scigirl

galiel, I am NOT SAYING that we don't lack critical thought. I agree with you. We need to teach our kids better - not just about science, about everything. My idea would be to scrap all the current science courses in 1st through 3rd or 4th grade and replace them with 'thinking 101' or 'how do we know that X causes Y?" In fact, in several other threads here at E/C I have expressed the same sentiments you have.

We differ however, in agreement on whether lack of critical thought is the *only* reason we believe in creationism and the like.

I am saying it's not the only cause. In order to prove your point, you not only need to demonstrate that there is a lack of critical thought in many people (easy to do), but you also need to demonstrate that this is the only thing keeping people from renouncing superstitions. And in my opinion, you need to answer my above questions about how we separate non-rational beliefs from rational ones based on this critical thought process you speak so highly of.

Here's a question to ponder for you. . . you stated,
My question is, Why do you think this is true? Why haven't we as a society banded together to teach this stuff?

If you can answer that question, than maybe we can get somewhere in this debate.

I'm off to dream about nirvana lyrics (nothing on the top but a bucket and a mop...)

scigirl

scigirl

We cross posted again. One last thing (then I really am going to bed):


No I am saying that because of the way the human brain works, and other things, it is impossible to completely ground ourselves in the principles of critical thinking, etc, etc, to completely avoid all irrational beliefs. That's what I'm saying.

We can dramatically improve the situation (I hope). However, the reasons that we often don't think critically may be the exact same reasons that we can't train ourselves, as you are suggesting, to think critically about every issue all the time.

Well I see patients - and they may not bother to read up on Dawkins but when you present them with information that matters to them, they become more educated than the doctor in many cases.

A lack of interest is also a problem. I'm sure a lot more people would accept evolution if they 1) first gave a damn and 2) THEN read the evidence critically. But getting them to do #1 is perhaps infinitely harder.

scigirl

galiel

Actually, arguing over whether something is the ONLY cause to the exclusion of all other causes is silly, IMO, and I certainly never meant to make that the focus of this debate.

Saying that something is key, or a root cause, does not mean that nothing else matters. It simply means that,

a) I think that is the most important problem and the one that it is most effective to address, because,

b) I think much of what is blamed as causing the problem is more a symptom of ignorance than an independent cause.

Please cite where, in any of my posts in this entire thread, I have argued AGAINST a proposed action by someone else. I never said that we should NOT work on socialization and cultural issues, in fact I specifically noted to the contrary. I merely said that working on education will address many of these issues along the way.

Have you ever heard of a trimtab, scigirl? It is a naval term, but R. Buckminster Fuller used it in the context of finding a key tool with which to leverage broad cultural change (for a more contemporary exposition of much the same idea, see "The Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell or Brenda Laurel's "Utopin Entrpreneur".)

The idea behind a trimtab is both simple and extremely powerful.

Large ocean liners or aircraft carriers have enormous mass and enormous inertia. If one tried to steer such a monster by simply turning a rudder as one does on a smaller boat, even the strongest rudder would just sheer right off. A trimtab is a kind of mini-rudder, similar to a aerilon flap on an aircraft, that runs the length of the rudder. By turning this thin trimtab in one direction, sufficient pressure is applied to help move the rudder in the opposite direction. (water-buffs, forgive me if this is not technically accurate; despite living in the "yachting capital of the United States," I don't know a yardarm from a side-iron.)

I believe that critical thinking tools and the scientific method are trimtabs, that they are relatively easy to inject into the formal and informal education system and into popular culture without activating its immune system. Easier, at least, than facing the fundies head-on in the public school system.

Principia

Just what are these "priniciples of criticial thinking," galiel? And why are they sufficient to defeat "Ignorance" as the root cause of modern society's problems? Can critical thinking defeat human dependency on shared material resources (another commonly cited cause of societal ills)? What evidence do you have that every individual is capable of 'critical thinking?' For that matter, how do you measure 'critical thinking' ability? Is it binary (all-or-none)? Or is there a gradation of critical thinking skills? If the latter, then what standard would you set for the minimal critical thinking requirement of a reformed education system? How do you ensure egalitarian conditions for educating people about 'critical thinking?' Or perhaps you endorse a Rawlsian scheme of raising the critical-thinking skills of the most ignorant student?

Sorry, but as you can tell, I am just not convinced of your strawman (i.e. fallaciously over-simplified) approach to creationism (and the rest of the problems of modern society, for that matter).

galiel

Doesn't that reinforce my point that properly educated people can make rational decisions--even with regard to emotional issues? You landed on the key issue--"because it matters to them". Most people are never exposed during their education to the relevance of critical thinking and the scientific method to areas outside formal academic learning. Those that are, tend to actually apply them. It's quite simple, in my experience.

Why is that? Is it because they are inherently disinterested? Or is it, perhaps, because they had a less than thrilling experience with "learning" and they associate "learning" with "boring" and "not relevant to real life". That, IMO, is the fault of the education system, not the fault of the people who are cranked through it.

There is a fundamental anti-intellectualism, particularly in US culture, that permeates America in particular. This is both the cause and the result of the perceived divorce between "school" and "real life" and between "smart" and "cool". That is something that the education system and popular culture help to create, and education and popular culture are,IMO, the best tools to fix the problem.

With limited resources, we can't address every problem with equal attention. If we can't agree on root causes, however, I would much rather we each work on what we think is most important, in the field where we can make the most difference, rather than do nothing. I am sure you completely agree.

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

galiel

A strawman is something on erects in order to attack it. What proposal of yours or anyone else's have I attacked, and what is the strawman you claim I have erected to attack so as to discredit your proposal?

I simply do not understand what your problem is. Given that you seem to close each post of yours with a personal attack, can you blame me for not being interested in responding to your substantive questions? It seems like you are just trying to set me up for more ad homs.

What, I ask again, is your problem with me, and what makes you think that this tack of argumentation is appropriate in these forums?

scigirl

I was getting ready for bed and I had a thought about this debate.

Here it is:

A society that would quickly and successfully implement the changes you are proposing, well, probably wouldn't need to implement the changes you are proposing.

Let's say in an amazing turn-around, President Bush appoints a "critical thought" task force and attempts to implement the types of changes you are discussiong.

A couple of questions?
1) What types of changes would be made, and how would this task force go about implementing them? (i.e. what are the trimtabs here, to use your interesting analogy?)

2) What obstacles would this task force face in implementing these 'trimtabs' in the current society? And more importantly, why do these obstacles exist?

I don't have set answers to these questions (I have a couple, but I have no idea if they are right or not). I think they are worthy of thinking about, however.

scigirl

Starboy

Speaking of critical thinking, check this out:

<a href="http://assets.cambridge.org/0521009847/sample/0521009847WS.PDF" target="_blank">Critical Thinking, An Introduction. Cambridge Press</a>

As long as we are talking so much about critical thinking perhaps it wouldn't hurt to see what critical thinking experts have to say on the subject.

galiel, you still haven't addressed my question regarding the source of new atheists.

Starboy

[Wrong press]

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

galiel

A government task force is the last place to expect application of trimtabs. There approach to turning around a ship of state is to rename "aft" to "fore" and make a speech about it.

As for your first sentence, the whole idea behind trimtabs and tipping points is that it doesn't require some kind of massive, society-wide and institutional consensus. You find the *right* (not, as the saying went, a long enough) lever, and you can move the world.

This is a common argument used against actual activism (I am not saying that YOU are making that argument, only cautioning that it is an argument that others latch on to): in order to change things, we have to change EVERYTHING. That is too hard, so we can't change anything.

I have posted hundreds of posts in the CS & activism forum in support of grass-roots decentralized individualized activism, not in favor of large-scale institutional, expensive top-down efforts. Society doesn't change by government dictate. A single popular movie can effect more change in public attitudes than a billion-dollar federal program.

I don't think discussion the "how" is really on-topic. Besides, I am really not interested in telling other people HOW to act. I am only interested in other people ACTING, and in helping them do so in the most effective way. My interest is in providing the information and, hopefully, a little bit of understanding, so that people can apply their critical thinking tools and decide for themselves the best way to act.

I am doing my own things, but I'm not interested in tooting my own horn, because I am doing them in my particular areas of expertise, which are not relevant to most other people.

We should identify causes first. Then we should figure out which cause can be most easily addressed, which cause is most influential, and which cause can be addressed in a sustainable way. Only then, IMO, should we start to look at the "how" of things.

That is just the decision process I have developed for myself, and it has proven effective for me. YMMV.

Principia

You erected the strawman, galiel. And you proceeded to lay, as far I can tell, a significant proportion of society's problems on teachers, of whatever sort. So, at best, you have a complaint, but not any tangible or realistic solutions.
Set you up? I expressed my clear opinion that I don't buy your arguments. I also asked very pointed questions and requests for clarifications that are in line with the discussion.
Whatever.