Part 2 - Dr. Richard Paul defines the universal standards with which thinking may be "taken apart" evaluated and assessed. Excerpted from the Socratic Questioning Video Series.
Very revelant and valuable information which people if applied effectively will live much happier lives....Nothing like receiving a straightfoward, detailed answer to a difficult question.
Dr Paul's cite of H.L. Mencken, which he used to clarify the issue of complexity with regard to critical thinking, was most likely a rephrasing of what Mencken actually said: "There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." It appeared in the essay "The Divine Afflatus," originally published in 1917, and reprinted in 1920 and 1949. A little irony, perhaps ;)
Isn't that the purpose? He isn't teaching anything new, he's teaching you to be conscious & mindful to the aspects of critical thinking. Some people are unaware they are critical thinkers & seek terminology to aid them in deeper understanding of this field of thinking.
@juanfracisco Not in this video he doesn't, but the Foundation for Critical Thinking has released books that make this point quite clear, and it's because of innate human egocentrism as a barrier. That's more Linda Elder's specialty than Richard Paul's, though, since Richard Paul is a philosopher and Linda Elder is a psychologist.
@darnell1897 Exactly the problem I realised as well. We need to teach this stuff very early on to people - this is a foundation that many people lack and so that's where most problems result from.
All the time I hear people saying "I'm 98.5% certain that..." an I know they must have made that answer up. Whenever people add statistics to their arguments, I think it's important to listen carefully and critically.
Relavency is of major importance, many fallacies here, much time could have been spent here. Problematic for me is the imbetween or grading of relavency. Many times i want to point to relavency, or do should i say, but the point is defended successfully by demonstrating 'some' relavency - but then the point is lost because i need to adapt that given the foot print of inflluence, it isn't relavent enought to introduce at this stage - any thoughts ?
I digress, because even though you may arrive at an answer by using the formula, you must still be able to interpret that answer (complexity); otherwise, the answer is worthless if you don't know what it means, if you don't know how to interpret it.
He doesn't differentiate between intelligently considered analysis (personal thoughts about anything), and communicating with others. His standards relate to personal analysis of incoming information, which has a different standard than communication - he assumes that honesty is, or should be, a goal in communications, while it often isn't for very practical and very legitimate reasons.
That is a matter of context. He is talking about universal standards. I can imagine situations where exercising critical thinking would be very bad idea. that doesn't change much about standards of critical thinking..
andersoncouncilpf So if I understand what you're saying, in communications, people often mislead and lie to each other? What are the practical and legitimate reasons for dishonesty in communication?
Dear Huang Tao: Thank you for your question! We'll need to have someone review the footage to make certain everything was uploaded as intended, but in the meantime, you'll find more videos dealing with the standards of thought (or "Intellectual Standards") on our RU-vid channel. Titles are: Critical Thinking and Intellectual Standards Prove: Why Intellectual Standards? Why Teach for Them? Critical Thinking for Children - 3. Standards of Thinking Assess: How to Teach Students to Assess Their Own Work (The first two are more directly about the standards themselves.) You'll also find much more about the standards in the free online library on our website. We hope this helps!
1:58 what the hell? what was that sentence "the statistics may NOT be accurate?" it was sorta blurred out there. not for any reaosn i can decifer except for wanting to conceal the fact that maybe statistics given to the public are made up. very dubious. with regards to the talk it was wonderful
@juanfracisco Do you actually have a reason to say that, based on purposes, questions, information, inferences, implications, etc.? Or are you just angry because his ideas don't conform to yours?
The educational standards in the United States of America were dropped due to the large amount of failing grades, which in turn affected our children in the USA. This may have helped refugees or, emigrates, but it sure didn't help our American children.
From the likes statistics, 1 in every 40 viewers can't stand accuracy and relevancy? It's worrying adult people can't even agree on the relevance to our lives of the need to practice critical thinking.
Don't totally agree with this teacher. Complexity and depth can be addressed with simplicity and simple answers when clarity and direction in an answer is priority. Complexity in a response can be weak due to complexity. Now deep thinking on a question to prepare for a response is very useful and most often essential when doing analysis before giving an answer. Sidebar: It's really hard for professors holding advance degrees to hide their liberal philosophy about life and politics. It's better if they at least try to hide that part of themselves when giving lectures.
@juanfracisco You're demonstrating Richard Paul's point, that we angrily attack ideas we don't like instead of rationally critiquing their bad points, or even admitting that they might have something new to teach us. All you do is insult Richard Paul and call his speeches for the weak-minded, while giving no substance as to why you think that to be the case. Are you upset because you're a psychologist and approach things narrowly, while Paul draws from multiple fields?
@Shadowslamer What? What does that have to do with Richard Paul's actual argument? You're just demonstrating your own egotism by angrily attacking ideas and calling others pretentious instead of summarizing their arguments first and then calmly explaining why you believe those ideas are misguided.
Juan Francisco i find that you are unreasonable. You can be Rational, and you can be Emotional at the same time. You don't have to be always Rational, because, only Rational is not always to be Rational. There are irrational things that makes us happy, and they are good. There are those which makes us sad, and they are bad, they need to be rationalized. Rationality is always beneficial if you are psychologist, attorney, or just one intelligent person etc. See a shrink, it will help you.
Human communication is not rational. That´s the hole point why phyloshofy went wrong. Language is not learned and do not use intellectual standarts to be significant. Human behavior responds to incentives and motives of cooperation and competion, and not to rational standarts of what phylosofers call thinking. . He doesn´t explain why humans sometimes don´t agree, netheir, why language is ussualy used not to tell the truth. Phylosophical explains are just rules, not explanations.
