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 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.
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.ππ
I believe you have this backwards. Analytical thinking is the analysis and categorization of data through a systematic scientific approach. An example would be the Wuhan Virus world wide response. The data was collected and shared with the entire world scientific and medical communities. The data indicates that there is a highly lethal pandemic spreading around the world. The logical analytic response is to develop a vaccine to protect people that have yet to be exposed by innoculating them with a weakened virus so that their immune systems would develop the antibodies needed to fight the virus when they eventually came into contact with it. This is all logical and reasonable. An exercise in Critical Thinking leads one to look at the source of the data and the means of its collection. To question the motives of the data collectors, the motives of the institutions that are pushing the vaccine and the people who have issued the response. The reason why we are all here is Critical thinking. We looked past the data being provided and questioned the processes and motives behind those championing and promulgating the response. There are many brilliant scientific minds that missed the Critical Thinking test, but passed the Analytical thinking test. This is how many high IQ people were duped into receiving the various vax injections. Even some of us with lower IQ scores were able to identify the patterns of deceit and took a larger view to determine that this was suspicious enough to speak out. Some call this "street smart", but it is ultimately Critical thinking.
You just explained "analytical thinking" as thinking using the processes of analysis, and "critical thinking" as determining the veracity of information for yourself (not relying on others to make that determination for you), which is exactly what I said.
I have no idea why you opened with "I believe you have this backwards" since we seem to be in agreement.
Analytical thinking is a process of analyzing data. It doesn't encompass the origin of the data or question the data integrity, I believe Critical thinking does that. If we are in agreement, then I apologize for misunderstanding your post.
While they aren't the same thing, critical thinking is predicated on analytical thinking. Analytical thinking only seeks to verify that the data is accurate and that each conclusion drawn logically follows. Critical thinking relies on the same data, but rather than stopping after deciding whether or not the data and conclusions are accurate, Critical thinking involves weighing that data against other data to formulate opinions and plans of action. Analytical thinking might produce two very different conclusions Critical thinking is used to decide which of those is the better of the two (or more). Analytical and critical thinking are very much intertwined. Critical thinking does not mean throwing out data you don't like because it runs counter to a preconception or counter to a firmly held or religious belief. Belief and faith are antithetical to both analytical and critical thought. Relying on a belief without evidence is the opposite of analytical thought, and using things like gut feelings, spidey senses, numerology, etc. is quite the opposite of critical thought.
Critical thinking relies on the same data, but rather than stopping after deciding whether or not the data and conclusions are accurate, Critical thinking involves weighing that data against other data to formulate opinions and plans of action.
No it doesn't. None of this has anything to do with what Critical Thinking is.
The fact that you believe this is the fraud. Please read the link I provided in the first post for the argument that supports this statement, but in short, Critical Thinking means exactly the following and nothing else:
critical thinking: determining the veracity of information for yourself.
Anything else you assign to the definition of critical thinking is part of the fraud. That fraud was designed specifically by the PTB to guide us away from determining the veracity of information for ourselves. Their system guides us towards their experts, and the system of "credentials" they designed to determine the veracity of information for us. it is a system of "trust", and it is what keeps us in The Matrix.
Critical thinking has nothing to do with analytical thinking
Funny you should say that.
from an etymological point of view, the key: critical, already gives it away as it is derived from the Greek: krinein "to separate, decide"
The questions as OP posted, are typical analytical, and are indeed not the end of it. This analytical part is contained in " to separate" . However, the other dimension is to judge. And that brings us to "the veracity of information for yourself"
As you said: they are not mutually exclusive. However, they are pack and parcel of the same.
it is derived from the Greek: krinein "to separate, decide"
To think is, at least in common practice, to define, to separate. It is the act of seeing a thing as separate in the mind. All evidence (physics, etc.) suggests that this act of separation is largely incorrect, or rather, correct only with a purposefully narrow scope of view, which misses a lot of information. In other words, the act of thinking (in practice) is the act of "defining," which is the act of diminishing "That Which Is" to "what we want it to be so we can deal with it; i.e. limit it in our minds eye."
In that act of "thinking" there is intrinsic separation, which inherently includes a cogitation of "differences" for "comparisons", thus "analytics." So, the etymological connection of "separate" (krei-"to sieve") is intrinsic in the act of "thinking" (our common practice of it) not in the decision part AKA the judgement. So there are two different concepts in the word roots, one is the common practice of separation (AKA defining) and the other is one of judgement. I suggest the "separation" part is intrinsic to the "thinking" part and not the "judgement" part.
To support this there is another method of "thinking" that does not separate. It is the act of listening, or what is commonly called "meditation." In meditation you listen to what the universe has to say about itself rather than telling it what it is (defining AKA separating). Whenever you start telling the universe what it is through separation, you fail in your meditation. These two methods of thinking are largely opposites.
However, the act of Critical thinking, i.e. judging for yourself the veracity of things is the same in both our standard form of thinking AKA separation AKA analytics, and in our "listening" form of thinking. Thus Analysis (even in the loosest sense in which you are using it) is not necessary for judgement of veracity AKA "critic". Thus "Judging" and "Separating" are, by definition, not the same thing, and by definition have nothing intrinsic to do with each other. They are however complimentary, and this complementarity is found within the root words. The primary focus of the word "critic" however is judgement, and the "separation" AKA analytics, is not a requirement for this judgement and is only added on because it is a common practice in the act of thinking.
Yes, I consider it as two dimensions of the same thing without being equal. before judging there is analysis, then weighing then the verdict. You could do without the other two, yet that would not be very wise.
It is however very common, thus my insistence that "analysis" and "critic" (judgement) are strictly separate by definition (even if generally not in practice).
Nothing could be further from the truth. I am giving you essential information to understand The Matrix. Please read the post linked above.
Me explaining that this post is not about Critical thinking doesn't in any way detract from the greater message of analytical thinking in the post. Suggesting that it does has nothing to do with my post and is a strawman.
Analytical reasoning is a more linear approach to gathering and analyzing data. It takes a step-by-step flow that breaks down information in a logical pattern.
Critical thinking skills enable you to question the data, verify it, and analyze outside information before developing a more holistic solution.
Which matters most depends upon your point of view. Analytical reasoning is a crucial step in the process of critical thinking. You analyze data before applying critical thinking to it.
If only using analytical skills, you use the data and facts to support your solution.
By then applying critical thinking, you evaluate all sources of information before making a judgement based on your opinion, knowledge, experience, and expertise.
While both are unique skills, and can be used individually, the nature of them makes them completely complimentary. However, the nature of them also means that critical thinkers typically use their analytical skills as the first step to developing holistic solutions that have a positive impact on their teams and organizations.
Critical thinking skills enable you to question the data, verify it, and analyze outside information before developing a more holistic solution.
That is not what Critical thinking is. Please see the post linked above. We have been mistaught what Critical thinking is. Your assessment of what it means is incorrect and it is intentionally incorrect (I'm not suggesting it is your intention, rather the PTB who created our school system intentionally misteach what "Critical Thinking" means). Attempting to explain what it really is and why we have been mistaught what it is, is the purpose of my post. Unless you read the argument presented to make that case (contained within the link) you will not understand the argument made, nor the deeper fuckery contained within the misteaching.
Analytical reasoning is a crucial step in the process of critical thinking.
No it is not. They are completely separate things (see example below). You can be analytical without being critical (determining the truth of a thing for yourself). In fact, people do that all the time. You can be critical (determine the truth of a thing for yourself) without being analytical. Again, people do that all the time. Please read my argument in which I make this case in more detail.
While both are unique skills, and can be used individually, the nature of them makes them completely complimentary.
I agree that they are complementary. The point is, they are in no way the same thing, at all, by definition.
However, the nature of them also means that critical thinkers typically use their analytical skills as the first step to developing holistic solutions that have a positive impact on their teams and organizations.
This is completely untrue in the general sense. People believe they understand the truth of information without in any way being analytical (or perhaps a better way of saying that is "using flawed analytics").
For example, believing that the Earth is Flat requires ignoring all of the evidence, all of the physics, all of the arguments that it is not, and also ignoring all of the evidence that the modern FE push is a CIA psyop (see Eric Dubay, CIA agent e.g.). The flaw of FE is not in the evidence, but the necessity of ignoring counter arguments. To hold on to that belief system, you must ignore the contrary arguments instead of addressing them. That is not analytical thinking, because proper analytics does not purposefully ignore evidence, however, it is very much determining the truth of the information for themselves (the definition of critical thinking).
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. π
I knew you'd know I'd know you knew. Did you know that?
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.ππ
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. βΊοΈ
Can you please come up with something similar for Critical thinking? This needs to be provided to our kids!
Nice clarification, Slyver.
I believe you have this backwards. Analytical thinking is the analysis and categorization of data through a systematic scientific approach. An example would be the Wuhan Virus world wide response. The data was collected and shared with the entire world scientific and medical communities. The data indicates that there is a highly lethal pandemic spreading around the world. The logical analytic response is to develop a vaccine to protect people that have yet to be exposed by innoculating them with a weakened virus so that their immune systems would develop the antibodies needed to fight the virus when they eventually came into contact with it. This is all logical and reasonable. An exercise in Critical Thinking leads one to look at the source of the data and the means of its collection. To question the motives of the data collectors, the motives of the institutions that are pushing the vaccine and the people who have issued the response. The reason why we are all here is Critical thinking. We looked past the data being provided and questioned the processes and motives behind those championing and promulgating the response. There are many brilliant scientific minds that missed the Critical Thinking test, but passed the Analytical thinking test. This is how many high IQ people were duped into receiving the various vax injections. Even some of us with lower IQ scores were able to identify the patterns of deceit and took a larger view to determine that this was suspicious enough to speak out. Some call this "street smart", but it is ultimately Critical thinking.
You just explained "analytical thinking" as thinking using the processes of analysis, and "critical thinking" as determining the veracity of information for yourself (not relying on others to make that determination for you), which is exactly what I said.
I have no idea why you opened with "I believe you have this backwards" since we seem to be in agreement.
Analytical thinking is a process of analyzing data. It doesn't encompass the origin of the data or question the data integrity, I believe Critical thinking does that. If we are in agreement, then I apologize for misunderstanding your post.
While they aren't the same thing, critical thinking is predicated on analytical thinking. Analytical thinking only seeks to verify that the data is accurate and that each conclusion drawn logically follows. Critical thinking relies on the same data, but rather than stopping after deciding whether or not the data and conclusions are accurate, Critical thinking involves weighing that data against other data to formulate opinions and plans of action. Analytical thinking might produce two very different conclusions Critical thinking is used to decide which of those is the better of the two (or more). Analytical and critical thinking are very much intertwined. Critical thinking does not mean throwing out data you don't like because it runs counter to a preconception or counter to a firmly held or religious belief. Belief and faith are antithetical to both analytical and critical thought. Relying on a belief without evidence is the opposite of analytical thought, and using things like gut feelings, spidey senses, numerology, etc. is quite the opposite of critical thought.
No it doesn't. None of this has anything to do with what Critical Thinking is.
The fact that you believe this is the fraud. Please read the link I provided in the first post for the argument that supports this statement, but in short, Critical Thinking means exactly the following and nothing else:
critical thinking: determining the veracity of information for yourself.
Anything else you assign to the definition of critical thinking is part of the fraud. That fraud was designed specifically by the PTB to guide us away from determining the veracity of information for ourselves. Their system guides us towards their experts, and the system of "credentials" they designed to determine the veracity of information for us. it is a system of "trust", and it is what keeps us in The Matrix.
Funny you should say that. from an etymological point of view, the key: critical, already gives it away as it is derived from the Greek: krinein "to separate, decide"
The questions as OP posted, are typical analytical, and are indeed not the end of it. This analytical part is contained in " to separate" . However, the other dimension is to judge. And that brings us to "the veracity of information for yourself"
As you said: they are not mutually exclusive. However, they are pack and parcel of the same.
To think is, at least in common practice, to define, to separate. It is the act of seeing a thing as separate in the mind. All evidence (physics, etc.) suggests that this act of separation is largely incorrect, or rather, correct only with a purposefully narrow scope of view, which misses a lot of information. In other words, the act of thinking (in practice) is the act of "defining," which is the act of diminishing "That Which Is" to "what we want it to be so we can deal with it; i.e. limit it in our minds eye."
In that act of "thinking" there is intrinsic separation, which inherently includes a cogitation of "differences" for "comparisons", thus "analytics." So, the etymological connection of "separate" (krei-"to sieve") is intrinsic in the act of "thinking" (our common practice of it) not in the decision part AKA the judgement. So there are two different concepts in the word roots, one is the common practice of separation (AKA defining) and the other is one of judgement. I suggest the "separation" part is intrinsic to the "thinking" part and not the "judgement" part.
To support this there is another method of "thinking" that does not separate. It is the act of listening, or what is commonly called "meditation." In meditation you listen to what the universe has to say about itself rather than telling it what it is (defining AKA separating). Whenever you start telling the universe what it is through separation, you fail in your meditation. These two methods of thinking are largely opposites.
However, the act of Critical thinking, i.e. judging for yourself the veracity of things is the same in both our standard form of thinking AKA separation AKA analytics, and in our "listening" form of thinking. Thus Analysis (even in the loosest sense in which you are using it) is not necessary for judgement of veracity AKA "critic". Thus "Judging" and "Separating" are, by definition, not the same thing, and by definition have nothing intrinsic to do with each other. They are however complimentary, and this complementarity is found within the root words. The primary focus of the word "critic" however is judgement, and the "separation" AKA analytics, is not a requirement for this judgement and is only added on because it is a common practice in the act of thinking.
Yes, I consider it as two dimensions of the same thing without being equal. before judging there is analysis, then weighing then the verdict. You could do without the other two, yet that would not be very wise.
But interesting to review nonetheless.
It is however very common, thus my insistence that "analysis" and "critic" (judgement) are strictly separate by definition (even if generally not in practice).
you're splitting hairs man, OP had a quality post
Nothing could be further from the truth. I am giving you essential information to understand The Matrix. Please read the post linked above.
Me explaining that this post is not about Critical thinking doesn't in any way detract from the greater message of analytical thinking in the post. Suggesting that it does has nothing to do with my post and is a strawman.
Analytical reasoning is a more linear approach to gathering and analyzing data. It takes a step-by-step flow that breaks down information in a logical pattern.
Critical thinking skills enable you to question the data, verify it, and analyze outside information before developing a more holistic solution.
Which matters most depends upon your point of view. Analytical reasoning is a crucial step in the process of critical thinking. You analyze data before applying critical thinking to it.
If only using analytical skills, you use the data and facts to support your solution.
By then applying critical thinking, you evaluate all sources of information before making a judgement based on your opinion, knowledge, experience, and expertise.
While both are unique skills, and can be used individually, the nature of them makes them completely complimentary. However, the nature of them also means that critical thinkers typically use their analytical skills as the first step to developing holistic solutions that have a positive impact on their teams and organizations.
https://primeast.com/blog/view/273
That is not what Critical thinking is. Please see the post linked above. We have been mistaught what Critical thinking is. Your assessment of what it means is incorrect and it is intentionally incorrect (I'm not suggesting it is your intention, rather the PTB who created our school system intentionally misteach what "Critical Thinking" means). Attempting to explain what it really is and why we have been mistaught what it is, is the purpose of my post. Unless you read the argument presented to make that case (contained within the link) you will not understand the argument made, nor the deeper fuckery contained within the misteaching.
No it is not. They are completely separate things (see example below). You can be analytical without being critical (determining the truth of a thing for yourself). In fact, people do that all the time. You can be critical (determine the truth of a thing for yourself) without being analytical. Again, people do that all the time. Please read my argument in which I make this case in more detail.
I agree that they are complementary. The point is, they are in no way the same thing, at all, by definition.
This is completely untrue in the general sense. People believe they understand the truth of information without in any way being analytical (or perhaps a better way of saying that is "using flawed analytics").
For example, believing that the Earth is Flat requires ignoring all of the evidence, all of the physics, all of the arguments that it is not, and also ignoring all of the evidence that the modern FE push is a CIA psyop (see Eric Dubay, CIA agent e.g.). The flaw of FE is not in the evidence, but the necessity of ignoring counter arguments. To hold on to that belief system, you must ignore the contrary arguments instead of addressing them. That is not analytical thinking, because proper analytics does not purposefully ignore evidence, however, it is very much determining the truth of the information for themselves (the definition of critical thinking).
Your link is a perfect example of the larger scale fuckery to misteach what Critical Thinking is.
Is there a place to search blogs? I'd prefer to read those before any search engine results that can be manipulated to hide the truth.