< 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
 
   
 

When?

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
08 June 2019 11:10
 
bbearren - 08 June 2019 11:09 AM
nonverbal - 08 June 2019 09:49 AM

John asks a simple question regarding your intended message in the OP, but the question isn’t answerable due to how it was presented within quotes, so you “can’t find the [flippin’] quote.”

Next, we have your above quote which I’ve bold-faced for clarity. So John wasn’t so far off, right? Good Lord, man.

Do you mean that John wasn’t too far off by asking me to clarify what i neither said nor implied, “... do you mean something like repeating the same, irrelevant claim a dozen times in giant blue font?”

Slowly read my post, then get back to me.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7618
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
08 June 2019 11:17
 
nonverbal - 08 June 2019 11:08 AM
bbearren - 08 June 2019 10:58 AM
no_profundia - 08 June 2019 09:34 AM

I’m still waiting to see evidence of “Critical thinking—the analysis of facts to form a judgment.  The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence.  Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking.  It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism and sociocentrism.” here on these forums.

If your ideal of critical thinking is so stringent that no one here meets it then the problem is with your ideal, not the posters on this forum. Why not accept that we are all humans doing our best (including you) as the foundation of discussion rather than imposing an impossible ideal on everyone?

Either relax your ideal or apply it consistently like Roger Williams did. If you apply it consistently you will see that a failure to meet your ideal applies to you as well as the posters on this forum and you will either have to give up discussion as hopeless or accept that there is no such thing as pure critical thinking with an absence of bias, egocentrism, sociocentrism, etc. and yet it is still possible to have fruitful discussions and advance knowledge (not that I think we are advancing knowledge on this forum, that is not its purpose).

Rationality is socially emergent. It arises from lots of imperfect individuals engaging in discussion and intellectual inquiry and correcting each other’s biases and mistakes. Holding everyone to some impossible ideal just gets in the way of that. It does not advance rationality. No one has ever increased our knowledge or understanding of any topic by walking into a room and simply declaring that everyone in it fails to meet some impossible ideal of critical thinking.

So what is the point of doing that?

I’m ahead of you on the Roger Williams analogy.  I have never professed to be a “critical thinker” or a proponent for strict adherence to “critical thinking”

A site search for “critical thinking” yields 16 pages of results.  The term gets slung around a good bit.

How do you feel about people who strive to adhere to “critical thinking,” or are such people on a misguided path, perhaps? You do know that words can only rarely reflect mathematical equations, right?

I think this is a great question / observation. The perspective I’ve heard many times on this forum that seems most useful to me is that we can be in pursuit of critical thinking, but that none of us will ever be perfect at executing it.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 June 2019 11:31
 
nonverbal - 08 June 2019 11:10 AM
bbearren - 08 June 2019 11:09 AM
nonverbal - 08 June 2019 09:49 AM

John asks a simple question regarding your intended message in the OP, but the question isn’t answerable due to how it was presented within quotes, so you “can’t find the [flippin’] quote.”

Next, we have your above quote which I’ve bold-faced for clarity. So John wasn’t so far off, right? Good Lord, man.

Do you mean that John wasn’t too far off by asking me to clarify what i neither said nor implied, “... do you mean something like repeating the same, irrelevant claim a dozen times in giant blue font?”

Slowly read my post, then get back to me.

I did, and I did, just as I read John’s question in full, slowly, more than once, and replied to him.

What part of my reply to you do you not understand.  What ambiguity beguiles you?

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
08 June 2019 11:53
 

I’m only offering assistance with a bit of verbal clarification, b.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 June 2019 11:55
 
nonverbal - 08 June 2019 11:08 AM

How do you feel about people who strive to adhere to “critical thinking,” ...?

I don’t.  If “critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking”, how I might feel about people who strive to adhere to those principles has no affect on them, or me.

You do know that words can only rarely reflect mathematical equations, right?

You do know that mathematics can only rarely be taught without using words, right?

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
08 June 2019 11:57
 
bbearren - 08 June 2019 11:55 AM
nonverbal - 08 June 2019 11:08 AM

How do you feel about people who strive to adhere to “critical thinking,” ...?

I don’t.  If “critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking”, how I might feel about people who strive to adhere to those principles has no affect on them, or me.

You do know that words can only rarely reflect mathematical equations, right?

You do know that mathematics can only rarely be taught without using words, right?

. . . or performed! You understand perfectly, I’m sure. The math itself is not what I’d call verbal.

(Good point.)

Maybe Burt will chime in.

[ Edited: 08 June 2019 11:59 by nonverbal]
 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 June 2019 12:29
 
nonverbal - 08 June 2019 11:57 AM
bbearren - 08 June 2019 11:55 AM
nonverbal - 08 June 2019 11:08 AM

How do you feel about people who strive to adhere to “critical thinking,” ...?

I don’t.  If “critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking”, how I might feel about people who strive to adhere to those principles has no affect on them, or me.

You do know that words can only rarely reflect mathematical equations, right?

You do know that mathematics can only rarely be taught without using words, right?

. . . or performed! You understand perfectly, I’m sure. The math itself is not what I’d call verbal.

(Good point.)

Maybe Burt will chime in.

I use a Windows phone.  I use Cortana a lot when I’m driving; don’t want to text and drive, but Cortana can do that for me, as well as many other helpful things.
Hey Cortana, tell me a joke.

“Don’t trust the atoms.  They make up everything.”

Tell me something interesting.

“Studies show that cows have best friends, and become sad when they are separated.”

Her verbal interactions with me are processed via quite powerful voice recognition software for hearing and digital audio files pieced and parceled together and played through my phone’s speaker (or my vehicle’s radio speaker via Bluetooth) for talking.  For Cortana, all words are math.  If my cell phone signal is spotty, Cortana can’t communicate with the AI in the cloud, and I hear, “I’m sorry, the internet and I aren’t talking right now.  Try again later.”

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
08 June 2019 12:40
 

I recommend Wittgenstein, bb.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 June 2019 13:27
 
nonverbal - 08 June 2019 12:40 PM

I recommend Wittgenstein, bb.

Not into philosophizers, not my bag.

I know what it means to be truly bilingual.  I explained it here.  I know what it’s feels like to hear the words, but not hear the language.  What switch(s) got flipped in the brain between my ears to cause that?  What signal processing is going on in all those synapses that just bypasses the “translating from one language to another” step and goes directly to “hearing words”?

Just because we can’t yet comprehend the math doesn’t necessarily mean that words are not math.

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
08 June 2019 13:31
 
bbearren - 08 June 2019 01:27 PM
nonverbal - 08 June 2019 12:40 PM

I recommend Wittgenstein, bb.

Not into philosophizers, not my bag.

I know what it means to be truly bilingual.  I explained it here.  I know what it’s feels like to hear the words, but not hear the language.  What switch(s) got flipped in the brain between my ears to cause that?  What signal processing is going on in all those synapses that just bypasses the “translating from one language to another” step and goes directly to “hearing words”?

Just because we can’t yet comprehend the math doesn’t necessarily mean that words are not math.

I fully appreciate that, bb. But it’s all about use. Wittgenstein realized that use trumps definition. Otherwise, what would we have? What we’d have is precisely what we had prior to Wittgenstein. By all means, please continue to ignore him. Your idealism deserves better.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 June 2019 14:33
 
nonverbal - 08 June 2019 01:31 PM

Your idealism deserves better.

Idealism?  You remind me of a saying my cohorts in the AF and I sometimes used when accidentally bumping into someone; “Excuse me, I thought you were a water buffalo.”

You may have me confused with a water buffalo.

 
 
no_profundia
 
Avatar
 
 
no_profundia
Total Posts:  509
Joined  14-07-2016
 
 
 
08 June 2019 15:41
 

I’m ahead of you on the Roger Williams analogy.  I have never professed to be a “critical thinker” or a proponent for strict adherence to “critical thinking”

I guess I don’t know what you meant by the OP then. Not to overstate the obvious but none of us can see directly into your hearts of hearts to divine what you meant or intended by your OP. All we have to rely on is our understanding of the English language and various social conventions involving the use of language that are public and common.

I know what most people would mean or intend if they posted a definition of critical thinking on a public forum and then claimed they were still waiting to see some evidence of it on the forum. They would mean something like:

The definition of “critical thinking” I have presented provides a normative standard that a person must meet to be able to claim truly that they are engaging in “critical thinking”, I see no evidence that the parts of the definition are being met in the statements made by the posters on this forum, therefore, the posters on this forum are failing to live up to the normative standard expressed in the definition. Because the definition is a normative standard the posters on this forum should try to live up to it.

Is that not what you meant?

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 June 2019 23:21
 
no_profundia - 08 June 2019 03:41 PM

I’m ahead of you on the Roger Williams analogy.  I have never professed to be a “critical thinker” or a proponent for strict adherence to “critical thinking”

I guess I don’t know what you meant by the OP then. Not to overstate the obvious but none of us can see directly into your hearts of hearts to divine what you meant or intended by your OP. All we have to rely on is our understanding of the English language and various social conventions involving the use of language that are public and common.

I know what most people would mean or intend if they posted a definition of critical thinking on a public forum and then claimed they were still waiting to see some evidence of it on the forum. They would mean something like:

The definition of “critical thinking” I have presented provides a normative standard that a person must meet to be able to claim truly that they are engaging in “critical thinking”, I see no evidence that the parts of the definition are being met in the statements made by the posters on this forum, therefore, the posters on this forum are failing to live up to the normative standard expressed in the definition. Because the definition is a normative standard the posters on this forum should try to live up to it.

Is that not what you meant?

I am also one of the posters on these forums.  I am not exempting myself from the observation of the OP.

On the other hand, as I stated in post #28, a site search for “critical thinking” yields 16 pages of results.  The term gets slung around a good bit.

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
09 June 2019 06:46
 
bbearren - 08 June 2019 11:21 PM
no_profundia - 08 June 2019 03:41 PM

I’m ahead of you on the Roger Williams analogy.  I have never professed to be a “critical thinker” or a proponent for strict adherence to “critical thinking”

I guess I don’t know what you meant by the OP then. Not to overstate the obvious but none of us can see directly into your hearts of hearts to divine what you meant or intended by your OP. All we have to rely on is our understanding of the English language and various social conventions involving the use of language that are public and common.

I know what most people would mean or intend if they posted a definition of critical thinking on a public forum and then claimed they were still waiting to see some evidence of it on the forum. They would mean something like:

The definition of “critical thinking” I have presented provides a normative standard that a person must meet to be able to claim truly that they are engaging in “critical thinking”, I see no evidence that the parts of the definition are being met in the statements made by the posters on this forum, therefore, the posters on this forum are failing to live up to the normative standard expressed in the definition. Because the definition is a normative standard the posters on this forum should try to live up to it.

Is that not what you meant?

I am also one of the posters on these forums.  I am not exempting myself from the observation of the OP.

On the other hand, as I stated in post #28, a site search for “critical thinking” yields 16 pages of results.  The term gets slung around a good bit.

You trust the opinion of a single-cylinder search motor?

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
09 June 2019 07:29
 
nonverbal - 09 June 2019 06:46 AM
bbearren - 08 June 2019 11:21 PM

I am also one of the posters on these forums.  I am not exempting myself from the observation of the OP.

On the other hand, as I stated in post #28, a site search for “critical thinking” yields 16 pages of results.  The term gets slung around a good bit.

You trust the opinion of a single-cylinder search motor?

Search engines have algorithms.  I am unfamiliar with “search motor”.  As to whether such would have cylinder(s) or opinion(s) I am even less familiar.

Feel free to use the big red Advanced Search button on the upper right of this page and draw your own conclusion(s).

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›