Critical Thinking: Remember to ask the important questions
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (43)
sorted by:
These questions are part of analytical thinking, not critical thinking. The misteaching of what "critical thinking" is, is one of the key components that keeps us locked within The Matrix.
Critical thinking means "determining the veracity of information for yourself."
Critical thinking has nothing to do with analytical thinking, i.e. using deductive or inductive reasoning to solve problems, which is what this list is all about. You can be critical and not analytic for example, or vise versa. You can be both, they are not mutually exclusive in any way. They just aren't in any way the same thing, and that misconception is part of our training. While the PTB want people to be analytical because it helps them create and run The Machine, they don't want their authority to be challenged in any way (determining the truth of something for yourself). That is why we are mistaught what Critical Thinking means.
I agree with u/slyver, there is a difference.
Also, this is good information even if its mislabeled.
I very much did not mean to imply that it was not good information. The skill of analytics is important to develop, and the OP makes a good and concise case in how to develop those tools.
I did not mean to imply that you implied. 🙂
I knew you'd know I'd know you knew. Did you know that?
"knewe..." 😏
In my entire school career, I had a singular teacher who had any discussion about critical thinking.
IMO, probably the best way to practice critical thinking is in browsing the chans for a while with the aim of sorting out the shills, trolls, and people trying to pass off legitimate information. Especially with the 'anonymous' status of all, there's far less data to rely on and the automatic veracity is questionable.
Happily, more and more home school curricula are incorporating both analytical and critical thinking modules at lower grades. And some, like Memoria Press, have centered on Western classical logic, rhetoric etc. The courses and texts are open to purchase even if you're not home schooling, by the way, for all of you or there who would like to crystallize all this stuff that we've been working through together. Helps to pull out the Fallacy argument cards when confronted with a min in the wild- you won't convince the lib but you'll bend the listeners toward truth...
I had a professor at Michigan (60 years ago) who told a class that, "At Michigan critical thinking is the most important product." It was some science class or other and his remark was given as an aside. Still it is one of my most vivid memories.
I would argue that almost no schools at any level teach critical thinking these days. I don't believe thay did when I was at university.
Critical thinking depends on initial concepts. If there are any postulates then the course of thinking is already impredicative and petitio principii is the inevitable result. Fruit of the poisoned tree.
The only way to engage in truly valid argument is to avoid postulates entirely. Can that be done?
It can be done. It is subtle and therefore difficult but it can be done.
The beginning can be made by observing that the world (you could call it existence) cannot be denied. It cannot be denied because - what would be doing that? Denial of the world only affirms the world.
But there is a problem . . .
We have begun with an observation. This observation seems to presume, to imply, the existence of an observer. The problem with that is that no observer has yet been objectified. And until a final observer has been objectified nothing has been objectified - as objectification always implies a residuum.
This leaves us unable to argue either existence or nonexistence. And that is our starting point.
Can a world be built from this beginning? Indeed it can be. Nature does it and the way nature does it can be described all the way into this postulate-free beginning.
...I feel really dumb after reading that(not attacking the previous poster, just picking on myself), so I'm gonna bring up the "brain in a jar" thought experiment to make myself feel better, lmao.
Also, my autocorrect put "right" when I typed "thought", and that made me chuckle, so I'm sharing it in hopes of brightening someone else's day just a little bit.😁😄
That's way too rigorous for street philosophy, fren, we can agree there is truth and beauty and agree that plain observations are valid, can't we?
Thanks. I have been using the terms incorrectly. ☺️
Can you please come up with something similar for Critical thinking? This needs to be provided to our kids!
The irony of posts arguing critical vs analytical is as humorous as it is ridiculous.
Some of these people really need to pick their battles better. This is completely ridiculous.
The downside of weaponized autism is that occasionally you get pedantic arguments like this from time to time.😛
Besides, if we believe we're right, we have the responsibility to call each other out to make sure we are right, even if it seems like a petty detail, don't you think? =)
Can you imagine if the current "journalists" just used this handy chart?
No, just.. Cool it with the antisemitic remarks.
Or you could just remember history and biblical scriptures for those who don’t have the mental capacity to think for themselves all this analyzation. Why are homos bad? Civilizations failed and war once degeneracy entered the threshold of peek degeneracy.
Why is not a question that is very helpful to either analyze an issue or to spur investigation. The " why"- question is basically a question fit for three kinds of attitudes:
Enjoy.
Very nice. A little bot-like answer feeling to it. But I work full time and cannot see everything that’s out there. To win a fight takes more hands. More eyes. Collaboration. Suggestions for a better strategy should always be analyzed such as sticky that align with cause.
yes .... my name is Rob Bot. (wink)
And if you really want you will find it to be a sir name, indeed.
I take your response with the seriousness it warrants, because your "feeling" is totally out of whack. I sure do hope it does not reflect on your first post above in a negative way, because I focused on the use of the why-question and not the contents of your post.
I could do that of course. Come to think of it, maybe indeed further scrutiny is warranted because I can see you were downvoted 3x times and those people did not even give you the courtesy of telling you why ....eh ... the reason for the downvote.
Was Babylon conquered by the Persians because of homos?
De first question is: Latin or Greek. See Babylon was conquered by homos in the Latin sense, but not in the Greek sense. Otherwise, you have to consider Jesus as a homo, as Pilate exclaimed: Here: the homo!
Good stuff. I always try to be mindful of cognitive biases as well:
https://i0.wp.com/beinspired.no/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/12940999_10156735456530357_678161461_o.jpg