"dragged into degeneracy"

[Steve James]

Afa "critical" thinking, who would say they weren't a critical thinker? Imo, if someone says they're "thinking about it," they mean critically. It takes someone else to argue that someone else is being irrational or emotional. So, at best, critical thinking is a subjective term.

Afa the ability to critically "think," that is the defining characteristic of our species. There may be individuals who have something wrong with their brains, but that's another issue. And, there are plenty of historical geniuses who believed stuff we'd laugh at now. Newton thought he could find a way to change lead into gold, was devoutly religious, and allegedly remained a virgin. Otoh, he invented calculus. He was a critical thinker.

Aristotle developed logic to give a standard for argumentation. Everyone thinks they're thinking. The question is how to evaluate their thoughts. That is the 'critical' aspect. The process of examining thought. It often involves starting from the premise that the other person is correct. Debate teams were mentioned previously. That's what they do.

[everything]

all homo sapiens can "think" like "I'm going to look at tik toks." critical thinking seems to include more ability to understand what are facts, consider those, consider different explanations/hypotheses that may explain these facts, be able to use some logic especially the ability to understand what are the premises and assumptions behind an "argument", and to question the argument by refuting or questioning the premises and assumptions.

perhaps this table gets at some of it (but not all)



I'm saying our stereotypical Florida Man is seemingly unable to do so. Whether one can be taught better is perhaps up for debate. A debate club or logic class should be able to teach many people. I don't know what baseline skill is required. if a person cannot learn algebra, perhaps logic class would be difficult.

[Quigga]

If everyone is critically thinking then no one is
Everybody believes their opinion to be right

[Steve James]

Everyone is "thinking." It's not an if, it's a how.

Afa the chart, the problem is that the idea of "normal thinking" is a joke. It's something that might be given to college students to describe some fallacies, or "fallacious" thinking. But, human beings have always had to "think" like the green (critical) side of the chart simply to survive. When a college instructor tells a student to think "critically," he's not telling them to so something abnormal.

That said, there are plenty of people who have argued that their opinion is just as good as anyone else's. And, others who just said might makes right, and that's the end of the argument. There was a school of philosophers in Greece who espoused those principles (the Sophists).

If you look at the left side of the chart, there are plenty of people who "accept facts without examination and analysis of the issue." But, if you ask them, they'd say they'd "Done research" and taken the "proper time, and consideration before arriving at a conclusion or decision." Most flat earthers fall into that category. Are they thinking normally or critically?

[Quigga]

To be honest I don't care
My opinion doesn't change other people

[Dmitri]

If you look at the left side of the chart, there are plenty of people who "accept facts without examination and analysis of the issue." But, if you ask them, they'd say they'd "Done research" and taken the "proper time, and consideration before arriving at a conclusion or decision." Most flat earthers fall into that category. Are they thinking normally or critically?

"critical thinking", like all other terms in our language, is a category, and as such, it should (ultimately) never be looked at as a binary option ("either your are or you aren't"), but as a scale; a gradient. Otherwise these types of questions/arguments will never stop or be answered. (Which is why we have philosophers, I guess? )

To be honest I don't care
My opinion doesn't change other people

Everything changes (everything else)

[Steve James]

"critical thinking", like all other terms in our language, is a category, and as such, it should (ultimately) never be looked at as a binary option ("either your are or you aren't"), but as a scale; a gradient. Otherwise these types of questions/arguments will never stop or be answered. (Which is why we have philosophers, I guess? )

Well, I agree that there are degrees of criticality. That's in terms of arguments and propositions. Some are more well thought out than others. I wasn't distinguishing between thinking and "not thinking." However, such a thing does exist, doesn't it? Otoh, one could talk about "un-critical" thinking, but that's not what a philosopher would say. He'd call it "fallacious reasoning," which is not a lack of reasoning or thinking.

As I argued before, "critical thinking is thinking." It just sounds fancier in the educational community when they talk about what they teach. And, I can tell you from experience is that it's because most students don't want "to think." They don't want to criticize their opinions, and they don't want to justify them. My job was to get them to think. Then, they'll learn on their own. They'll do all the things on the right side of the chart. More importantly, they won't use the skill just in school.

[everything]

To be honest I don't care
My opinion doesn't change other people

your opinion has helped my opinion here. I have no idea what you're talking about.

if you are a "critical thinker" or a "regular thinker", your opinion can be changed.

[everything]

I suppose if people learned a little about formal "arguments" and how the scientific method actually works, that would be enough. I don't think those techniques and understandings fall under the label "thinking" in everyday life. If we don't want to call that "critical thinking", we can call it something else, "logic" or "formal logic" (doesn't cover the understanding of scientific method) are perhaps some candidates.

For 100,000s of years, humans didn't really learn anything new. Almost by definition, we could not. "God" knew everything, but humans could not. Or some ancestor before us figured it all out, and if we missed it, we didn't study well enough (IMA anyone?). Or if "ancient texts" didn't ask and answer certain questions, they must not be important. Humans invented gunpowder, but it took 500 years before anyone realized it was "new knowledge" that could form "new military technology". Doing "research" and then inventing "technology" just wouldn't have been done. Studying the past was more important.

Once humans "declared ignorance" (as the Sapiens book puts it), and attempted to understand the Universe a little tiny bit at a time, we made massive progress in new knowledge (and technology putting it to use). We could ask really odd questions and really big questions.

I think "Florida Man" still lives in the Dark Ages, unknowingly, and doesn't really understand (and is afraid of) how knowledge is and is not created by humans. Why? Not really sure. It's easier? It's an "adaptation" because conditions do not require it?

[Steve James]

Ya don't have to go to school or learn formal (classical) logic to understand what an ad hominem or any common fallacy. My point is that it's nothing new.

Anyway, does this mean that your "Florida Man" is "normal"?

[everything]

my claim is "Florida Man" is lacking in this logic skill.

my other claim is that perhaps "Florida Man" is a "new normal". Or perhaps it was always this way, and "the media" and "the political class" are worse than before.

[everything]

Probably not good thinking

[Quigga]

Depends on what you want to achieve lmao

Only people themselves can change their self

[everything]

situation analysis comes first, I suppose

[Steve James]

Getting female companionship successfully inspired the development of a new "branch" of mathematical logic (essentially game theory). Watch "A Beautiful Mind."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJS7Igvk6ZM