CDZ Consequences of potentially being wrong breeds actual "Critical Thinking"

[RandomPoster]

When someone knows that there will be dire personal consequences if he is wrong, he tends to be extremely careful as well as look at the situation from every possible angle. That is the root of the critical thinking that we often ramble about and accuse others of lacking. Most importantly, work that can be objectively evaluated not simply in terms of who you can convince to buy into it, except things that by their very nature lend themselves to quantification and objective analysis, tend to breed calm, cautious purely analytical thinking.

I believe that what we call critical thinking these days is often nothing more than being obnoxious, verbally aggressive and trying to keep the other person forever on the defensive so that your own weak, non-quantifiable claims are never subjected to calm, factual analysis. The weaker the argument, the more you try to shift the burden of proof onto the other person. Think about it, focusing everything on the "critique" favors what types of arguments? Diffuse bullshit can be hard to grab a hold of, hard to quantify, and hard to disprove.

In some courses, we were always taught to build on things and have an appreciation of the established reasoning and facts that created the foundation of the technology and civilization we currently reap the benefits of. In other words, look towards the future and focus on increasing the size of the pie. Lock yourself away from the world, keep your nose to the grindstone, and build the biggest monuments you can. In some fields of study, we were taught that everything needed to be torn down. We were taught that we needed to undermine through subversive social strategies. You know who's goal it is to undermine? You know who avoids quantification and claims that there is no objective reality and that everything is only an opinion? Bullshitters, *****, and con men.

I do not believe that it is simply a coincidence that the more likely a field of study is to require courses in Postmodern "Critical Thinking", the lower the average IQ of the students in the major and the more infested with pseudo-intellectual BS it always turns out to be. I have no doubt that the inverse relationship is certainly "Correlation Without Causation" (technically correct in this case since they already had low IQs before they took "Critical Thinking" courses), "Irrelevant Conclusion", or some other mantra constantly thrown out as cop out bullshit when it almost never applies.

Now that I've had an opportunity to get that out of my system and calm down a bit, please allow me to sum up the point of this long-winded diatribe. Critical Theory is a disgusting, puss-filled festering boil on the ass of humanity. The fact that its founders were influenced by Karl Marx should tell you everything you need to know. Karl Marx has caused more suffering than any human being in the history of the planet. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Che Guevera were misbehaving school boys in comparison to him. Critical Theory is by far the most evil, disruptive and disgusting set of ideas that has ever infested the human race. Its infectiousness is demonstrated right here in this post by the fact that in responding to it, I have been drug down to the very level I would prefer to avoid.

 

[william the wie]

Stop with the sugar coating.

 

[jwoodie]

Critical Theory is a form of logical trickery whereby the critic attempts to shift the burden of proof to those he criticizes (i.e., defending the status quo against a hypothetical ideal). This absolves the critic from having to come up with a better practical alternative or solution to the problem he identifies. Very popular among left wing ideologues.

 

[task0778]

Critical Theory is a form of logical trickery whereby the critic attempts to shift the burden of proof to those he criticizes (i.e., defending the status quo against a hypothetical ideal). This absolves the critic from having to come up with a better practical alternative or solution to the problem he identifies. Very popular among left wing ideologues.

First of all, ideologues from all sides of an issue use this tactic, and frankly I don't see any trickery to it. If you're going to put out some kind of idea, concept, or alternative then you need to have your ducks all lined up, and it is perfectly logical and practical for the rest of us to challenge it. Most of the time "proof" is hard to come by if not impossible, but supporting evidence backed up with acceptable facts and logic should be pretty much required, otherwise don't bother me with grandiose schemes and pie in the sky outcomes. The problem maybe lies in what is acceptable, most of the time we look past the so-called facts to see their origin and sometimes dismiss it as biased. Who can you trust these days to tell you the plain, unvarnished truth? Not too many sources IMHO.

The costs of being wrong can be devastating in some circles, as can bucking the status quo or prevailing thought. Takes a lot of guts to put your reputation out there when you'be got a lot to lose. On this board, there ain't much to lose cuz it's all anonymous; some are going to agree and some are going to disagree and some are going to demagogue you to death, but that's the way it is nowadays and not just on this board either. Until we progress to the point where opposing opinions are allowed and valued, critical thinking is not going to proliferate as it should. We gotta get to where when someone says something we don't agree with we accept it as his/her right and consider the proposal's merits in an unbiased way. That ain't easy, takes effort and some practice but it can be done.

 

[sartre play]

Its critical we start thinking & stop reacting.

 

[jwoodie]

Critical Theory is a form of logical trickery whereby the critic attempts to shift the burden of proof to those he criticizes (i.e., defending the status quo against a hypothetical ideal). This absolves the critic from having to come up with a better practical alternative or solution to the problem he identifies. Very popular among left wing ideologues.

First of all, ideologues from all sides of an issue use this tactic, and frankly I don't see any trickery to it. If you're going to put out some kind of idea, concept, or alternative then you need to have your ducks all lined up, and it is perfectly logical and practical for the rest of us to challenge it. Most of the time "proof" is hard to come by if not impossible, but supporting evidence backed up with acceptable facts and logic should be pretty much required, otherwise don't bother me with grandiose schemes and pie in the sky outcomes. The problem maybe lies in what is acceptable, most of the time we look past the so-called facts to see their origin and sometimes dismiss it as biased. Who can you trust these days to tell you the plain, unvarnished truth? Not too many sources IMHO.

The costs of being wrong can be devastating in some circles, as can bucking the status quo or prevailing thought. Takes a lot of guts to put your reputation out there when you'be got a lot to lose. On this board, there ain't much to lose cuz it's all anonymous; some are going to agree and some are going to disagree and some are going to demagogue you to death, but that's the way it is nowadays and not just on this board either. Until we progress to the point where opposing opinions are allowed and valued, critical thinking is not going to proliferate as it should. We gotta get to where when someone says something we don't agree with we accept it as his/her right and consider the proposal's merits in an unbiased way. That ain't easy, takes effort and some practice but it can be done.

First of all, liberal ideologues are more likely to use this tactic for the simple reason that they are typically the ones challenging the status quo without having a well thought out alternative. Also, the "costs of being wrong" are almost nil in this community because "having your heart in the right place" is always an acceptable excuse. It is also acceptable for them to silence (rather than debate) the opposition, by force if necessary.

P.S. I am talking about Critical Theory (as used by Marx et al) rather than the general subject of critical thinking.

 

[RandomPoster]

If you're going to put out some kind of idea, concept, or alternative then you need to have your ducks all lined up, and it is perfectly logical and practical for the rest of us to challenge it.

As long as we challenge it strictly with calm, dispassionate facts and logic after giving it a fair chance to be presented, that's is exactly how it is supposed to work. However, the focus should be more on the amount and quality of factual evidence in support of it rather than the lack of a critique. Some of the weakest, most hypothetical, most diffuse arguments that are filled with nothing except cheap rhetoric can be some of the hardest to critique. Being difficult to respond to is not necessarily indicative of a strong argument.

Most of the time "proof" is hard to come by if not impossible

Factual evidence is hard to come by, contradictory opinions not so much, and "proof" is impossible.

The problem maybe lies in what is acceptable, most of the time we look past the so-called facts to see their origin and sometimes dismiss it as biased.

All factual evidence is acceptable in that it should be given a fair chance to be presented. No single fact is the last word on the subject, except facts should not be dismissed or looked past simply because of a perceived bias. A fact is not to be judged untrue or irrelevant based on its source, its perceived bias, a lack of credentials on the part of the speaker, or even how offensive it is.

Who can you trust these days to tell you the plain, unvarnished truth? Not too many sources IMHO.

No one can be trusted to tell the plain, unvarnished truth, nor should we expect them to do so. They should be expected to present their arguments as persuasively as they can and allow others a fair chance to present counter-arguments without attempting to disrupt or cover up their message.

The costs of being wrong can be devastating in some circles, as can bucking the status quo or prevailing thought..

Let's compare the consequences of a Gender Studies student lacking calm, cautious, analytical thinking to the consequences of a Chemistry student lacking calm, cautious, analytical thinking. The chemistry student risks blowing up the chemistry lab and killing everyone in the room and he is not going to be able to yell and scream his way out of it. I believe that while this can be perceived as a harsh comparison, I'm not convinced that it is completely unfair and without merit.

Let's look at a different situation on a larger scale. What were the personal consequences to Karl Marx for his godforsaken ideas? No matter how miserably Communism fails everywhere it's been tried, that's just because of a global conspiracy, or a natural grain famine, or some other ad hoc rescue. His ideas were put into practice based solely on hypothetical results because so many people think it would work and his proponents will never stop rationalizing away the massive suffering that resulted in reality. The facts are all irrelevant and the narrative regarding the hypothetical results is all that matters.

Takes a lot of guts to put your reputation out there when you'be got a lot to lose. On this board, there ain't much to lose cuz it's all anonymous;.

Having a lot of guts has nothing to do with being logically correct. Introverted people that are prone to self doubt tend to be less confident, more careful, less impulsive, and less reckless. In fact, there is evidence that high intelligence tends to correlate with introversion, self-doubt, and caution. Give me someone who is paranoid of being wrong over a "critical thinker" any day of the week. In my experience, the critical thinker will often attempt to attack others, shift the burden of proof, and change the subject as quickly and loudly as possible rather than allow the truth to calmly be presented for one microsecond. If the anonymity of the internet allows socially inept individuals who can't stomach the emotionally charged environment of a heated face to face verbal confrontation to express their ideas in an environment where they are less hindered by social anxiety, that is not without positive societal value in my opinion.

Until we progress to the point where opposing opinions are allowed and valued, critical thinking is not going to proliferate as it should.

I say that we need to progress to a point where all viewpoints are allowed to be presented whether we value them or not and not simply for the sake of manners. Pretending there's common ground where none exists is not the only, nor is it the best way, to retain civility and most importantly, a fair exchange of ideas and calm rationality. I say that critical thinking should be replaced with calm, cautious, analytical thinking and that the accusation of bias should not used as a shield. Overall, I mostly agree with a lot of what you said, except see a few things a bit differently.

 

[deanrd]

Republicans don't want their kids to have critical thinking skills. It makes them too independent.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Most importantly, work that can be objectively evaluated not simply in terms of who you can convince to buy into it...

This is a key point - honesty. I tell my daughter all the time, "It makes no difference if anyone else knows what you did, YOU know, and that's what matters most."

Strings of otherwise sound logic a mile long can back someone into a corner or send them running for the hills, if you can just slip your root false premise by them (often without even stating it). Winning a debate isn't what matters most; it's your own honest evaluation of your position. The reason why you're the best judge of your own position is because you know what you're feeling when you put it forth. Your emotional guidance tells you if you're cutting corners, or trying to pass painted block of wood for a bar of gold.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Critical Theory is a form of logical trickery whereby the critic attempts to shift the burden of proof to those he criticizes (i.e., defending the status quo against a hypothetical ideal). This absolves the critic from having to come up with a better practical alternative or solution to the problem he identifies. Very popular among left wing ideologues.

I'd like to acknowledge the universality of polarity here. Evil is just a perversion of good; or we could say, the absence of the good quality of a thing, while maintaining some measure of its form.

I am an anarchist. My position is wholly apophatic. I don't generally find myself arguing for anything, but rather against one thing; namely slavery, in all its myriad forms. It is continually asserted that I have a responsibility to propose something in place of government as a prerequisite for acknowledgement of the validity of my position. This is illogical and inappropriate.

The arguments which compelled me by logical necessity to adopt my position prove beyond refutation that governmental authority is both invalid and immoral (regardless of what standard of morality is held). I implore people to recognize that if they sit anywhere along the political spectrum, they are taking up residence within a mental construct characterized by cognitive dissonance. That their own moral values are undermined by their support of government, and that external authority cannot have valid existence.

Such arguments are not dependent upon offering better practical alternatives; in fact, speculations only distract from their primary focus.

So while there are times when critique can be logical trickery, the opposite pole is a valid usage. I mention this solely for clarification within the larger conversation; a tangential concern brought to mind by your comment. I don't have any reason to believe that your comment denies anything I've said.

 

[jwoodie]

Strings of otherwise sound logic a mile long can back someone into a corner or send them running for the hills, if you can just slip your root false premise by them (often without even stating it). Winning a debate isn't what matters most; it's your own honest evaluation of your position. The reason why you're the best judge of your own position is because you know what you're feeling when you put it forth. Your emotional guidance tells you if you're cutting corners, or trying to pass painted block of wood for a bar of gold.

Sound logic excludes false premises. Debate is simply one method of testing that soundness. Unfortunately, it is also used to undercut logic by inflaming an emotional response to the question at hand. That is why what you are feeling at a particular moment is a very poor way to judge your position (which should have been determined by logic in the first place). However, this is not to say that one's conscience is not a valuable indicator of adherence to a set of moral beliefs.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Strings of otherwise sound logic a mile long can back someone into a corner or send them running for the hills, if you can just slip your root false premise by them (often without even stating it). Winning a debate isn't what matters most; it's your own honest evaluation of your position. The reason why you're the best judge of your own position is because you know what you're feeling when you put it forth. Your emotional guidance tells you if you're cutting corners, or trying to pass painted block of wood for a bar of gold.

Sound logic excludes false premises. Debate is simply one method of testing that soundness. Unfortunately, it is also used to undercut logic by inflaming an emotional response to the question at hand. That is why what you are feeling at a particular moment is a very poor way to judge your position (which should have been determined by logic in the first place). However, this is not to say that one's conscience is not a valuable indicator of adherence to a set of moral beliefs.

Yes, I was careful to say "otherwise" sound logic, meaning that given the false assumption, everything else logically follows. Politicians use this all the time. That's why we've got to be able to trace the argument back to the core premises, and check those for validity first.

Although I understand and agree with what you're saying about emotion, in another sense, what you are feeling is actually a useful way to gauge the validity of your thought, but it's a nuanced process with many pitfalls. Of course sound logic is essential, but we could get a clue to the validity of the aforementioned root premise via emotion. The two must work hand-in-hand. I explored this idea more fully here:

How emotion affects our political views

 

[flacaltenn]

I believe that what we call critical thinking these days is often nothing more than being obnoxious, verbally aggressive and trying to keep the other person forever on the defensive so that your own weak, non-quantifiable claims are never subjected to calm, factual analysis. The weaker the argument, the more you try to shift the burden of proof onto the other person. Think about it, focusing everything on the "critique" favors what types of arguments? Diffuse bullshit can be hard to grab a hold of, hard to quantify, and hard to disprove.

All those negative traits dominant public conversation and the media these days -- but anything AGGRESSIVE is not critical thinking. Critical thinking is not just something you do when a cougar has you cornered, or you're watching the stock market tank. It's a life style tool that you don't turn on and off. You either have adopted it or you haven't.

Critical thinking doesn't guide ARGUMENTS.. It builds your arsenal of well reasoned assertions to be USED in arguments. You can have a "talking head" argument where their prep for the 6 minute segment took about 4 minutes in the Green Room while their make-up went on.

OR you can have a REASONED argument between folks that WON"T ARGUE AT ALL unless they've been critically thinking about the facts and situation for quite awhile.

EVERYONE is a talking head today. EVERYONE has opinions, MOST of which are not driven by any rationale thinking process. You KNOW what they are driven by as soon as their lips move.

And this crap about Critical Thinking coming from Marxists and totalitarians is something that you need a lot of reflection and critical thinking time on. The TOOLS have been around for reasoning thru problems since the Romans and Greeks.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

EVERYONE has opinions, MOST of which are not driven by any rationale thinking process. You KNOW what they are driven by as soon as their lips move.

This is one of the chief dangers of democracy in all its forms. Everyone is made to have an opinion and chime in, whether they have any business doing so or not. Two sides of an issue are proposed, and you are expected to choose one order to fulfill your role as a "responsible citizen". Never mind anything outside those two options, never mind whether you are equipped to make an informed decision or not, never mind if the issue even affects you at all. Given what passes for "debate" in the political arena, I think it's safe to say that people have very low standards for what constitutes "critical thinking".

 

[flacaltenn]

EVERYONE has opinions, MOST of which are not driven by any rationale thinking process. You KNOW what they are driven by as soon as their lips move.

This is one of the chief dangers of democracy in all its forms. Everyone is made to have an opinion and chime in, whether they have any business doing so or not. Two sides of an issue are proposed, and you are expected to choose one order to fulfill your role as a "responsible citizen". Never mind anything outside those two options, never mind whether you are equipped to make an informed decision or not, never mind if the issue even affects you at all. Given what passes for "debate" in the political arena, I think it's safe to say that people have very low standards for what constitutes "critical thinking".

So here's what Critical Thinking says -- If you're faced with folks who are NOT driven by reason and they've clearly SHOWED what motivates them to engage and you're NOT gonna learn anything from engaging them --- don't waste your critical thinking time on the mud wrestle.

Problem with that reasoned approach is -- TODAY, under this whole America circling the drain scenario, you MIGHT run out of folks to talk with.

EVERYONE has biases. I'm not denying that. But you can HAVE biases if you have tried to work the problem/issue from different perspectives and honestly failed to be comfortable with any alternate position.


But you need to be able to calmly and completely explain how you arrived at that bias. That hardly EVER happens nowadays.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

EVERYONE has opinions, MOST of which are not driven by any rationale thinking process. You KNOW what they are driven by as soon as their lips move.

This is one of the chief dangers of democracy in all its forms. Everyone is made to have an opinion and chime in, whether they have any business doing so or not. Two sides of an issue are proposed, and you are expected to choose one order to fulfill your role as a "responsible citizen". Never mind anything outside those two options, never mind whether you are equipped to make an informed decision or not, never mind if the issue even affects you at all. Given what passes for "debate" in the political arena, I think it's safe to say that people have very low standards for what constitutes "critical thinking".

So here's what Critical Thinking says -- If you're faced with folks who are NOT driven by reason and they've clearly SHOWED what motivates them to engage and you're NOT gonna learn anything from engaging them --- don't waste your critical thinking time on the mud wrestle.

Problem with that reasoned approach is -- TODAY, under this whole America circling the drain scenario, you MIGHT run out of folks to talk with.

EVERYONE has biases. I'm not denying that. But you can HAVE biases if you have tried to work the problem/issue from different perspectives and honestly failed to be comfortable with any alternate position.


But you need to be able to calmly and completely explain how you arrived at that bias. That hardly EVER happens nowadays.

Absolutely. It’s an awkwardly convenient position to speak on this topic from a perspective of “other people are stupid and I’m not” but I know I honestly don’t care about winning arguments, I care about everyone being raised to a greater understanding, including myself. I hold my positions by what I perceive to be logical necessity, no matter how inconvenient. I engage in these discussions in the spirit of “Look at this truth I happened upon! Isn’t it great?” or “Here’s what I came up with, check it to make sure I’m thinking straight, and if not, show me how not.”

So I think that’s an earnest effort. I’ve heard it said that “we need to stop making our religion into truth, and start making truth our religion.” You’ve got to be willing to go where the path leads, and even admit when you were wrong. It shouldn’t be thought to reflect poorly upon a person when they learn and grow, so consistency should be reserved for logic, not people. You take some heat for changing, though, I can tell you, and most aren’t even on the path, so the distance grows wider over time.

But alas, principles are to be in the primary place, and so let the chips fall where they may.

“There are two mistakes one can make on the path to truth: Not starting, and not going all the way.” - paraphrased from the Buddha

 

[RandomPoster]

I believe that what we call critical thinking these days is often nothing more than being obnoxious, verbally aggressive and trying to keep the other person forever on the defensive so that your own weak, non-quantifiable claims are never subjected to calm, factual analysis. The weaker the argument, the more you try to shift the burden of proof onto the other person. Think about it, focusing everything on the "critique" favors what types of arguments? Diffuse bullshit can be hard to grab a hold of, hard to quantify, and hard to disprove.

All those negative traits dominant public conversation and the media these days -- but anything AGGRESSIVE is not critical thinking. Critical thinking is not just something you do when a cougar has you cornered, or you're watching the stock market tank. It's a life style tool that you don't turn on and off. You either have adopted it or you haven't.

The focus on the term Critical is a play on words. It should all be about calm, purely rational analysis. That is all there is to it. Another way to describe it is testing. STEM fields demand this by their very nature. If a computer programmer's logic is flawed, the program he has designed and implemented will produce incorrect output. If an engineer's logic is flawed, the machine he has created will crash and burn. If a Math student can't grasp or apply the logical concepts correctly, he will be unable to find the correct solution to the equation.

And this crap about Critical Thinking coming from Marxists and totalitarians is something that you need a lot of reflection and critical thinking time on. The TOOLS have been around for reasoning thru problems since the Romans and Greeks.

Critical Theory is heavily rooted in cultural Marxism, with its foundations in the Frankfurt school. It is typically Liberal Arts programs that talk about Critical Thinking the most and they tend to lean very heavily to the left. It is often touted that a major advantage of majoring in the Liberal Arts, as opposed to other fields, is that you will learn to think critically. There is Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory, Critical Gender Theory, Critical Queer Theory, Critical Feminist Theory, etc. Why no Critical Theory of Gravitational Injustice in Physics complaining about the inequality of density among the various elements or perhaps a critique of the Pythagorean Theorem which attempts to undermine the unearned privilege of right triangles?

I've also noticed that a lot of things from Classical Philosophy are being re-branded as Critical Thinking. Every single positive thing about so-called Critical Thinking is covered by analytical thinking and anything else is simply the wrong way to go about it. I believe that while looking for flaws in your design is crucial, focusing too much on a "critique" favors non-quantifiable claims based entirely on anecdotal and hypothetical evidence and at times leads to shifting the burden of proof knowing that the claims are designed to be non-testable. It's supposed to be a combination of evidence gathering and speech writing. This is all there is in terms of the legitimate exchange of ideas.

I also do not believe that it is simply a co-incidence that the groups of students storming around campuses screaming their heads off are far wing leftists and typically Liberal Arts majors. When was the last time you saw a video on the internet of a group of anyone other than SJWs running around a college campus with air horns trying to shut down a meeting? That behavior is about trying to win an argument by preventing the other person from talking. I believe that it is not totally unrelated to being aggressively critical, which can be used to justify all manner of tactics.

 

[flacaltenn]

Critical Theory is heavily rooted in cultural Marxism, with its foundations in the Frankfurt school. It is typically Liberal Arts programs that talk about Critical Thinking the most and they tend to lean very heavily to the left. It is often touted that a major advantage of majoring in the Liberal Arts, as opposed to other fields, is that you will learn to think critically. There is Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory, Critical Gender Theory, Critical Queer Theory, Critical Feminist Theory, etc. Why no Critical Theory of Gravitational Injustice in Physics complaining about the inequality of density among the various elements or perhaps a critique of the Pythagorean Theorem which attempts to undermine the unearned privilege of right triangles?

Well there is the problem.. That's the "liberal arts" interpretation of the HISTORICAL nature of critical thinking. And of course, the predilection there is to test your skills on societal, political issues that in many cases have no "ground truth". Or you makes LEAPS to truth thru (e.g.) Marxist theory. What ELSE are gonna test it on in a Philosophy or "Logical Thinking" course in the Arts??

But you said it yourself, in the sciences, engineering, math, economics, depts, we wouldn't have gotten to the moon without folks that can create NEW concepts and truths and discoveries with just Greek, Roman, (maybe Marxist) logic and reason. All that is still the foundation of enquiry, but there's discipline and rules and even numerical methods to test and measure knowledge on the STEM side.

I've spent some time in Art. Intelligence and it becomes clear and apparent that to teach a machine to learn and "think" -- YOU have be aware of what learning and thinking is rooted in..

That's MY problem right there.. Because of my career, I'm pretty Vulcan Spock-like about nearly everything in life.. Except just sheer enjoyment of love and nature. That's beyond logic and reason..

 

[jwoodie]

When someone knows that there will be dire personal consequences if he is wrong, he tends to be extremely careful as well as look at the situation from every possible angle.

Critical thinking is a mark of intellectual honesty, not fear of consequences. One way to test this honesty is to observe whether people are willing to answer questions about their conclusions rather than divert to another subject. Especially on this site.