sophie

Is there such a thing as Critical Understanding?

Would critical understanding consist of judgements of the understanding process. Would it be critical understanding when someone understands something then says to themselves That's Right. Would this lead to critical understanding at times being dogmatically incorrect?

Deacon Doubtmonger

Absolutely. By definition, "critical" implies looking for errors in reasoning and in interpretation of data, and appraising the quality and trustworthiness of the data and its sources. This is best explained by Douglas Adams, and IMHO this applies to intellectual matters generally, not just to science:

Now, the invention of the scientific method is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked. If it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that. It has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, "Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not?--because you're not!" If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday,' you say, "I respect that."

I would hold that "critical" and "dogmatic" are mutually exclusive terms. To illustrate this, consider the difference between:

(1) The science teacher who explains one of Newton's laws of motion by showing you what motion was observed and how, what data was collected and how, what methods were used to analyze it, what prior knowledge could be accepted or rejected in light of current observations, what conclusions could be drawn, how the original experiments could be replicated with the same results, and what it would take to falsify the conclusions reached -- all essentially to allow you to observe for yourself exactly what Newton observed -- then asks, "Do you understand?"

(2) The pastor who yammers out a pronouncement that a certain behavior is "sinful," cites no further basis for this than "The Bible says so, and the Bible is the error-free Word of the Lord," then asks, "Do you understand?" Of course, he'd look a lot more like an arrogant dogmatist if he were to ask the real question: "Do you acquiesce?"

I hope this sheds some light.

Deacon Doubtmonger

Note: Full text of the Adams quote is in this Richard Dawkins essay:

http://www.ffrf.org/dawkins.html

sophie

Deacon Doubtmonger : Within my understanding there seems to be an implication of a second-order of understanding which would take the brunt of the connotation critical.

On one level this could be an independent verification process which would intersect with the previous understanding, to support and bolster its validity.

On another level. this could work out to be feeding the understanding process with an understanding where the final result is a critical acclamation of the understanding.

Any further thoughts?

sophie

Deacon Doubtmonger, a quick note on the full Adams's text.

I may tend to think the tautology of religion rests on holy.

Would'nt you?

John Page

Yes. My critical understanding is that critical understanding can never be exhaustive and therefore understood as having critical weaknesses that condemn it to the realm of dogma if held forth as a panacea that brings forth complete understanding.

Cheers, John

Luiseach

Welcome back, John!

I like the way you put this.

Yep....dogma is characterised by a lack of critical understanding...

Deacon Doubtmonger

Exactly. One of the essences of scientific understanding is that findings must be replicable in multiple settings with the same results.

As long as the acclamation is critical. Since this is an atheist forum, it's important to remember how easy it is for preachers and other religious officials to go for non-critical acclamation -- think of how Jesse Jackson can induce frenzy in crowds with stupid rhymes and idiotic call-and-response catchphrases, as long as they're loud and rapid-fire. Acclamation that may be, but it ain't critical.

Deacon Doubtmonger

sophie

Deacon Doubtmonger : It's dubbed the call to the flock. It is rather an art and practised all around the world. The white preachers in Northern Ontario use an appeal to righteous indignation. I managed to smuggle myself into the midst of a Klu Klux Klan setting. Some say I might have even disguised myself with the hat and cape once. It happens in the mosques. It happens in military institutions. It happens in the police forces. It happens mostly in cliques, cults and other places where people organise based on some form of singular belief.

The lesson we learn from this is the critical understanding some have learned about others and their use of it as a lever to rouse the rabble so to speak, insisting their singular beliefs will be lost if action is not taken immediately on the matter.

Is this dogma - the appeal to the singular belief?

John Page

Hi Sophistrie:

Yes, I agree with you, with security/certainty being the perceived benefit to the recipient.

Cheers, John

sophie

Thanks to all,

This is Sophie signing off.