Critical Thinking

[elmarko]

The problem is, morality and harm are both incredibly hard things to define which is one of the major problems with deciding what should be illegal and what shouldn't be.

I think with our current understand of neurobiology & psychology we can pretty well understand on average which actions can cause harm.

Obviously nothing is black & white & requires rational thought - just because we can have an objective morality - it does not have to be an absolute morality.

It's just objectively judged based off a number of considerations with applied reason & consideration for the subject matter.

For example, stealing a banana from a shop is clearly immoral yet barely harmful and carries the possibility of a criminal punishment.

Stealing a banana in my personal opinion is not always immoral, it's illegal - there is a difference, the act of stealing a banana does not always cause harm - neither is it immoral if it's being done by a person to prevent greater harm (starvation of a child as a example).

What's immoral is having a society structured in such a way that an individual is put into a situation in which they have to steal a banana.

If a person was never put into a situation where they had to steal one & still did, they would either be trying to cause harm by disrupting somebody's business, or a kleptomaniac - I'd also argue that both of those would be symptom's of underline psychological conditions which would require curing, not punishment.

Yet adultery, which is arguably more immoral and certainly more harmful is not a criminal offence. Despite this logical inconsistancy, it seems that this is justifiably 'the correct way' of dealing with things.

I believe this is more of a relic of how we structured our civilisation with the rights of women on the bottom & men on the top - in the past & in many cultures today it WAS a crime for women to commit adultery - while men were able to avoid this due to being in the position of power.

If we used an objective framework, deceiving another & constantly cheating on them is indeed worse than basic stealing.

The concept of harm is wooly. Unless that harm is easily quantifiable (which is only really true of physical harm as financial harm is relative) then the harmfulness of an action is dependent on the sensitivity of the recipient, which actually turns 'harm' into 'offence'. Harm and morality in its entirety is thus entirely subjective.

But the brain is a physical object, one which is quite well understood, as human behaviour well understood & predictable/documented - it's not that much of a stretch to make a case for objectively harmful actions.

Offence needs to be judged based on the actions,

If person A takes great offence to two gay people being in a relationship - then person A's offence needs to be judged off a logically consistent framework.

Person A would need to justify why there offence should be taken seriously.

Firstly, person A is not abiding by the "do unto those" rule, as they would not like somebody telling them to engage in a relationship with a member of the sex different to there default preference.

Secondly, they are also offended over something which objectively causes no harm.

On that basis the "offence" of person 1 would rightly be dismissed of the crying complaining of a bigot.

 

[Naffa]

For actually learning about Critical Thinking he would be better suited to Stephen Brookfield, Dr Richard Paul, Linda Elder and Brooke Moore.

I did make a point that I was referring to authors who would be ten times easier to read than anybody writing on the academic practice of critical thinking. Practice, rather than theory was why I listed said authors.

Harris and Hitchens (to some extent) would give the impression that Critical Thinking equals Atheism and Carl Sagan and to some extent Russell are more concerned with Scientific Scepticism than Critical Thinking in isolation, although Critical Thinking is part of both it doesn't deal with Critical Thinking in isolation, rather it uses Critical Thinking in application.

Harris' and Hitchens' highly critical minds have led them to a given position. Reading their works on religion and the question of 'god' gives one a crystal clear insight into the critical evaluation of evidence, regarding the truth claims and historicity of various religions. Christopher has written about a hell of a lot more than just religion, and his criticism has been prominent throughout a wide variety of subjects, hence why reading him is such good practice for developing one's own faculties. Any critical thinker that has ever written anything will probably have formed a decision, based upon the evidence. Being critical does not mean you have to be agnostic regarding the answer to every question.

and this applies to both secular and spiritual positions, so for an easy example using the authors you mentioned, while I would highly recommend reading Hitchens and Sagan in particular, to limit oneself by reading from a particular perspective or position is contrary to Critical Thinking, so to truly challenge those assumptions the works of Craig Lane and Paul Copan or their equivalents should be on that reading list....and this applies to any position or topic you take and subject to critical thinking, it is not necessarily limited to philosophical, ethical or religious positions.

Firstly, being secular does not preclude being spiritual. I assume you meant to say that said definition applies to both secular and religious positions.

Though I haven't heard of Paul Copan, I assume you mean William Lane Craig, and not 'Craig Lane' whom I have not heard of, either. I don't feel the need to respond to your assertion that critical thinking is not 'limited to philosophical, ethical or religious positions' as it is so obvious, it hardly warrants being said in the first place. But simply offering up supposed thinkers that offer an opposite view to one's own doesn't mean that what they are proposing is of equal worth. For example, Lane Craig has said that he knows god exists, as he can feel him inside, and that it doesn't matter what evidence is presented to counter the belief that said feeling produces... Because, in the end, the evidence will come out in favour of what he knows to be true because of his self-validating mechanism, or some such nonsense. We need to be in an intellectual place where we can admit that thinking such as this, is simply not necessarily on par with those who hold an opposite view. I would not have hesitated in listing somebody, with whom I share a disagreement, if they were a great thinker.

Being critical does not simply mean that the jury must stay out forever, and that one must remain agnostic, forever. The whole process of thinking critically is useless if you utilise it in that way.

 

[Castiel]

Being critical does not simply mean that the jury must stay out forever, and that one must remain agnostic, forever. The whole process of thinking critically is useless if you utilise it in that way.

Firstly forgive me any mistakes made in the post I made last night with regard wording...it was late and I was working on something else at the time, so only had half an eye on this particular discussion. My poor wording may have led to some confusion over my meaning....

which leads to why I think you missed the point I was trying to make......it is not whether the opposite opinion has equal worth, only that the opposite view is considered...otherwise you are not thinking critically, you are simply following a certain position. That you think Lane Craig (the were only examples of opposing views using the examples you gave rather than any critique on their worth as that is up to the individual...hence the use of Critical Thinking) is talking nonsense doesn't impact on the critical thinkers need to research the opposing views to make a critically formed opinion. All the literature you suggested would not do that, all it would do is suggest that critical thinking resolves to a particular philosophical position, one which incidentally mirrors your own.

In fact if practice is what you were suggesting then you should certainly have included Paul Copan and Lane Craig as they are Analytical Philosophers from a different perspective. Also other authors and philosophers such as Peter Winch, Antony Flew and particularly Richard Swinburne should also be considered, there are also a myriad of others from all kinds of positions, but they will suffice for the sake of example.

Harris and Hitchens are not the be all and see all of application of critical thinking, and to only consider their opinions actually undermines critical thought...which was the point that I was making.

Just a point to make as well, there are many books on Critical Thinking that are very easy to access and understand, and are also neutral in their position, teaching how to actually apply critical thinking to a problem or philosophy rather than the author actually applying critical thought to come to a conclusion for the reader.....which is why I mentioned Richard Paul and Brooke Moore. Sherry Diestler writes an excellent guide on the use of Critical Thinking as does Alec Fisher.

We need to be in an intellectual place where we can admit that thinking such as this, is simply not necessarily on par with those who hold an opposite view. I would not have hesitated in listing somebody, with whom I share a disagreement, if they were a great thinker.

Given that Sam Harris himself respects William Lane Craig intellect and has said as much, I think it is a little disingenuous to suggest that he (as an example) is not on a par with Sam Harris or Hitchens with regard to opposing viewpoints....that you disagree with him is irrelevant and illustrates the point I was making about critical thinking when making a decision, I don't necessarily agree with him either, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss him either as for the critical mind, no opposing views should be dismissed out of hand simply becasue you do not accept them or they do not fit immediately into your philosophy.

You have come to decision on what you believe or disbelieve, that is a perfectly valid and intelligent thing to do, however when offering advice to someone else on how to apply the same critical thought to an issue you cannot simply say "read these authors" if they are giving a singular philosophical, religious, social or political position...which is why I said that I would also recommend those authors (the ones you gave) but would also suggest others with opposing and/or supporting views to really understand how critical thought can be applied to any given situation....

And this is not remaining agnostic forever....it is about considering more than one viewpoint or position before taking a definitive position yourself. To ignore that undermines the very point of critical thought.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Try to practice discernment, Now discernment is not only choosing to accept certain information over other information. It is also the ability to not even examine certain information for lack of worth. You are but a product of your experiences. If you fill your head with information, even if you decide not to agree with it, it is still in your head and subconsciously will affect your ideology. But there is a fine line between being open minded and discerning.

I put less worth in the legitimacy of the source in terms of officialness than i do in the fact-worthy and authenticity of the information provided. I have had a few examples in my life where I have been sure of myself only to be convinced of the complete opposite later in life. It takes humility to accept that you were wrong or that you have been fooled and sometimes this is what stands in the way of people changing their opinions. It is not that the information is wrong or inaccurate or lacks credibility. It is the consequences that the information brings on their ideology and thus on their perspective of reality.

 

[cm1179]

2) What the Iraq war was really about..

.

oil

good topic btw, i wish i had the time to give a justified answer.

 

[elmarko]

Opinions shouldn't be valued, neither should pride be invested in them - we should want to be right, not simply viewed as right.

We should love to be proven wrong & happy to abandon our false points of view if presented with evidence.

Sadly as a race we invest heavily in our viewpoints, as we build our identity's around them - so pride or the prospect of personal gain get in the way of accepting reality.

 

[Naffa]

snip

I know, and I agreed with you. My views don't mirror everything that I have ever read by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bertrand Russell and Carl Sagan, but I did choose them for a reason.

I will admit that I do tend to admire thinkers with whom I agree, more than thinkers with whom I do not. I share a number of views with said authors for a reason. But as you quite rightly say, one must be critical of all positions, of course. I simply figured that it was such an obvious facet of critical thinking, that it didn't need to be pointed out.

But indecently, Anthony Flew is another example of the point I was trying to make above, which, admittedly, does shoot off on a bit of a tangent. I believe his 'conversion' from atheist to believer (I haven't read There is a God) was guided by a incredibly shallow investigation into DNA, and the human genome. He then decided that such complexity could simply not have evolved, and must, therefore, have been designed. I simply cannot find it within myself to take such a claim seriously. He is not a scientist, he is a philosopher. If somebody that had a genuine understanding of science, biology, the genome, etc, came to a similar conclusion, then I would be forced to consider it. But I get a bit irritated when stories like this are wielded (and I know this isn't what you were doing) by believers as some sort of victory for their cause.

Opinions shouldn't be valued, neither should pride be invested in them - we should want to be right, not simply viewed as right.

Nicely put. Opinions on matters which have evidence bearing on them should be worthless.

 

[elmarko]

Indeed, it's also important to accept that not all opinions are valid - would we trust the opinion of person who knows nothing on the specifics of brain surgery on methods to operate in that area? - of course not.

Sadly that same logic does apply on how to run the country, social issues, morality & pretty much everything else in life.

Without information opinions are worthless, even well thought out & intelligently constructed opinions are useless if they don't have the correct data to base them on.

 

[Castiel]

Opinions shouldn't be valued, neither should pride be invested in them - we should want to be right, not simply viewed as right.

We should love to be proven wrong & happy to abandon our false points of view if presented with evidence.

I totally agree with you, opinions should be open to change and should only reflect the standing of the individual at any given moment with the information that individual has so far at their disposal.

 

[Castiel]

I know, and I agreed with you. My views don't mirror everything that I have ever read by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bertrand Russell and Carl Sagan, but I did choose them for a reason.

I will admit that I do tend to admire thinkers with whom I agree, more than thinkers with whom I do not. I share a number of views with said authors for a reason. But as you quite rightly say, one must be critical of all positions, of course. I simply figured that it was such an obvious facet of critical thinking, that it didn't need to be pointed out.

But indecently, Anthony Flew is another example of the point I was trying to make above, which, admittedly, does shoot off on a bit of a tangent. I believe his 'conversion' from atheist to believer (I haven't read There is a God) was guided by a incredibly shallow investigation into DNA, and the human genome. He then decided that such complexity could simply not have evolved, and must, therefore, have been designed. I simply cannot find it within myself to take such a claim seriously. He is not a scientist, he is a philosopher. If somebody that had a genuine understanding of science, biology, the genome, etc, came to a similar conclusion, then I would be forced to consider it. But I get a bit irritated when stories like this are wielded (and I know this isn't what you were doing) by believers as some sort of victory for their cause.

I think that we generally gravitate toward those that we agree with, and unfortunately we also have a tendency to hold onto our opinions with far too much vehemence...I am certainly guilty of that and I consider myself a critical thinker who (at least tries) to consider all viewpoints from an initial position of objective equality....that doesn't mean that once I have considered that viewpoint that it retains equal validity after I have considered it, only that I approach it that way.

I consider myself more of a free thinker, whereas I can hold what might seem to the casual observer as opposing views, yet upon investigation it simply means that I both accept and dismiss aspects of each opposing view....for example I can agree with Hitchens and Copan at the same time, I can also disagree with Hitchens and Copan at the same time although they hold opposing philosophies...the reason is because I hold no particular fixed philosophy myself, I would rather create my own...something I have yet to do, I am effectively in the process of applying critical thought to the process. There must be a logic and reason behind making a decision or taking a position on any given topic, although I do not accept (as most Free-thinkers would) that Scientific Evidence is the only kind that of evidence that should be considered, which is where I diverge from the standard definition of Free-thought.

It is widely known that I am agnostic to some degree, but that doesn't imply that I am strictly ensconced in that position..or that I hold that position in all things, even in my profession which many think, wrongly, that I hold a religious position am I liable to accept aspects of one position while dismissing others.

It is why I can hold both a pro-Christian position (although not a religious person or a Christian myself) yet also hold an anti-Clericalism position (where I disagree with the ultimate authority of the Church in moral or secular matters), normally both positions are seen as synonymous and akin to Atheism, especially anti-Clericalism which is often confused with Atheism.

 

[elmarko]

I guess the main to consider is,

If presented with evidence, is there anything you would not change your mind on?,

Personally, if somebody had evidence of a creator I'd be amazed - I'd find it the most impressive discovery & "god" would from that point feature amongst the things I know exist.

In my opinion having an open mind isn't about what you believe, but how resistant to you are to things which challenge to what you believe in.

Which is why simply "believing in aliens" does give somebody an open mind, because once people hold beliefs they tend to ascribe things as being that (instead of viewing them as they are).

EG, person A see's something in the sky.

Person A -"That's definitely an alien spaceship".

Person B - "Are you sure it's not a weather bloon?."

Person A - "YOU ARE SO CLOSED MINDED".

This is a common problem when a person "believes" something, they see the face of god, a conspiracy, aliens where none exist - because if you automatically jump to a conclusion without viewing all of the available evidence you are only going to rehearse your own beliefs as opposed to view reality as it is.

If person B was presented with excellent evidence proving that it was a weather-bloon, they may dismiss it due to it not fitting in with there view of reality.

But if presented with a dodgy hand-cam of a spaceship by a believer they view it as irrefutable proof.