[GrizzAdams]

A lot of people do not have specialized training on how to think critically about topics. I think this is one subject that has been seriously under-looked and I for one think it should be given more serious attention.

Introduction to Critical Thinking

[Carlhole]

Did you have something specific in mind that needs some critical thought?

[spudbuddy]

Well, the site has dropped this topic like a hot potato. (I wonder how many actually read the accompanying article?)

My regards to Iowa - my wife's from there (Dubuque county).

The process of critical thinking could certainly help clarify some of the topics discussed here.
This medium being the social construct that it is...people still need to talk, discuss, question, opinionate, gripe, fuss, wail, bark, (and all the rest of the accompanying social noises.)
Most would not wish for "expert" analysis to step in and do it for them.

Brings an observer to pose the question: How credible is a higher education these days?
Independent thinking...used to be inspired for entirely that purpose. To promote the true independence of a student.
(prepare them for the real world?)
In other words, the real inspiration for the exercise, the carrot at the end of the stick, was the goal of establishing independent personhood as quickly as possible.

I see thousands of young students roaming the study halls of my university library...many of them living at home, many more of them remaining at home even after they graduate.
These are young adults.
Many of the prime indentifiers of real adulthood have eluded them.
Responsibilities of career, family, parenthood, homeownership, etc.
A woeful economy fundamentally continues to "infantilize" them.
I wonder if this is entirely their fault.
I ponder, what can possible inspire in them, a true desire to think for themselves?
One would imagine...the same reasons as always existed.
But I have to remind myself - their world is quite different than the one in which I gained my own formal education.

I can at least qualify this remark: In my time, a grade 10 level of education provided a higher degree of literacy skill, than I now find in the successful completion of many undergraduate degrees.
This suggests a drastic lowering of standards, of course.
But is that entirely the answer?

School taught what it taught. Life taught the rest.
What does life...teach these days?
I'm thinking of a child's voyages through the public realm in days of yore.
I'm thinking of the incredibly insular existence of today's student.
From pre-school to convocation, how much of the public realm do they truly experience?
-just a few thoughts to throw into the mix.

[GrizzAdams]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')id you have something specific in mind that needs some critical thought?

[Trindelm]

I agree, I really wish I were taught hard-skills of critical thinking. Only now am I attempting to learn formal logic on my own. It is an awakening of sections of the brain that have either atrophied or rarely existed.
So far I have noticed a difference in my reading and TV habits, I am just more aware than I was a few months ago.

I doubt there is a "formal logic for dummies" course but any recomendations on what I can read to further myself along in this logic quest?

Thanks

[killJOY]

I'm always consulting this site:

http://skepdic.com/

There's a "critical thinking" feature on the left side bar.

I also like

http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

It helps to be able to identify crappy arguments.

[Carlhole]

I read this the other day. Seems to be on the subject.

The Mindless American: A Tragedy In The Making
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... cleId=1136

It has always seemed to me that most people try their best to fit in to whatever group they want to belong to - thinking be damned. How else would such ridiculous mythologies such as belong to religions be believed by millions? It's because the mythologies aren't important, it's the belonging to the group that's important - because it's SECURE to belong to a group. If you hate to think like the group, you're free to think for yourself but you have to be ready to take alot of shit.

[skyemoor]

And I have found guides such as the following helpful in cutting through the hyperbole from all sides;
http://www.constitution.org/col/propaganda_army.htm

[killJOY]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t has always seemed to me that most people try their best to fit in to whatever group they want to belong to - thinking be damned

[Carlhole]

Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
By Jim Lobe, AlterNet. Posted May 19, 2003.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lobe', 'M')any neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz are disciples of a philosopher who believed that the elite should use deception, religious fervor and perpetual war to control the ignorant masses.

What would you do if you wanted to topple Saddam Hussein, but your intelligence agencies couldn't find the evidence to justify a war?

A follower of Leo Strauss may just hire the "right" kind of men to get the job done – people with the intellect, acuity, and, if necessary, the political commitment, polemical skills, and, above all, the imagination to find the evidence that career intelligence officers could not detect.

Rule One: Deception

It's hardly surprising then why Strauss is so popular in an administration obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Not only did Strauss have few qualms about using deception in politics, he saw it as a necessity. While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical – divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders. According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."

This dichotomy requires "perpetual deception" between the rulers and the ruled, according to Drury. Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst says,"The people are told what they need to know and no more." While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy, according to Drury, author of 'Leo Strauss and the American Right' (St. Martin's 1999).

Second Principle: Power of Religion

...At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were "a pious fraud." As Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine points out, "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers."...

Third Principle: Aggressive Nationalism

...Not surprisingly, Strauss' attitude toward foreign policy was distinctly Machiavellian. "Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured (emphases added)."

"Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in," says Drury. The idea easily translates into, in her words, an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy," of the kind that has been advocated by neocon groups like PNAC and AEI scholars – not to mention Wolfowitz and other administration hawks who have called for a world order dominated by U.S. military power. Strauss' neoconservative students see foreign policy as a means to fulfill a "national destiny" – as Irving Kristol defined it already in 1983 – that goes far beyond the narrow confines of a " myopic national security."...

[Trindelm]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '[')url=http://www.alternet.org/story/15935]Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception[/url]
By Jim Lobe, AlterNet. Posted May 19, 2003.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lobe', 'M')any neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz are disciples of a philosopher who believed that the elite should use deception, religious fervor and perpetual war to control the ignorant masses...."

[killJOY]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')any neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz are disciples of a philosopher who believed that the elite should use deception, religious fervor and perpetual war to control the ignorant masses.

[GrizzAdams]

That kind of reminds me of Machievelli, when he started going on about how it is ok for politicians to lie, cheat and steal. Ok, he didn't exactly say it was ok for politicians to lie, cheat and steal, he said they had to. How else would they meet the payments on their mansions.

[bart]

Some suggestions for clear thinking:

1. Turn off the TV. It lowers the IQ.

2. Don't depend on the Internet or discussion forums to learn critical thinking. Nor on newspapers and magazines.

3. Read good books: philosophy, history, literature, science.

4. Don't get caught up in intellectual fads and fashions. Spend time with the classics to develop taste and judgment.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bart', '
')3. Read good books: philosophy, history, literature, science.

[MrBill]

I clicked on the link and I am in the process of reading it. Will let you know if I finish it. Kind of dry, but okay....

I like to participate in forum discussions because they are instructive. They tell you where opposition to your own ideas is coming from and why?

Also, they are an exercise in developing emotional intelligence and handling conflict. I try to always focus on the argument and not to get personal no matter how much people attack me and not my ideas. This carries over in the real world, especially if you work in an office environment with lots of day to day conflicts to resolve.

However, I should point out that this is an academic article and academia itself seems not so much polarized, but dominated from one end of the political spectrum. They are very intolerant of dissenting views or politically unpopular views. This in itself is not critical thinking. It is the opposite. Deeply held beliefs and the unwillingness to consider alternatives.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hile we as professors have the ability ourselves to think critically (we had to learn these skills to earn advanced degrees in our disciplines), many students--including our own--never develop critical thinking skills.

[MrBill]

This is a little patronizing...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')hildren are not born with the power to think critically, nor do they develop this ability naturally beyond survival-level thinking. Critical thinking is a learned ability that must be taught. Most individuals never learn it. Critical thinking cannot be taught reliably to students by peers or by most parents. Trained and knowledgable instructors are necessary to impart the proper information and skills. Math and science instructors have precisely this information and these skills. Why?

A scientifically-literate person, such as a math or science instructor, has learned to think critically to achieve that level of scientific awareness. But any individual with an advanced degree in any university discipline has almost certainly learned the techniques of critical thinking.

[bart]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'A')nd how does one know which books are good? The ones you tell me? That isn't critical thinking, is it?

[RacerJace]

I figured that education basically enhances ones skill in research and analysis from first principles (fundamental sciences and root cause analysis and comprehension including critical thinking etc.). Without constant training (exercise) of these skills, life experiences tend to take over and often biases ones view of the world around them. However some people are better than others at remembering and distinguishing facts that are well foundered.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RacerJace', 'I') figured that education basically enhances ones skill in research and analysis from first principles (fundamental sciences and root cause analysis and comprehension including critical thinking etc.). Without constant training (exercise) of these skills, life experiences tend to take over and often biases ones view of the world around them. However some people are better than others at remembering and distinguishing facts that are well foundered.