Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by PCWilliams, Mar 3, 2012.
Critical thinking explained in six kid-friendly animations
Very nice. Simple clear points.
this guy's you-tube channel is awesome...
I got it from James Randi. Good basics.
Great vid. I've been subscribed to that channel. I wish they would upload more often.
This guy is his brother:
More focussed on Atheism, but some interesting other stuff there too.
The start of this one is related to something I said earlier about assuming other people think as you do.
As one might correctly assume, I am a strong advocate of encouraging Critical Thinking skills. I have always been a science/math geek, which are fields that require Critical Thinking in pursuit of truth (reaching a valid conclusion based on the available evidence). As a young man I was enthralled by Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories. Though a fictional character, Sherlock Holmes had been the closest that I have come to idolizing anyone (with Spock coming in a close 2nd). It has been a conundrum to me why Critical Thinking is not required curriculum in our schools, it had not been until college that Critical Thinking and Logical Fallacies had been thoroughly covered in a classroom. While Metabunk is mostly focused on examining claims of evidence in order to separate Fact from Fiction, I think it is also a wonderful place where (some of the) members show by example, how to be a Critical Thinker. As a community we often encounter people who have become misinformed as a result of an inability/unwillingness to practice Critical Thinking skills, who fall into the trap of "I read it on the Internet, so it's got to be true" or "My friends told me about [so and so], and they are smart, so it's probably true"....
I have given up on trying to have an intelligent discussion with people that are CTers, who are incapable of considering the possibility that they may be wrong/misinformed/misled. I focus on getting people recognize that some sources of information are FAR more credible than are others, namely conspiracy profiteering websites (ie... Infowars, beforeitsnews, the anti-media), how to recognize Logical Fallacies, and demystifying what it is to be a Critical Thinker. My intent is to inoculate people so that they are far less susceptible to fall for BS scare-mongering. That being said....
I think this chapter on Critical Thinking from University of Kansas, provides a good guide on how to encourage Critical Thinking in others.
Link to the website
Selected excerpts follow as this is not the entirety of the article:
That has always baffled me as well, Critical Thinking skills are of use right across the academic field, even in subjects such as History. The very basics of critical thinking are not hard to understand and I'm sure that even primary school children (5-10 yrs) could be given the basics of matter which would be of great help in their later school, college and then university careers, besides being a very useful life skill.
There's always been some suspicion of "Critical Thinking" from the religious right, who view it as code for atheism.
Good point as far as the US is concerned, but I can't see the religious right providing any real opposition in the UK and Europe and other parts of the world
Conspiracy theorists often boast of being great critical thinkers because they don't believe anything they hear in the mainstream media, "do the research" themselves, etc. If you talk to conspiracy theorists, they will tell you you are the gullible one and they are the real critical thinkers.
They also like to believe that anybody can just 'figure out' stuff like astronomy by casually looking at the sky and easily see through the silly stuff the dishonest "experts" tell us.
In the Netherlands, students learn in high school (although only in the level preparing for University) how to build an argument, including discussion techniques with issues like non sequiturs, ad hominems, relying on authority, strawmans, red herrings etc. However, the emphasis is on rhethoric skills, not logic, and when I do discuss with students sometimes, this “knowledge” doesn’t seem to stick immediately. Just like they have learned the traffic rules, but you could hardly tell looking at the way they behave on their bikes in real traffic.
well with high school age, youre battling new hormones. God Bless High School teachers : )
"Do some research" actually means, "I can not oppose your logic, so please watch this Jones, Icke, LaRouche, Dahboo unverified video and stop bothering me with facts"...
They are also, sometimes, simply a bit stupid
One CT'er thought he had made that killer point, when he said "why no phone footage of the pentagon attack"
Err because video smart phones were not around in 2001
Brief pause, (although obviously not evaluate his critical thinking)
"Why no plane shape hole"
And they are like goldfish, by the time who have answered and explained all the
why no ?...................
They will say, "why no phone footage of the pentagon attack?"
You make a good point, in that as soon as one claim is debunked, without drawing breath they are on to the next.
I always ask them to acknowledge their previous claim was false and they hardly ever do. I was in a discussion on Youtube (I know, why do I do this to myself?) and a guy made a video in which he fires a Carcano rifle in the time set by the Warren Commission and Zapruder film at three targets, roughly recreating the assassination of JFK.
One guy comes up and starts arguing the test is invalid as Oswald was seen having lunch and Officer Craig swore that the weapon he saw was a Mauser. He also said that the shot was impossible - immediately debunked by the video.
I simply asked him what was wrong with the test - He went off on various angles (the usual claims, not worth repeating here) and ignored the question. Very interesting I replied, but what was wrong with the test? Same again, and this went through several cycles of irrelevance, but eventually he said, "well even if it was possible, he was having lunch somewhere else and Officer Craig said.................."
Getting a CT to stick to the point is the first challenge, as the detail of the theory is less important to them than the need for the concept that the conspiracy is necessary to satisfy their world view. Getting this guy to critically examine the notion that it is possible to shot three rounds at three targets in the time available was very hard, and even then, he did the logical summersault to then declare that it doesn't really matter as blah blah blah...
Lack of or poorly developed critical thinking skills goes well beyond just conspiracy theorists though. and in fairness, sometimes it's hard to get critical thinkers to stick to the point as well. : )
I'd want to see some data that supports--SQUIRREL!!!
I'll work on it.....
This. I just went through that. They started out claiming that persistent contrails do not arise from water vapor, but when I started discussing that point, they quickly switched to Welsbach materials and geo-engineering patents and agenda 21.
It takes two to tango. You can always try to force the conversation back to the original point if it's not been concluded. It does not always work, but often people will do this if you make it clear you are not going to go forward otherwise.
And the fact that they can spout claims much faster than you can address them is usually taken as evidence that they are right. After all, they've linked you to 10 different claims and videos about the same general subject and you've only addressed one of them and shown it to be wrong, therefore they're still 90% right.
That's why I enjoy reading these forums where the discussions are kept nice and focused so that claims can be adequately addressed without every thread spiralling into a neverending Gish Gallop as happens all too often on web forums about fringe theories.
Of course. That's what I generally try to do. I think I have tried to re-focus her on that original point 3 times now. No response. Just more: "You should look up [whatever]...."
Any more, I won't follow links at all unless they tell me what point they are making with it and QUOTE the relevant passage first. If you don't do that, you end up wading through entire papers or Youtube vids and trying to make their argument FOR them so you can knock it down. Make THEM make their own SPECIFIC argument. They don't like being pinned down to narrow specifics.
Although I've heard it suggested that a good way to debate is actually to try to make their argument for them. Not in an advocacy way - but in a straightforward "these are the facts" way. Something like "so you are saying that contrails don't persist because your breath evaporates, and hence they must be chemtrails?" Then if they can agree with you that establishes common ground, and also gets them out of the mindset that the opposite of whatever you say must be correct.
In the sense that....a discussion on a topic (a "volatile" topic?) might progress into a 'shouting match', if allowed to?
When it comes to actual debates, "structured" and "moderated" (perhaps)...facts matter more than hyperbole.
I'd hope that we Humans (moving forward) will respond reasonably with each other (of course, this is just a "wish" at this point in time..)...
Since this thread is evolving towards debating/arguing with CT believers this video by potholer54 seems to be appropriate here. (Don't be troubled about the title)
That's a very good video, but it's rather unfortunately titled.
The high school I attended focussed heavily on critical thinking skills, but very few of the students seemed to apply those skills outside of the classroom.
Sort of like... calculus, then.
another very good potholer video is
it deals with the concept of "feelings" and hits at the heart critical thinking and the lack of it
i.e. that simple "feelings" override the actual facts
CT-ers often "feel" that things don't look right
Separate names with a comma.