Dr. Richard Paul defines the universal standards with which thinking may be "taken apart" evaluated and assessed. Excerpted from the Socratic Questioning Video Series from the Foundation for Critical Thinking.
To sum all this up ; Be aware of your thinking by altering your ego and emotional state of mind. Re evaluate your perception by understanding the importance of what is real and what is thought of as not supportive information. Think simple, live freely. Reality is a false elemental fragment of perception in nature. The answer lies within, not out there. Look deep inside yourself for there you will find your true potential to process higher levels of thinking and understanding when applied. - ZS
@1Mperios The ability of thinking that comes from birth is different from the one we are talking about. Not every thinking is critical. Our organ brain is not only responsible for thinking, as you know, it controls the mechanisms of our organs and the way our body works. Thinking is only a part of it. Sometimes people improve this ability of thinking, just like you improving your ability of talking, cycling, driving, reading, speaking, listening, swimming, preparing hand made crafts.
Alfred Korzybski´s work was good on this. A is not A, A is only a label. Logic and maths may be good for counting beans or money but it isn´t always the best way to talk with people or to argue or to get clarity. Contemplative practises for example meditation has actually proven to improve executive decision making, empathy, memory and reduces fear and anxiety. In a purely logical argument, involving persuasion, rhetoric, where people try to outwit, overcome each other in a debate in useless.
I agree with aimson. Most people who mock these lectures do not understand them, thus merely showing for the rest of us who do grasp the significance of the lecture how ignorant they really are.
A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact, even though he is an evolutionist: The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.
I am saying the continuum from vagueness to clarity exists, but there are a variety of frames of this continuum. Vagueness to you is not vagueness to me, depending on the cultural context. Interpreters always face this problem. You can´t translate terms that have no meaning in another culture. You can only find an approximate equivalent. This is why when you read a translation and it sounds perfect, a work of genius, you can thank the translator, rather than the original writer..
Further, if people thought critically, most religions would fade to myth. As a result, people would be allowed to focus on making the most out of our one & only life (as far as anyone rightly knows) instead of obsessing about which afterlife party they are going to be admitted to. Cheers and let reason prevail
@1Mperios Continued: So, Critical thinking is an ability. If you are positively disposed to use this skill, then you improve this skill. It works like a habit. Just if you are positively disposed and improved you skill of interpretation, evaluation, analysis, and synthesis, than mean you became more and more critical in thinking (Critical Theory). This theory is supported by John DEWEY and Kurt LEVIN. In addition, I am not talking about neglecting love but rather escaping from freedom.
If I say ´satori´ or ´enlightnement´ or ´moksha´ or ´nirvana´..these words have different meanings in different contexts. The primary misunderstanding comes from the West, that likes to think that finding definitions of these experiences, turning them into concepts that can be talked about it a way of understanding them. Each time they do this, they reduce the infinite experience into a finite set of words. The reality of practises, motivations, humanity behind them get lost in academic games.
@TheSpiritualMolecule Baloney, Emotion and rationality are not mutually exclusive. That too can be demonstrated succinctly via the sentential calculus. One can be very emotional and still be completely logical.
that it strange. i remember in the soviet union, there was an opinion among university professors that students who have a hard time thinking join the philosophy programs, and those who know how to think, join precise science programs.
Correction: there are three types of knowledge. Perception, inference, testimony. My 'lot of words' required 'meaningful' development. Ergo, my 'lot of words' are meaningless or at least less meaningful than the development they need. Thus, the inference that you consider a certain type of 'logic' (which you obviously advocate) superior to a 'lot of words'. It's amazing to think, in this day and age, Vulcans like you still exist. Learn to be a human being, man..
Concepts come from experience. Conservative and liberal experiences, not to mention mystical experiences are different culturally. A concept is 'interpreted' differently. Concepts therefore do not have steady, permanent definitions. Read George Lakoff's 'Looks like an Elephant' or his longer 'Moral Politics', or even his more technical book on linguistics 'women, fire and dangerous things'..
Yes. Indefinitely. It's only a matter of time. But, I don't think the idea of a higher power would be abolished. That idea is impossible to escape unless you wholly ignore it. Which I can't, as I'm a critical thinking person. :)
@stiaa04 Yes, I take what i said back about there being no more Einsteins. And my perspective changed a little from when I last commented. There really isn't a right or wrong answer to this. For example: Being a bosses assistant might call for being more creative to give him more ideas. And if you are a boss you might gain from being a concrete thinker. And you brought forth really good facts that got me thinking. Thanks!
i am only doing this for english. jk guys great video. Looking forward to improve my intellectual ability and enhance the speed and accuracy of my thought process.
@kingofaikido " 'Clarity' presents a false front of clarity." [A] presents a false front of [A]... Well let's have some fun and think of substitutes for A: gold, honesty, logic, relevance, and so on. Why is your statement valid especially for 'clarity'?
@Mu5clehead Calm down, #1 he didn't say that he quoted it from the professor. #2 The professor didn't claim that either, you assumed it. #3 He implied that better candidates must have been available.
Asking more questions than usual, pointing out areas that are unclear, assumptions or concepts not explicitly stated, or perhaps discovering sophistic tactics at play such as the use of logical fallacies.
@nVei06 If that is your attitude then you've completely missed the point of this presentation. Critical thinking is not supposed to make you angrily condemn everyone who doesn't share your views. It is supposed to help you rationally criticize ideas you don't agree with, and always say to yourself, "Hey, there's a chance I might be wrong, and the people whose political opinions I dislike might be right. If I sociocentrically believe that my peers are always right, I am deceiving myself."
It's mostly the people that don't know how to think that will completely ignore anything related to education on how to think, thus invalidating a great deal of good these kinds of lectures do. Don't even get me started on meta-thought...
Well, this doesn't make sense because it takes precision of thinking to be a philosopher. It's no coincidence that the greatest philosophers in history were also the smartest and most thoughtful people. There is often a blur between philosophy and science - simply read the works of Albert Einstein or Carl Sagan. Perhaps the biggest difference is that philosophy is more concerned with ideas while science is more concerned with empirical knowledge. Questions, of course, are the foundation of both.
@YAMAHADIVERSION33 ´A´ is different to A. Any further questions? A is not A is basic to oriental thinking. Answer: it depends on the context. Clarity is false because the idea is supposed to be like a mathematical equation like 2=2. A black man is a black man. Racism is racism. A white man however is never white. He´s usually a White Anglo-Saxon Patriarch, aka WASP. However, there are different varieties. White is therefore not white. Comprende? Speaking of your choice of words though..
@kingofaikido ´Gold´: prices vary. Honesty: again, the meaning varies culturally.. Logic: different forms of logic exist, long battle that one. Relevance: again, depends who you ask. And so on... So long as one is bound within one´s own culutral ´logic´, logic takes a singular character. Check out the Buddhistis non-dual logic for e.g. A is both A and not-A. Taoism similar. Is your logic therefore uppermost in your mind? Then, ask why.. The answer makes you critical.
@@DreamBeatsBakery haha, I get you're joking, however i find it interesting at 7:44 when Richard points out a world where that type of over-precision would be counter productive. I kind of imagine this over-precision like watching an action movie in which all contextual details are included, like the times the main characters go to the toilet, sleep etc, it would be laborious... So the enjoyment comes from assuming the context and just playing with the key ideas
@SirWinstonChurchill Why do you say morality and religion are imaginary? I do, and almost all people do feel good and benefit from the kindness performed by others unto themselves. Please clarify. What is the psychology of error? Please enlighten. I know for one that in Confucianism, which is non-religious, that doing good is not dictated by any supernatural force, but for the collective well-being and survival for society and humankind. Thanks.
Still clueless what critical thinking is. Well I guess I am a moron because I'm just not getting it. I took it college. Failed faked it to pass it. Still no clue. I thought by listening to his class. Can someone please tell me teach me critical thinking!!!!!!!
Dear tish addams, A brief definition would be 'thinking about your thinking with an aim to improve it.' A slightly more elaborate definition would be 'breaking thought down into its elements and assessing each part according to intellectual standards in order to develop positive intellectual traits over time.' If you look up the definition of critical thinking on our website (the Foundation for Critical Thinking), the concept will be explained in much more detail. There are other articles there too which will provide a lot more information about critical thinking. We hope this helps; thanks!
Still looking ct up in and other videos, maybe I’ll get it. You’d think after 2 classes in ct, still unclear still clueless. It so crazy, I’m certainly not stupid, however my brain refuses to understand this :(. Thanks anyway.
Conceptual 'clarity' is not useless. The Pentagon and the US President have a lot of clarity. War works, for example. Meditation offers a better form of clarity as it rids us entirely of the urge to be aggressive. Thinking of harming another becomes literally impossible. This is not conceptual clarity and conceptual clarity will get you nowhere fast, like a new year resolution that wanes after the first defeat..
Yeah, some critical thinkers think they can think their way out of these things, rather than experience their emotional and sensational undercurrents. All thoughts arise out of sensations. Sensations cause our thoughts. Our attachment to our sensations, pleasant or unpleasant, makes us an adversarial culture. That, and attachment to 'ego'. Too bad we haven't progressed. We never learned of Alexander the Great's great regret that he had wasted everyone's time by invading India...
You're referring to punctuated equilibrium, and no, it doesn't refute Evolution. Scientists will always debate various details about Evolution but the Theory itself is solid and continues to be confirmed by multiple lines of inquiry. Quote from Ager in his book The New Catastrophism: "..nothing in this book should be taken out of context & thought in any way to support the views of the 'creationists' (who I refuse to call 'scientific')". Apparently some are twisting his words for their agenda.
? where is the explanation? I must have missed it? Concept equals concept doesn't do it for me I'm afraid. A=A, where's the context there. Perhaps if you'd mentioned Aristotle, then I might give you half points.
Your imperfections are yours. Don't know what they are so I can't comment. If thinking critically helps you sort out your oranges and pears, who am I to complain? But, you must see the cultural logic inside the techniques you use. It's likely the result will be a false sense of security. Clarity of thinking on the surface, a boiling cauldron of contradictions in the deep.
Scientific Theories don't get to be Theories unless they have withstood rigorous tests of critical thought at the highest level. The reason the Theory of Evolution is a fact of science is because it has been subjected to peer review and has withstood falsification from every relevant branch of science. It sounds like you probably haven't done much research into the scientific literature. I'd like to suggest Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True". Or consult an evolutionary biologist.
