galiel

I understand what you are saying, but I would argue that, in fact, people have not been properly educated in critical thinking, and that little critical thinking is required to achieve the things you cite., and that, most relevantly, people have not sufficiently internalized the tools of critical thinking--nor shown the value of applying it--to understand the applicability of those tools to things like analyzing political speech, questioning religious dogma, determining the logic and utility of discrimination.

Perhaps we have different definitions of critical thinking and the scientific method. I did not occur to me that those terms require definition here, since they have been defined so often in other threads. My bad. I am a bit tired right now, but I will try to make sure I provide my definition for those terms in my next reply.

scigirl

My take on the critical thought issue...

Galiel, it sounds to me as if you are saying that if someone has critical thought processes, then they automatically will apply them to situations where critical thought is needed. In other words you have it or you don't. Please tell me if I'm mis-reading you (wouldn't be the first time )

However, keep in mind that a great many things humans do is based on emotions. Falling in love, for instance. I don't know about you, but I don't usually fall in love with someone based on a careful evaluation of my options. Heh too bad for me - I often pick someone I can't have! Anyway, so much of religious belief seems to be tied up with that type of emotional thought, and also in tradition and habit.

Therefore, the crux of the issue maybe when to apply it and when you just can't. And figuring out ways to apply it when it's really tough to do so...

scigirl

galiel

I don't understand the purpose of this statement. Are you suggesting that somehow I was not participating in interesting dialogue betweein lots of different people? People have suggested X and Y, and I suggested Z. Please explain how my suggestions were any different than anyone else's.


With respect, no, I do not think so at all. Please reread what I said. I agreed that it is possible that the solution to the problem may be multifactoral, and that more than one of the suggestions posted might be "right" (even though I am somewhat uncomfortable suggesting that the purpose of this conversation is to prove anyone "right" or "wrong"). I also said that the fact that it is possible has no logical bearing on whether, in fact, it is true in this case or any other. Do you disagree with that statement? What in that entire section suggests that I am somehow assuming that this only applies to "other infidels" and not to me and my ideas? I still fail to understand how anything I said is in any way, shape or form a suggestion that I am somehow better than anyone else.

Accepted. It clearly easy for any of us to misinterpret an individual comment within the flood of comments we read here every day.

I am nonplussed. I said that "Much of the criticism of proposals such as my own boils down to a lack of faith in humanity."

This seems to me clearly to mean that many times people have argued against proposals such as the proposal I have made to educate people by responding that people are just stupid and it is futile to try to change them. That expresses a lack of faith in humanity which I do not share.

I am trying very hard not to assume that you are predisposed to read certain things into my posts that you would not necessarily read into the same post from another author. It is hard, when an utterly innocent post by me is met by such hostility, but I am sincerely trying.


I still do not understand your point. Saying you are not fond of the way I present my ideas is, respectfully, not a constructive criticism. You have not in a single instance indicated and alternative or better way I should have said what I said. What is more, you are inaccurately quoting me in a way that further serves to distort the content and intent of my posts.

I believe education is the key, the underlying cause for much of what ails humanity, and I believe that addressing ignorance is the best lever to move the world. You may or may not agree with that assertion, but how is it in any way aggressive or negative or dismissive of others? If you say you think that the best way to fly from Boston to Los Angeles is through Chicago and I say the best way to fly from Boston to Los Angeles is through Atlanta, am I somehow being aggressive or negative? (Yes, I realize it is a poor example because it is something that can be empirically determined ahead of time, which is not true in the case of our discussion, but I hope my point is taken).

I did not merely say "teachers have no excuse". First of all, I clearly and repeatedly stated that when I use the word "teacher", it does not mean "certified teacher in a formal school", I said that there are many opportunities to teach throughout life and everyday experience. I also included myself in the category of "teacher" (I include every single breathing human being as a potential teacher, although many do not realize their potential nor exploit their opportunity to daily educate and diminish ignorance). And I clearly stated that I was not addressing education in general, but specifically the teaching of basic tools in critical thinking and the scientific method. I was responding specifically to assertions that many, if not most, people are fundamentally unteachable (the "humans are stupid" argument again). How is affirming the ability of every human of functional intelligence to learn a negative, hostile statement? It seems to me that you should be challenging those who dismiss vast swaths of humanity as unteachable, rather than attacking me.

Finally, I did NOT say, "I think of root causes." Your misquote makes it seems that I am implying that I somehow think that I am better than everyone else. What I ACTUALLY said was "I am talking about root causes", in order to distinguish between what I see as symptoms of ignorance (such as the re-election of Richard Nixon), which others see as root causes of the prevalence of creationism.

I made a purely intellectual argument devoid of any hint of ad hominem, any hint of attacking the messenger, any tint of guilt by association, any tint of anything (obviously IMO) but the precise kind of argument that we want to encourage on these boards.

Everything I said, I believe. Is it wrong for me to assert that "education is the key" if I believe that to be true? Is it wrong for me to assert that the primary responsibility for education in basic skills is the teachers, if I sincerely believe that to be true and apply the exact same standards to myself? In what possible way is that a negative?

If you have specific, constructive suggestions about how I should have said the specific things I said differently, I welcome them.

scigirl

galiel,

Thank you for your reply but it is clear we are going to have to agree to disagree because what is obvious to me is not obvious to you, and vice versa. I politely request that we both drop the topic.

I would, rather, see what your comments are about my post regarding critical thought versus emotions.

thanks,

scigirl

galiel

It seems to me that we fundamentally disagree on the same point that Pomp and I disagree:

You seem to feel that people have the necessary tools, they just chose not to apply them. I believe that the vast majority of people do NOT have the tools, do NOT think critically and rationally nor apply empirical methods, logic and skepcticism (the three basic tools of critical thinking) to MOST critical decisions in their life. In my experience, people can't even keep track of a politician who lies about something he or she said just the previous week. Nor do most people, in national surveys in this country at least, have the simplest basic knowledge or understanding about the basic principles of scientific inquiry, basic scientific theories, and certainly not the critical facts upon which the theory of evolution is based.

Surely you are not saying that people sit down with a strong grasp of evolution and weigh it against their knowledge of creationism and make a determined decision?

It is my contention that the best solution may not be the most direct one--do a better job of teaching evolution. It is my contention that the best solution is to teach people to think, in areas that are not as likely to be directly and vigorously opposed by fundamentalists. It is my contention that the more people have an opportunity to exercise critical thinking tools and the scientific method, the more it becomes a natural part of their thinking.

I may be right or I may be wrong, and I look forward to a vigorous challenge to my ideas, or to simply flow along with other ideas and learn from others as they learn from me. Nothing in what I have stated above is intended, nor do I believe can it be easily misunderstood, as somehow being personally critical of anyone with different ideas.

[ edited to remove last paragraph because I posted this before the moderator's above post appeared ]

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Pomp

galiel,

Since scigirl and I seem to be arguing similar points, I'm going to respond to somethgin you said to her, as it provides a convenient jumping off place for my own reply to you.

Surely you are not saying that people sit down with a strong grasp of evolution and weigh it against their knowledge of creationism and make a determined decision?

No, this is not what I am saying, and I doubt that it is what scigirl is saying. What I'm trying to say is that people don't even consider weighing the evidence for or against creationism because they are conditioned, in many cases, to believe that it is somehow blasphemous or immoral to do so. I do think, however,that most peopel would certainly be capabvle of performing such an analysis if they were willing to do so. Thus, I think that the key is not to educate people in critical thought (although that is, of course, a Good Thing, IMO) but, rather, to seek ways to subvert the conditioning that prevents them from making an honest comparison.

scigirl

No, not choose. I am equating certain religious beliefs with, say, falling in love - a process that does not seem to be amenable to critical thought whether we have it or try to use it or not. Let me see if I can think of a really bad analogy to illustrate my point...a person who thinks they are driving an automatic isn't going to use the clutch, even if he/she is great at driving a manual.

I can think of a variety of situations in which humans do not use critical thought processes to make decisions. Musical tastes, art tastes, love interests. Now maybe there are logical reasons that I like both Nirvana and Madonna, but honest to goodness, I did not sit down and critically evaluate my decision to buy these artists' CDs. However, I like to think I'm capable of thinking critically, like, say, on my last physiology test.

And even if you convinced me that Nirvana, say, isn't that great of a band, with an arsenal of evidence, I would probably still like to listen to them. It's just how our limbic system works - it rarely requires hard evidence!

What if religious beliefs, such as creationism, are like listening to Nirvana? I don't think they necessarily are, but they fall on some spectrum somewhere, and I just don't think it's that easy to categorize beliefs as "rational" or "irrational" and thus apply critical thought to sort them out.

I do agree with you that education is a part of knowing when to use critical thought and when not to. But religious beliefs are much more complex than we give them credit for, I think. Or rather, belief in things which lack evidence. We need to figure out what drives us to believe that Kurt Cobain was a great lyricist, that I love X person, that God exists, etc... And I suspect it's going to involve more than lack of education - we are dealing with basic drives here perhaps. Our brains are wired to look for coincidences, to associate things with other things.

Ok that's enough scigirl-babble for one post. I'll be back though I suspect....

scigirl

scigirl

Wow did I really SAY that? Please, everyone, don't quote me on that!!!

haha,

scigirl

galiel

Let's do both.

I strongly disagree, however, that the only thing keeping people from analyzing evolution vs. creationism is emotion and conditioning.

I don't know what kind of people you and scigirl encounter on a daily basis, but it seems beyond argument that the overwhelming majority of people in this country have not been taught to think critically. There is little if any grounding in solid critical thinking and the scientific method in public elementary, middle and secondary schools, there is little exposure in public culture to both sides of an issue and little of the pundit commentary is geared toward empowering people to make choices. There is virtually no education during the election season that helps citizens, in a non-partisan way, figure out how to criticall evaluate the competing claims of rival politicians.

Most people, including in my experience most college graduates, are familiar, vaguely, with only a small proportion of the logical fallacies. Most people, including in my esperience most non-science major college graduates, really understand, let alone consciously apply, the scientific method in major life decisions.

I have seen evidence that this is remedial. People, particularly children, who are exposed to logical thinking games such as Wff 'n Proof, are able to perform feats of logic that defy even the best-trained teachers.

Most non-science major's experience of science is boring and uncreative, and the "experiments" they perform often consist of following a recipe, and then, after the fact filling in the "hypothesis" blank and then following the template for procedure (which means manually copying the typed recipe they recieved), results and conclusions ex post facto. Most people teaching evolution in this country do not have discipline-specific education in evolutionary science, or, more often than not, any specific biology education, and sometimes not even science education.

In short, I challenge the assumption that people do not apply tools because they are somehow inhibited or chose not to do so. I assert that there has not been a comprehensive, society-wide effort to teach critical thinking and the scientific method, nor to permeate popular culture with those tools and values. I further assert that the correlative evidence that people who are atheists became atheists because of a critical thought process suggests causality--that if such habits were taught more widely and deeply, that fewer people would fall for creationism's pathetic logic, and fewer people would blindly follow religion as well.

galiel

Scigirl,

Are you saying that a person of average intelligence, if they are adequately grounded in the principles of critical thinking and the scientific method, and if they have been offered sufficient opportunities to internalize and habitualize such habits, could reasonably listen to arguments for creationism and for evolution and not find empirical, logical and methodological fault in creationism?

Are you truly aware of how fundamentally uninformed and uneducated the average American is? Do you think people comprehend the logical gaps in creationist arguments and just paper over them for emotional reasons? That is not my experience. My experience is that people honestly fail to grasp basic errors in logic. And my experience is that people grounded in critical thought do not fall for such things.

As you know, it is not necessary to reject religion in order to reject creationism. Even the Pope has accepted evolution, as have many, many religions scientists. (they resolve this congitive dissonance by choosing, as I said early on, to "stop thinking when it come to faith". That is certainly an example of the kind of emotional denial that you cite, and I agree with you there.

But I simply don't see that most people know enough about evolution to make any kind of intelligent decision, nor do they know enough about the scientific method to identify or understand the fallacies in creationism, nor do they understand about how to apply critical thinking and constructive skepticism in useful ways.

By the way, I don't think this is a problem limited to the US in any way. It is a global failure of education, IMO.