James, I believe critical thinking starts with gathering data and moves on to analyze said data using logic. One must put aside bias confirmation, as best one can, and eliminate fallacious "data." What remains is factual, and from facts one can determine actions and attitudes.
I like to distinguish between what I think (opinions), what I …
James, I believe critical thinking starts with gathering data and moves on to analyze said data using logic. One must put aside bias confirmation, as best one can, and eliminate fallacious "data." What remains is factual, and from facts one can determine actions and attitudes.
I like to distinguish between what I think (opinions), what I believe (values), and what I know (proven facts).
The other important attribute of critical thought is that one changes opinions, values, and accepted facts when new information is discovered. This is especially important in the arena of science, where new research findings often contradict previously held conclusions. The hallmark of poor thinking is to cling to one's original stance regardless of new info. Such individuals often expend more mental energy defending their position than on vetting new info for validity.
Validation and logic are also beneficial in politics. I entertained the idea of RFK Jr. until he publicly discussed bio-engineered Covid virus that would target certain ethnicities. Since ethnicities are not genetically different, such a thing is impossible, plus there was significant evidence that the target groups had succumbed to Covid at the same rate as others. I concluded that Bobby Jr. was either an idiot if he believed this putative research group's theory, or irresponsible if he didn't believe it but gave it a public platform all the same. Either way I deemed him unfit to be our chief executive.
Scientific facts are never entirely settled, which furthers science though constant re-examination, but many conclusions appear to merit a very high degree of confidence. "Clean" logic and evidence provide the confidence. Duplicated experiments should produce the same results, or region of results. Science is always updating. I think an archetypal exchange was evident in a NYT story from 2004:
Dr. Shenker said it would be great to find out that string theory was right.
From the audience Dr. Greene piped up, "Wouldn't it be great either way?"
"Are you kidding me, Brian?" Dr. Shenker responded. "How many years have you sweated on this?"
But if string theory is wrong, Dr. Greene argued, wouldn't it be good to know so physics could move on? "Don't you want to know?" he asked.
The notion that "dispassionate" research is performed by passionless people (eg, "Mr. Spock" isn't it at all, but rather the "kiss the joy as it flies" willingness to honor reality (so far as we can best determine) rather than one's druthers, as the authority; and as you indicate. Some people won't learn because they are too attached to an idea.
RFKjr seems like a very lazy thinker, with unearned influence. I believe that the possibility of race specific viral agents has been discussed speculatively by some geneticists, but no such thing appears to currently exist. There are genetic differences related to race, but they are trivial; not at all the proof of superiority or inferiority self-aggrandizing supremacists are yearning to see. RFKjr's understanding of what vaccination actually does to forewarn the human immune system in truly appalling.
This from Prof. Carlos Frenk, Dept. of Physics, Director of the Institute of Computational Cosmology, Durham University: "If it turns out to be that the universe is not made up of cold dark matter, I will be rather depressed. Given that I’ve worked all my life on cold dark matter, I would be disappointed, but not for very long, because that’s the way that science is. You have to accept the evidence. If it turns out that I’ve wasted my life working on the wrong hypothesis, so be it. What I really want to know is, what is the universe made of? Let it be cold. Let it be warm. I just want to know what it is."
I'm not very scientifically minded, JL. I got to my appreciation for science's
temporality when an anti-vaxxer I know wanted a public apology from Fauci for incorrect statements he had made early in the pandemic. I said that I doubted he lied or intentionally deceived, he was just wrong. He changed his position when he learned more. She couldn't hear it; she was caught up in villainizing Fauci rather than in considering how information changes one's views, if one is intellectually honest.
She also kept pushing the notion that more study on vaxx alternatives is needed. I thought about how science works and told her that overwhelming evidence from many many disparate studies had demonstrated that vaccines are effective and safe for the vast majority of people. In a time of pandemic, public policy needed to be set from the most conclusive data available in the moment. Those who track a more effective Covid therapy than the current vaccines will undoubtedly publish their findings when and if there ever are any. Meanwhile we have to rely on the best and most prevalent data. She accused me of being a sheeple and ranted about how Fauci and the CDC were preventing &/or hiding alt research in collusion with corrupt big money pharma. I told her I didn't think we could discuss this topic because we approach it from such different philosophies. We are no longer friends.
Saying to me that the hallmark of poor thinking is to cling to one's original stance regardless of new info, and that such individuals often expend more mental energy defending their position than on vetting new info for validity, is preaching to the choir.
Does critical thinking involve gathering and analyzing data using logic? Absolutely. And where confirmation bias is an issue due to excluded or fallacious data, then it needs to be effectively addressed. But that’s not where critical thinking begins.
Hypothetically, two parties are interacting in a familiar context, and their interactions are mutually beneficial, but then a novel context emerges, and their interactions are now unilaterally beneficial. Fortunately, both parties are skilled critical thinkers, and they agree to use that skill to resolve the conflict. The first question is, what is the objective? Specifically, what interest is being served, in what time frame, and at whose expense?
A mutually agreeable objective is a prerequisite to a mutually agreeable conflict resolution. The latter is the analysis part, and the former is the synthesis part.
The odds that two parties will resolve their between-party conflicts even if they both use perfect logic and the same data, but they don’t start by establishing a mutually agreeable objective, is virtually zero. That’s the point I was trying to make in my previous comment.
I see two objectives, James. One is peaceable conflict resolution, the other is determination of facts in order to formulate actions and values. The former requires mutual agreement, as you say; the latter doesn't. You and I may agree on facts, even if they're only provisional, and still decide on different courses of action. For instance we may both want to see Trump defeated and agree that he's a dangerous lunatic. I may prioritize his misogyny and you may feel more strongly about national security; even though both of us agree that each other's reasons for disliking him are true and valid, we're still different people, and because of our different histories will find one trait more loathsome than the other. You may be content with him losing the election, while I may want to see him incarcerated. We don't have to agree on values or outcomes to agree on what is true.
We share the intent of defeating a dangerous lunatic. But why? Because our interpretation of the facts is sufficiently accurate in that regard. That does not mean that when we start with the same facts, we must both end with the same interpretation. The question is whether conflict is the effect of our different determinations, and whether we then have a mutual intent to resolve the conflict.
In other words, there's a tolerance range. Do your own thing and it's none of my damn business. But "I'll mind my own damn business" was the opposite of what Tim Walz was thinking as a teacher when he learned that LGBTQ students were being treated with distain by their fellow students.
So, yes, at some point the determination of facts in order to formulate actions and values does require mutual agreement. What's the alternative? The alternative is some version of "I'm right, you're wrong, and this conversation is over." That is the only message Donald Trump has ever known how to communicate. And practice makes perfect.
James, I believe critical thinking starts with gathering data and moves on to analyze said data using logic. One must put aside bias confirmation, as best one can, and eliminate fallacious "data." What remains is factual, and from facts one can determine actions and attitudes.
I like to distinguish between what I think (opinions), what I believe (values), and what I know (proven facts).
The other important attribute of critical thought is that one changes opinions, values, and accepted facts when new information is discovered. This is especially important in the arena of science, where new research findings often contradict previously held conclusions. The hallmark of poor thinking is to cling to one's original stance regardless of new info. Such individuals often expend more mental energy defending their position than on vetting new info for validity.
Validation and logic are also beneficial in politics. I entertained the idea of RFK Jr. until he publicly discussed bio-engineered Covid virus that would target certain ethnicities. Since ethnicities are not genetically different, such a thing is impossible, plus there was significant evidence that the target groups had succumbed to Covid at the same rate as others. I concluded that Bobby Jr. was either an idiot if he believed this putative research group's theory, or irresponsible if he didn't believe it but gave it a public platform all the same. Either way I deemed him unfit to be our chief executive.
Scientific facts are never entirely settled, which furthers science though constant re-examination, but many conclusions appear to merit a very high degree of confidence. "Clean" logic and evidence provide the confidence. Duplicated experiments should produce the same results, or region of results. Science is always updating. I think an archetypal exchange was evident in a NYT story from 2004:
Dr. Shenker said it would be great to find out that string theory was right.
From the audience Dr. Greene piped up, "Wouldn't it be great either way?"
"Are you kidding me, Brian?" Dr. Shenker responded. "How many years have you sweated on this?"
But if string theory is wrong, Dr. Greene argued, wouldn't it be good to know so physics could move on? "Don't you want to know?" he asked.
The notion that "dispassionate" research is performed by passionless people (eg, "Mr. Spock" isn't it at all, but rather the "kiss the joy as it flies" willingness to honor reality (so far as we can best determine) rather than one's druthers, as the authority; and as you indicate. Some people won't learn because they are too attached to an idea.
RFKjr seems like a very lazy thinker, with unearned influence. I believe that the possibility of race specific viral agents has been discussed speculatively by some geneticists, but no such thing appears to currently exist. There are genetic differences related to race, but they are trivial; not at all the proof of superiority or inferiority self-aggrandizing supremacists are yearning to see. RFKjr's understanding of what vaccination actually does to forewarn the human immune system in truly appalling.
This from Prof. Carlos Frenk, Dept. of Physics, Director of the Institute of Computational Cosmology, Durham University: "If it turns out to be that the universe is not made up of cold dark matter, I will be rather depressed. Given that I’ve worked all my life on cold dark matter, I would be disappointed, but not for very long, because that’s the way that science is. You have to accept the evidence. If it turns out that I’ve wasted my life working on the wrong hypothesis, so be it. What I really want to know is, what is the universe made of? Let it be cold. Let it be warm. I just want to know what it is."
Thank God some people understand science.
I'm not very scientifically minded, JL. I got to my appreciation for science's
temporality when an anti-vaxxer I know wanted a public apology from Fauci for incorrect statements he had made early in the pandemic. I said that I doubted he lied or intentionally deceived, he was just wrong. He changed his position when he learned more. She couldn't hear it; she was caught up in villainizing Fauci rather than in considering how information changes one's views, if one is intellectually honest.
She also kept pushing the notion that more study on vaxx alternatives is needed. I thought about how science works and told her that overwhelming evidence from many many disparate studies had demonstrated that vaccines are effective and safe for the vast majority of people. In a time of pandemic, public policy needed to be set from the most conclusive data available in the moment. Those who track a more effective Covid therapy than the current vaccines will undoubtedly publish their findings when and if there ever are any. Meanwhile we have to rely on the best and most prevalent data. She accused me of being a sheeple and ranted about how Fauci and the CDC were preventing &/or hiding alt research in collusion with corrupt big money pharma. I told her I didn't think we could discuss this topic because we approach it from such different philosophies. We are no longer friends.
Thanks, JL. ("Regular Reader").
Saying to me that the hallmark of poor thinking is to cling to one's original stance regardless of new info, and that such individuals often expend more mental energy defending their position than on vetting new info for validity, is preaching to the choir.
Does critical thinking involve gathering and analyzing data using logic? Absolutely. And where confirmation bias is an issue due to excluded or fallacious data, then it needs to be effectively addressed. But that’s not where critical thinking begins.
Hypothetically, two parties are interacting in a familiar context, and their interactions are mutually beneficial, but then a novel context emerges, and their interactions are now unilaterally beneficial. Fortunately, both parties are skilled critical thinkers, and they agree to use that skill to resolve the conflict. The first question is, what is the objective? Specifically, what interest is being served, in what time frame, and at whose expense?
A mutually agreeable objective is a prerequisite to a mutually agreeable conflict resolution. The latter is the analysis part, and the former is the synthesis part.
The odds that two parties will resolve their between-party conflicts even if they both use perfect logic and the same data, but they don’t start by establishing a mutually agreeable objective, is virtually zero. That’s the point I was trying to make in my previous comment.
I see two objectives, James. One is peaceable conflict resolution, the other is determination of facts in order to formulate actions and values. The former requires mutual agreement, as you say; the latter doesn't. You and I may agree on facts, even if they're only provisional, and still decide on different courses of action. For instance we may both want to see Trump defeated and agree that he's a dangerous lunatic. I may prioritize his misogyny and you may feel more strongly about national security; even though both of us agree that each other's reasons for disliking him are true and valid, we're still different people, and because of our different histories will find one trait more loathsome than the other. You may be content with him losing the election, while I may want to see him incarcerated. We don't have to agree on values or outcomes to agree on what is true.
We share the intent of defeating a dangerous lunatic. But why? Because our interpretation of the facts is sufficiently accurate in that regard. That does not mean that when we start with the same facts, we must both end with the same interpretation. The question is whether conflict is the effect of our different determinations, and whether we then have a mutual intent to resolve the conflict.
In other words, there's a tolerance range. Do your own thing and it's none of my damn business. But "I'll mind my own damn business" was the opposite of what Tim Walz was thinking as a teacher when he learned that LGBTQ students were being treated with distain by their fellow students.
So, yes, at some point the determination of facts in order to formulate actions and values does require mutual agreement. What's the alternative? The alternative is some version of "I'm right, you're wrong, and this conversation is over." That is the only message Donald Trump has ever known how to communicate. And practice makes perfect.