What price does Canada have to pay for saying no to the US ?
No seat at a table (which table ? at the Pentagon somewhere ?) means ... what disadvantage exactly ?
Unfortunately, the relatively sane days in Canada are over in this regard. Our current prime minister and his cohorts are as subservient to the US as they can be. The dumbing down process has worked here too, if not to the same extent as in America.
Ned wrote:
It is absolutely essential that critical thinking rules and the scientific method be taught in schools all the way from the beginning.
Without that, very few will learn how to evaluate information in a reliable way.
Without that, society is doomed.
I agree, and I would add that the pertinent information must be included, just being able to manipulate data is not enough if the data is not available.
A case to illustrate this occurred with my 9 year old grandson. He wanted to learn to play the guitar and we found an inexpensive instrument at the Salvation Army Thrift Store and gave it to him while trying to decide on lessons. In the mean time a string broke, and not knowing enough about guitars, he believed that it was ruined and he would get into trouble for breaking it. So he put it out for the trash to get rid of the evidence. This was a case where he didn't have the necessary information to make the correct decision, he based his actions on the limited and incorrect information he had.
I have also been in a situation where someone will say "You should have known that", assuming that I had information that I did not have. I try to tell people "If you want to be sure I know something, tell me, don't assume that I already know it". There is a lot that I don't know, and I really get tired of getting into trouble for information that others just assume that I know.
But reason is the enemy of the propagandists, and almost nobody knows how to think with clarity anymore because such skills are rarely taught in schools or universities
Ned wrote:
It is absolutely essential that critical thinking rules and the scientific method be taught in schools all the way from the beginning.
Without that, very few will learn how to evaluate information in a reliable way.
Without that, society is doomed.
I agree, and I would add that the pertinent information must be included, just being able to manipulate data is not enough if the data is not available.
An essential ingredient of critical thinking is the rules to follow on how to secure "pertinent information".
Review my three rules I posted earlier:
1. Exactly what is it that we know for a fact?
2. Exactly how do we know it?
3. What are the sources, the reliability and the limits of our knowledge?
But reason is the enemy of the propagandists, and almost nobody knows how to think with clarity anymore because such skills are rarely taught in schools or universities
The "crisis of the now" involves an incessant, strategic bombardment of the population with a never-ending stream of contrived crises that demand immediate attention in the present. This psychological bombardment is waged primarily via the mainstream media which assaults the viewer by the hour with images of violence, war, emotions and conflict. Because the human nervous system is hard wired to focus on immediate threats accompanied by depictions of violence, mainstream media viewers have their attention and mental resources funneled into the never-ending "crisis of the NOW" from which they can never have the mental breathing room to apply logic, reason or historical context.
It reminds me very much of Naomi Klein's book: "The Shock Doctrine".
To highlight the qualities of critical thinking, could it be used against a text like below? Can we use your 3 rules to see if the below is possible as a statement?
I'm interested in the fact the what we see is basically made up of line, colour and form. It is from this that we construct our idea of reality. With my paintings I want to create a new reality which draws a map in the mind of the viewer of a place not yet seen.
Thanks for that, it is interesting what you say. I'm now thinking what the text would sound like, what changes would have to be made, for it to satisfy and to be given the green light of critical thinking.
That's why tiny.cc/TheWholeStory is the answer to philosophy. It's a framework within which all information can be sorted and all solutions derived. It can be agreed, by intelligent people anyhow, because there are no gaps.
>We just express emotional and personal opinions and expect others to agree with our unstated assumptions.
Not "just". It's necessary to have a common understanding or you hit an infinite regress (as many people in this forum provide constant examples of). And not "we" because a good thinker always stands ready to defend their position with a few practical caveats.
>Sometimes even we ourselves do not know what assumptions. Our opponents are no better off, so arguments seldom go anywhere. We keep shouting each other down, interrupting each other's statements -- nobody convinces anybody about anything; the argument is doomed from the start. Quite often the purpose is to score points. We treat the discussion as a contest, instead of an attempt to find a solution and thus let everybody win. This attitude, of course, is consistent with the aggressive genes in our species that want to fight, rather than cooperate, for survival.
I think it's important to distinguish between rabid nay-sayers, true philosopers, and ignorant masses here. Your contentions don't apply equally to each group.
>The scientific method, which was so successful over the centuries in technology, is not limited to science: it is a general problem-solving method that could and should be applied to all our problems.
Science is rigor. The "scientific method" is s subset.
>We need a common starting point. If we go from there, step by step, making sure we agree on each step, then either we arrive at the same conclusion, or a point of disagreement. Work on that point, until we reach a compromise, and then resume our discussion, knowing that we are still together, solving our problem.
I couldn't agree more, but... i've created that starting point and can't find someone even halfway capable or a smidgen interested in vetting it because most people are such fools they believe credentials alone indicate understanding. Truth doesn't wish to be believed, it wished to be tested.. and then runs headlong into DK. (Dunning/Krueger) If you're up for the project, i have a necessary and sufficient tale to answer all philosophical questions, including what it means to answer all philosophical questions, cohesively and coherently.
>Take the judicial system, for example. The body of laws ought to read like a scientific document. All the terms must be clearly defined, all the laws clearly stated, covering every probable scenario, every possible exception. No contradiction is allowed in the document and if one is demonstrated, it needs to be revised to remove the contradiction.
Wonderful example, which would clear up a lot of bullshit all by itself; like legal fictions, tyranny of the majority, responsibility/agency, ignorance of the law being no excuse, etc. The fundamentals of most Judicial systems are not Just. My broader solution is that each law must contain several parts; a) the letter of the law b) what it's intended to accomplish c) a review date. A citizen should be able to mount a meaningful challenge to any part, individually.
>Of course, no law-book is perfect, just as no encyclopaedia of science is flawless. But the intent is there and with the right attitude, things can be improved all the time.
There's no reason it couldn't be. The law should be a flowchart that anyone who can read can follow to know exactly what's illegal and what to do/not do and expect, or it's actually obfuscation and bullying, not rule of l law.
>In criminal trials both the defender and the prosecutor have to use precise logic to draw their conclusions (even though each tries to cheat as much as he thinks he can get away with) and the evidence they present has to be “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
*"logic" Logic! has no place in a courtroom. I could give you numerous examples from my own life. The law so goddamn interpretable that judges and businesses do whatever they want and everyone else trails along in the wake, hoping to survive off the scraps. <spit>
>It is a sad state of affairs that our politicians can get away with undefined concepts, gross errors of facts, blatantly illogical arguments, glaring contradictions and transparent emotional manipulation.
Yes but... it's important also to acknowledge that too Much precision is counterproductive as well.
Want to collaborate on some more manageable aspect of your epic and worthy idea?
[quote=Ned post_id=202275 time=1431342179 user_id=9566]
[quote="Pluto"][quote="Ned"]But I also think there needs to be education on the actual relationship between power structures and how they communicate to a populace. To understand that the whole mediated culture of entertainment is being used as a conduit for spreading and instilling ideas about society and the world.[/quote][/quote]
To what extent do you think it (the dumbing down process) is deliberate?
I don't mean that there is a mastermind planning it all but, to some extent, policy decision makers must be aware of the effect of NOT teaching critical thinking and scientific method in a systematic way?
[/quote]
There's a strong anti-intellectual undercurrent in all societies because ignorant people are easier to rule, for better or worse. There is an appropriate amount of information to give an ordinary citizen and a different amount to give a leader.
[quote=Ned post_id=202294 time=1431344143 user_id=9566]
[quote="Pluto"]To teach elemental rules of critical thinking would be a start, whatever they would be? [/quote]
How about:
1. Exactly what is it that we know for a fact?
2. Exactly how do we know it?
3. What are the sources, the reliability and the limits of our knowledge?
In addition, for me, the words we are using have to be defined by the following rules:
The definition has to:
1./ be based on observed and verified phenomena
2./ it can not be circular (containing references to itself)
3./ it has to be placed in the context of existing human knowledge
4./ it can not use undefined words/concepts
5./ it cannot contain contradictions
My wife is teaching "Critical Thinking" classes in adult education programs. She is bringing in daily newspapers and teach her students how to evaluate articles in politics and in advertising.
She says her adult students are absolutely amazed and delighted by the methods and techniques she shows them.
[/quote]
Here's a start; https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... gq2BmR8qs/ They can't be justified by (most of) your criteria because that's not the point. They aren't empirical facts, they're a choice of many possible interpretations and the contention is that they work better than the rest. That's falsifiable.
[quote=duszek post_id=202311 time=1431347873 user_id=3516]
We can practise critical thinking when listening to the news on the radio or some other prepared programmes and make spontanuous comments like:
That´s a lie.
This is only partially true, my dear, and you know it.
The choice of words is interesting, isn´t it ? What are you trying to conceal ?
Now you are beaufitying because you try to be diplomatic.
Quite hypocrytical today, aren´t we ?
Etc.
[/quote]
...as i'm sure many of us do. Now how do we make it a group sport?
[quote=thedoc post_id=202336 time=1431352387 user_id=8079]
[quote="Ned"]
[b]It is absolutely essential that critical thinking rules and the scientific method be taught in schools all the way from the beginning.
Without that, very few will learn how to evaluate information in a reliable way.[/b]
Without that, society is doomed.[/quote]
I agree, and I would add that the pertinent information must be included, just being able to manipulate data is not enough if the data is not available.
A case to illustrate this occurred with my 9 year old grandson. He wanted to learn to play the guitar and we found an inexpensive instrument at the Salvation Army Thrift Store and gave it to him while trying to decide on lessons. In the mean time a string broke, and not knowing enough about guitars, he believed that it was ruined and he would get into trouble for breaking it. So he put it out for the trash to get rid of the evidence. This was a case where he didn't have the necessary information to make the correct decision, he based his actions on the limited and incorrect information he had.
I have also been in a situation where someone will say "You should have known that", assuming that I had information that I did not have. I try to tell people "If you want to be sure I know something, tell me, don't assume that I already know it". There is a lot that I don't know, and I really get tired of getting into trouble for information that others just assume that I know.
[/quote]
And then there's the version where you were given bad information and blamed for acting on it when it produces bad results.
And then there's the version where your boss says you're doing it wrong even though you're in mid-process of doing it your own way which would have produced Better results if you weren't interfered with but then you get blamed for producing sub-standard results.
