Critical Thinking

Old@Heart

Old@Heart

Old@Heart

Associate
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Posts
90
Location
Belfast
Genuine interest in knowing what people's thoughts are on this. Maybe I'm just bored tonight but I was wondering about loads of different things which divide us as humans (culture, religion, politics, morals, favourite individuals, etc.)

People have opinions, some of which are just drilled into us as children. But as we grow older, we become aware that not everything is exactly as others tell us. We start trying to be 'critical thinkers' and while many of us do this sucessfully, obviously quite a lot fail to make the transistion.

You see the fundamentalists out there who stick to their guns no matter what the facts seems to show and you see the people who live their lives virtually with a complete open-minded approach.

For example, I was born and still live in Northern Ireland and grew up, like everyone else, viewing this bizarre dislike/hatred from Catholics towards Protestants and vice versa (that's vague, but it's not the point of this thread.) It didn't take me long to realise that perhaps a lot of these views from certain people were complete nonsense and unjustified. At the same time, it was important to not completely dismiss the reasons why this divide had occurred in this country.

The problem I've always had with anything in life, is that it seems you can never get enough information to make the complete judgement on something. As it happens, I find you can easily make a complete u-turn on a previous judgement, perhaps even returning once again to an original opinion as time goes on.

I'm interested in how people begin and continue to think about these world events, about world leaders, about religion, about the media and anything else in their lives.

Is there something particular you do? Is it just a natural thought process for you? Or does it take an effort to critically think about these things?

How do you know what you're thinking and what you're saying is right? (Not that we have to/or could be right all the time)
 
I don't think too many people do think about any of the things and just go along with whatever the most charismatic person has told them to think.

Herd mentality.

Doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, its just how much influence and power you can get by controlling people that matters.
 
Well, ironically, the only thing about which one can be absolutely certain is that absolutely nothing is certain.

Being critical is the most important tool on the intellectual's belt. Some people are naturally critical of what they hear, I am not and need to make a conscious effort (if that can even be said) to do so.

Critical thinking is extremely important for any number of reasons, but I see it as being absolutely imperative for progress in every way one could imagine. If you want to read on the subject, I would recommend some of the great critical thinkers of the past century as they are much easier to read than earlier ones. Such thinkers could be: Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell and Sam Harris, to name but a few. The aforementioned authors, thinkers and scientists are eminently easy to read, as well.
 
Last edited:
The thing about critical thinking, along with all philosophy, is that for every answer you uncover there is always another question. It gives you a more rounded and open minded view of the world however it never really answers many questions.
 
Old@Heart said:
But as we grow older, we become aware that not everything is exactly as others tell us.
Click to expand...

If only that was true. Unfortunately, most people are too wrapped up in their tiny lives, chasing their rent money to care about deeper issues and the 'political' knowledge they have is swallowed from the MSM without thought. It's actually scary to see how it is for the powers that be to enslave the masses.
 
Naffa said:
Well, ironically, the only thing about which one can be absolutely certain is that absolutely nothing is certain.

Being critical is the most important tool on the intellectual's belt. Some people are naturally critical of what they hear, I am not and need to make a conscious effort (if that can even be said) to do so.

Critical thinking is extremely important for any number of reasons, but I see it as being absolutely imperative for progress in every way one could imagine. If you want to read on the subject, I would recommend some of the great critical thinkers of the past century as they are much easier to read than earlier ones. Such thinkers could be: Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell and Sam Harris, to name but a few. The aforementioned authors, thinkers and scientists are eminently easy to read, as well.
Click to expand...


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

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.

Brookfield wrote:

“Critical thinking describes the process we use to uncover and check our assumptions. First we need to find out what our assumptions are. We may know some of these already (these we call explicit assumptions) but others we are unaware of (implicit assumptions)…. Once we know what our assumptions are, we enter the second phase of critical thinking, that of research. We try to check out our assumptions to make sure they are accurate and valid… The third and final phase of critical thinking puts the first two stages into practice by applying our analysis to our decisions. Decisions based on critical thinking are more likely to be ones we feel confident about and to have the effects we want them to have.”
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
The problem with critical thinking also is that you can read all the material on it you like but some of it the implications of you will not even see until you come to it for yourself. It does annoy me how closed minded humans naturally are.

Regardless I think Carl Sagan has some good material to read and ponder on.
 
Last edited:
Money and religion biggest factors, people still can manage to live in remote places with zero money and infrastructure, disease and illness happens, always has always will, do you think the people that raised children over 5,000, we have created an amazing society, its slowly being ruined, Tories want to privatise the NHS from the reforms.

Profit margins and shareholders need to be kept happy for society to "exist" how about we all do something for somebody and pay it forward!
 
Last edited:
IMO, we are closed-minded, whether consciously or unconsciously, to stay happy and at bliss from the reality of society ("ignorance is bliss" sometimes). The social pressure exerted on an individual is increasing year by year, and we see younger and younger children being influenced by media and peer pressure.

Whilst critical thinking is good to a certain extent (to arguably better oneself), over-thinking can lead one down the rabbit-hole (so to speak) and make them more susceptible to depression.

In the end, each person has to create their own educated guess or hypothesis regarding choices/judgements based on our life experiences and thought process, which separates one person from another. No one can know everything or experience everything, so we must rely on the above to live, and ultimately self-survive in a life that holds no comprehend-able meaning.
 
Yup easy to become paralysed by the uncertainty as you become more aware of the myriad different approaches to things whereas someone more closed minded would go with the first thing that felt right.
 
I think its more important to understand that we have never been at peace, the rich get richer (last 300 years) the poor get poorer, wars = money and that you can only create so much in your life.
 
It's easier to assume that most people are stupid and that you are right, but then on the occasions you are proved wrong be ready to change your ideas and pretend to others that you thought that way all along.

Never actually opening your mouth to say anything also works pretty well.
 
Castiel said:
The right or wrong of something is subjective, as is morality and most people simply do not care.
Click to expand...
Right or wrong - I guess it depends on what you mean by right or wrong.

The same as morality.

If you wish to ascribe attributes to it, it becomes quite easy to objectivity define behaviour as "moral" or "immoral" - it's the lack of consensus on the meaning which makes it subject.

My question is, if we don't ascribe attributes to morality what's the point of it? - just so it's clear morality has nothing to do with religion, as people without religion are capable of comprehending it/acting by it.

I define a moral action as one which reduces total suffering/harm & an immoral action as one which increases total suffering/harm.

Using this pretty clear objective measures it makes life much easier & consistent.

For example, using this criteria - homosexuality is no longer a moral issue (as there is no evidence that homosexual relationships cause more harm than heterosexual ones) - which for me, is why I really don't care what two blokes get up-to (as an example).

What we should aim to do is develop a logical consistent morality - the "do unto others, as you would wish done to yourself" is an excellent framework to live by, by committing no actions you would wish not done to yourself it's pretty easy to avoid causing harm in most cases.
 
Naffa said:
Well, ironically, the only thing about which one can be absolutely certain is that absolutely nothing is certain.

Being critical is the most important tool on the intellectual's belt. Some people are naturally critical of what they hear, I am not and need to make a conscious effort (if that can even be said) to do so.

Critical thinking is extremely important for any number of reasons, but I see it as being absolutely imperative for progress in every way one could imagine. If you want to read on the subject, I would recommend some of the great critical thinkers of the past century as they are much easier to read than earlier ones. Such thinkers could be: Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell and Sam Harris, to name but a few. The aforementioned authors, thinkers and scientists are eminently easy to read, as well.
Click to expand...
A few great books on logic & the flaws of human reason are also great, it explains why people hold the kind of false views that they do.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Know-What-Isnt-Fallibility/dp/0029117062 - is a great read.
 
Old@Heart said:
How do you know what you're thinking and what you're saying is right? (Not that we have to/or could be right all the time)
Click to expand...

I would say thats not the best question, when you label something as 'right' or 'wrong' you end up creating friction. You don't be good by trying to be good, if that makes any sense. Because trying is the first step towards failure as Homer would say. You be good when you stop trying to be something you're not. And then you are truly 'good'.

You should ask, are you aware of your own conditioning? It seems that you are more aware than others, certainly aware of the condition that has plagued your part of the world. The problem is that some people are so entrenched in their condition as either a protestant, catholic, muslim, Rangers fan, etc. They can't see the big picture.
 
Very interesting subject.

I think your ability to be moraly righteous and correct is only as good as your ability to allow new information to challenge your views and only as good as your ability to use the ideas of others to expand or elaborate your own own.

I would like to think I tread a good line, but the more you learn and experience for yourself the more clouded you realise everything becomes. Ideals such as 'treat others as you would wish to be treated' begin to play second fiddle to securing your own needs. Fairy tale ideologies break down in complicated realities. Regardless, with your heart in the right place, you can only do what you think is right at that time. Hindsight will innevitably reveal your misgivings and your own ugly side. The trick is to adapt this grief into something that something that fits under the broad category of 'being right'.

I'd like to think I do OK.


elmarko1234 said:
If you wish to ascribe attributes to it, it becomes quite easy to objectivity define behaviour as "moral" or "immoral" - it's the lack of consensus on the meaning which makes it subject.

My question is, if we don't ascribe attributes to morality what's the point of it? - just so it's clear morality has nothing to do with religion, as people without religion are capable of comprehending it/acting by it.

I define a moral action as one which reduces total suffering/harm & an immoral action as one which increases total suffering/harm.

Using this pretty clear objective measures it makes life much easier & consistent.

For example, using this criteria - homosexuality is no longer a moral issue (as there is no evidence that homosexual relationships cause more harm than heterosexual ones) - which for me, is why I really don't care what two blokes get up-to (as an example).

What we should aim to do is develop a logical consistent morality - the "do unto others, as you would wish done to yourself" is an excellent framework to live by, by committing no actions you would wish not done to yourself it's pretty easy to avoid causing harm in most cases.
Click to expand...

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.

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

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 entirity is thus entirely subjective.

Lord Devlin wrote a very interesting essay on why we should use morality as a guiding principle in life and in law. He very convincingly writes that by enforcing moral standards we can ensure that society doesn't slip into depravity and the general wellbeing of society can be maintained. This is seriously worth a read:

http://faculty.berea.edu/butlerj/Devlin.pdf

Which is all well and good, except he was actually arguing that homosexuality should be illegal.
 
Fantastic stuff so far guys and I appreciate everyone who's pointed me in the direction of a particular author (have four of Hitchens book already, whom I admire very much.)

For a few examples though, topics that have been recently over-discussed in the past ten years or so:

Divisions of opinion on..

1) Whether Labour are majorly responsible for the state our economy is in..

2) What the Iraq war was really about..

3) Whether politicians even matter, compared to the media or the super-weathly (who the conspirists may claim really run things after all.)

These is are just examples, and obviously, I don't care necessarily what your opinions are. I'm more interested in the fact, these topics divide people and as much as some might have you believe it, it's not simply a case of intelligent people versus the rest of dumb humanity (or is it?)

Maybe you want to pick one of those and explain how you avoid influence from other biased sources in making your mind up. Is it just the hard facts? Where do you find them?

Like some have said already in this thread, I can understand why plenty of people just simply don't care due to information overload.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom