I like this. It gets at something Ive been saying for a long time: most people who advocate critical thinking dont actually understand what it actually involves, and therefore corrupt the concept (Im looking at you, Skeptics and New Athiests!). I have heard both groups in that paranthetical advocate actively avoiding understanding the arguments of their opposition--which is the OPPOSITE of critical thinking! The failures of religion are well-enough publicized that they need not be enumerated here. Critical thinking is analysis--literally, breaking down arguments into their constituent components, and determining if those components are in fact valid. And outside of a few classes and three books Ive read, no one gets it right. If my sister is correct, most people actively reject those few resources that portray it correctly (note that those are the ones that Im familiar with--they may accept other versions, but I havent seen it). The problem isnt critical thinking. We need to teach everyone to analyze arguments and determine if the chain of reasoning is valid. However, in order to do that we need to understand it ourselves. And those who advocate critical thinking most often disguise acceptance of their dogma under the guise of critical thinking. One of the fastest ways Ive heard to be excused from jury duty is to say that you are trained to reach conclusions based on evidence. That says everything that need be said on this topic.
Posted on: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 03:14:34 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015