is what I was told to judge on when I was a judge for them.
jmvho, ymmv
Which is quite sensible when you consider that all a debate really is is a set of emotional appeals of persuasion.
It's part of what I find funny about these persuasive attempts to say that we shouldn't be swayed by persuasion. It's like talking about silence. The very act of what Byron attempted to do is in direct conflict with his stated goals.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
this thread is a discussion, not a debate
jmvho
jmvho
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: sly fox on Nov 16, 2011, 02:37PMthis thread is a discussion, not a debate
jmvho
Really? It seems so much more competitive than that...
jmvho
Really? It seems so much more competitive than that...
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
i never said whether it was a "good", "bad" or even "civil" discussion
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 16, 2011, 02:06PMI give up ... you can't correct someone who refuses to accept he may not be right (or one who seems incapable of even conceiving such a thing in this case).
Actually, with the above whine, BVB summed up this entire thread.
Also, in criticising someone else, he also clearly summed up the futility of anyone attempting to discuss, argue, or debate one of his (BVB's) predictably vague and slippery points.
Actually, with the above whine, BVB summed up this entire thread.
Also, in criticising someone else, he also clearly summed up the futility of anyone attempting to discuss, argue, or debate one of his (BVB's) predictably vague and slippery points.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 16, 2011, 02:24PMI generally stay out of debates these days as I've discovered I don't debate well, but that doesn't make me wrong, it only makes me a poor debater. In other words, IMHO: all winning a debate proves is that you are the superior debater, it does not prove you are correct.
Absolutely!
I have little to no interest in debates because of precisely that, plus the fact that public debates almost always serve no purpose other than for those on both sides and their supporters to all leave thinking their "champion" won and clearly validated their position rhetorically.
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 16, 2011, 02:24PMForensics:
At its best, forensic science (as distinct from empirical science) is really just guessing and at its worst, wild speculation.
Yeah, you're right, man. That term was a bad idear.
It's now "Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously".
Thanks for pointing that out--I'd lost sight of the heading amidst all this mental chaos and nonsense.
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 16, 2011, 02:51PMReally? It seems so much more competitive than that...
Yeah ... exactly.
That nonsense.
Absolutely!
I have little to no interest in debates because of precisely that, plus the fact that public debates almost always serve no purpose other than for those on both sides and their supporters to all leave thinking their "champion" won and clearly validated their position rhetorically.
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 16, 2011, 02:24PMForensics:
At its best, forensic science (as distinct from empirical science) is really just guessing and at its worst, wild speculation.
Yeah, you're right, man. That term was a bad idear.
It's now "Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously".
Thanks for pointing that out--I'd lost sight of the heading amidst all this mental chaos and nonsense.
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 16, 2011, 02:51PMReally? It seems so much more competitive than that...
Yeah ... exactly.
That nonsense.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
I'm trying to advocate critical thinking here for all sorts of reasons, all of which it seems should be self-evident (or at least the merits of advocating critical thinking, it seems, should be a pretty apparent to just about everyone), but one of the biggest problems is the Dunning-Kruger Effect, but I think the vast majority dramatically overestimate their reasoning abilities. We're far more fallible creatures in this sense than many are willing to even consider, as evidenced by the fact most people think they don't need to learn critical thinking skills, but can already think quite critically.
In a society that functions under a democratic system and relies upon the general public to select its leaders and to serve as its jurors to mete out justice, this is a recipe for ... well, what we're seeing now, and that's just for starters. It's a recipe for genuine disaster.
To make a futile, perhaps even presumptuous gesture at heading off some of the first "observations" I expect to see regarding this post ... I don't overestimate my ability to reason, which is precisely why I so intently advocate and focus on the established standards of critical thinking rather than my own, "raw" intellect and the humility and self-discipline to subjugate our own perceptions and sensibilities to those standards. That's more or less what Lawrie's post was about a little while back (I trust Lawrie will correct me on that if I'm mistaken, and will hopefully elaborate on and clarify it in any case). I'm very quick to say "I don't know" and very slow to form conclusions. I would argue this is due to intellectual responsibility and the humility to place proper standards over personal perceptions or sentiments. What many seem to really resent (I mean really resent in some cases) is when I recognize and point out when others indicate they're doing the opposite. Also, intellect is by no means any guarantee of critical thinking, and in fact smarter people can often just be more effective self-deceivers and buelshite apologists.
In a society that functions under a democratic system and relies upon the general public to select its leaders and to serve as its jurors to mete out justice, this is a recipe for ... well, what we're seeing now, and that's just for starters. It's a recipe for genuine disaster.
To make a futile, perhaps even presumptuous gesture at heading off some of the first "observations" I expect to see regarding this post ... I don't overestimate my ability to reason, which is precisely why I so intently advocate and focus on the established standards of critical thinking rather than my own, "raw" intellect and the humility and self-discipline to subjugate our own perceptions and sensibilities to those standards. That's more or less what Lawrie's post was about a little while back (I trust Lawrie will correct me on that if I'm mistaken, and will hopefully elaborate on and clarify it in any case). I'm very quick to say "I don't know" and very slow to form conclusions. I would argue this is due to intellectual responsibility and the humility to place proper standards over personal perceptions or sentiments. What many seem to really resent (I mean really resent in some cases) is when I recognize and point out when others indicate they're doing the opposite. Also, intellect is by no means any guarantee of critical thinking, and in fact smarter people can often just be more effective self-deceivers and buelshite apologists.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 16, 2011, 05:34PMI'm trying to advocate critical thinking here for all sorts of reasons, all of which it seems should be self-evident (or at least the merits of advocating critical thinking, it seems, should be a pretty apparent to just about everyone), but one of the biggest problems is the Dunning-Kruger Effect, but I think the vast majority dramatically overestimate their reasoning abilities. We're far more fallible creatures in this sense than many are willing to even consider, as evidenced by the fact most people think they don't need to learn critical thinking skills, but can already think quite critically.
...
I don't overestimate my ability to reason...
Now that's just funny! What's even more, is I seriously doubt you know why! So much for ability to reason!
...
I don't overestimate my ability to reason...
Now that's just funny! What's even more, is I seriously doubt you know why! So much for ability to reason!
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 16, 2011, 02:06PMI give up ... you can't correct someone who refuses to accept he may not be right (or one who seems incapable of even conceiving such a thing in this case).
I read a book last year called Being Wrong. (I think, anyway; it's been a while. I possibly gave a book report here).
It talked about our capacity for error and how easily we deceive ourselves. There were a number of cases of people expressing positions that later turned out to be spectacularly wrong. In most of these they were unable to remember having held the false position.
One point that was made is that it is impossible to experience being wrong. When inconvenient facts get in the way and you have to change your mind, you have moved from being right on position A to being right on position B. The subjective experience of being wrong on position A doesn't seem to exist.
I read a book last year called Being Wrong. (I think, anyway; it's been a while. I possibly gave a book report here).
It talked about our capacity for error and how easily we deceive ourselves. There were a number of cases of people expressing positions that later turned out to be spectacularly wrong. In most of these they were unable to remember having held the false position.
One point that was made is that it is impossible to experience being wrong. When inconvenient facts get in the way and you have to change your mind, you have moved from being right on position A to being right on position B. The subjective experience of being wrong on position A doesn't seem to exist.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: timothy42b on Nov 16, 2011, 07:48PMI read a book last year called Being Wrong. (I think, anyway; it's been a while. I possibly gave a book report here).
It talked about our capacity for error and how easily we deceive ourselves. There were a number of cases of people expressing positions that later turned out to be spectacularly wrong. In most of these they were unable to remember having held the false position.
One point that was made is that it is impossible to experience being wrong. When inconvenient facts get in the way and you have to change your mind, you have moved from being right on position A to being right on position B. The subjective experience of being wrong on position A doesn't seem to exist.
There is a sense of realizing you're wrong though. People may not experience being wrong, but there's at the very least a point of realization that you need to change your position.
Given this theory, the next obvious question seems to be what makes people more or less resistant to recognizing the need to change positions and actually making the change?
Also, when you hold positions tentatively and remain open to changing them if new information establishes the need, where does being wrong really come into play? By contrast if you hold positions absolutely and presume they're correct regardless of what new information may say, when can being wrong come into play (i.e. how can any errors be discovered and corrected)?
These are some really key issues with critical thinking--good stuff!
It talked about our capacity for error and how easily we deceive ourselves. There were a number of cases of people expressing positions that later turned out to be spectacularly wrong. In most of these they were unable to remember having held the false position.
One point that was made is that it is impossible to experience being wrong. When inconvenient facts get in the way and you have to change your mind, you have moved from being right on position A to being right on position B. The subjective experience of being wrong on position A doesn't seem to exist.
There is a sense of realizing you're wrong though. People may not experience being wrong, but there's at the very least a point of realization that you need to change your position.
Given this theory, the next obvious question seems to be what makes people more or less resistant to recognizing the need to change positions and actually making the change?
Also, when you hold positions tentatively and remain open to changing them if new information establishes the need, where does being wrong really come into play? By contrast if you hold positions absolutely and presume they're correct regardless of what new information may say, when can being wrong come into play (i.e. how can any errors be discovered and corrected)?
These are some really key issues with critical thinking--good stuff!
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:25 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: B0B on Nov 16, 2011, 02:23PMA dictionary does not define the use of "wins" in a contest of two non-competing things.
Neither did I.
QuoteI use my arms for picking things up, and my legs for walking. The fact that I can employ both at once to carry something across the room neither requires conflict nor a "winner". It is the same for grasping with multiple fingers and just about every other part of our body, mentally and physically, and that includes logical and various methods of non-logical thinking. So I'm wondering either how you feel that there can be a winner without competition, or where the competition is?
Okay, to use your example of arms, if I flex my bicep, my arm curls. If I flex my tricep, my arm straightens out. Flex both, and which ever wins (unless both apply equal force) causes the arm to curl or straighten. Muscles can be competing. So can different parts of the brain.
Neither did I.
QuoteI use my arms for picking things up, and my legs for walking. The fact that I can employ both at once to carry something across the room neither requires conflict nor a "winner". It is the same for grasping with multiple fingers and just about every other part of our body, mentally and physically, and that includes logical and various methods of non-logical thinking. So I'm wondering either how you feel that there can be a winner without competition, or where the competition is?
Okay, to use your example of arms, if I flex my bicep, my arm curls. If I flex my tricep, my arm straightens out. Flex both, and which ever wins (unless both apply equal force) causes the arm to curl or straighten. Muscles can be competing. So can different parts of the brain.