Suzanne wrote:Hello Tom:

Think critically about critical thinking.

Is this something new? I may have to add it to my favorite quote list.

Help me out here, Suzanne. Didn't you say you had an Aunt who taught Critical Thinking at Berkeley? Critical Thinking is the atheist's method of thought, and I'd like to know what it is and where it came from -- the better to deal with the odd thinking of atheists at BookTalk, you understand Clearly it isn't standard logic because BookTalk atheists have no understanding of valid reasoning or of fallacies and employ them wildly.

Critical Thinking appears to have sprung full grown from the mind of Edward Glaser in 1941, but of course it didn't. It's possibly a rehash of propaganda research of the 30's and 40's, Korzybski, Hayakawa, and Upton, and may be defined as emotional thinking applied to liberal ends, supposedly a beneficial propaganda. It has its own website:

http://www.criticalthinking.org/

and many supporting organizations. Could you shed any light on this topic?

Tom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

They way I understand it and more importantly, intend it when I say it, is the opposite of lazy thinking, or lack of thinking.

You say critical thinking is the atheists method of thought. Perhaps it is a lens by which we explore reality, but it's only one lens. The opposite then would be a theist, who lacks the ability to think, is that what you're inferring?

It's concerning that you feel cornered enough to persuade people to share your confused perspective on who a person is that doesn't believe in a deity.

"Help me out here, Suzanne."

My beliefs are as different from Franks and Chris' as they are from yours, but I do share a passion for clear thought and understanding, with an emphasis on looking for the truth. With all the garbage in religion, it's not coincidental that people who value thinking clearly would reject it. It's interesting that a person seemingly as intelligent as yourself would lash out against the idea that using your brain is a good thing.

Critical thinking is bad and dead people have heartbeats Tom.

Thomas Hood wrote:

Help me out here, Suzanne. Didn't you say you had an Aunt who taught Critical Thinking at Berkeley?

Yes

Dr. Eileen Gambrill wrote:

Critical thinking involves more than the mere possession of related knowledge and skills. It requires using them in everyday situations and acting on the results of thinking carefully. It involves accurately presenting alternative perspectives and paying attention to the process of reasoning, not just the product. Strong-sense critical thinking involves a genuine fair-mindedness in which opposing views are accurately presented and there is a genuine effort to fairly critique both preferred and unpreferred views. Critical thinking involves questioning what others take for granted, asking "What's the evidence for this?" even when professors, supervisors, or administrators would rather not consider such questions. It requires paying attention to gaps between our background knowledge (current beliefs and related evidence) and related research findings. Critical thinking and scientific reasoning are closely related. Clarity and the critical appraisal of claims is important in both. Both share a commitment to fair mindedness and reliance on standards that are more likely than others to yield accurate answers to certain kinds of questions.

http://socialwelfare.berkeley.edu/faculty/SWABcontd.htm

Eileen lectures all over the world, she has published many books, and is considered an expert on this topic in relation to social work. She has also done extensive research on behavior modification.

Suzanne wrote:Dr. Eileen Gambrill wrote. . .

Thank you, Suzanne. Your aunt's nine-sentence description of critical thinking supports my view that critical thinking is "emotional thinking applied to liberal ends, supposedly a beneficial propaganda."

1. Critical thinking involves more than the mere possession of related [academic] knowledge and skills.

2. It requires using them [knowledge and skills] in everyday situations and acting on the results of thinking carefully.

social values:

3. It involves accurately [fairly] presenting alternative perspectives and paying attention to the process [psychology] of reasoning, not just the product.

4. Strong-sense critical thinking involves a genuine fair-mindedness in which opposing views are accurately presented and there is a genuine effort to fairly critique both preferred and unpreferred views.

5. Critical thinking involves questioning what others take for granted, asking "What's the evidence for this?" even when [authority figures] professors, supervisors, or administrators would rather not consider such questions.

6. It requires paying attention to gaps between our [past] background knowledge (current beliefs and related evidence) and [present] related research findings.

science:

7. Critical thinking and scientific reasoning are closely related.

8. Clarity and the critical appraisal of claims is important in both.

9. Both share a commitment to fair mindedness and reliance on standards that are more likely than others to yield accurate answers to certain kinds of questions.

Note how values are intruded: "fair-mindedness" (3, 4, 9), resistance to authority (5), and the cachet of science (7, 8, 9). Such social and political considerations are no part of traditional logic and its analysis of faulty reasoning.

TH
Your aunt's nine-sentence description of critical thinking supports my view that critical thinking is "emotional thinking applied to liberal ends, supposedly a beneficial propaganda."

Wow, you have again surprised me with your ability to mentally twist (in your own mind) the definition of a word into something entirely different to suit your needs!

Critical thinking is fair to all sides of the debate, it involves honest evaluation of all claims, it takes nothing for granted and even the thought process is scrutinized.

Yet to you this is bad and is “emotional thinking” and “propaganda”.

Why?

Apparently just because the scientific thought process is similar.

Although I do see why it is bad for you… it requires that evidence be presented… which for religious claims is a terrible setback.

I really shouldn’t be surprised… your debating style is nearly the exact opposite of critical/rational thinking…

You have preconceived notions that you do not waver from and no amount of legitimate counter evidence can persuade you…

You do not look at the subjects fairly or give equal credit to all credible examples…

You blatantly take sides (bowing to religious authority) giving no credibility to any opposing examples offered…

You insist without evidence while we are insisting on evidence…

You also show open bigotry towards atheists and nonbelievers of all kinds…

You show open distain for a thought process that even you use every day… although you seem to be unaware of it.

Unless you are monumentally gullible you use this process to weed out bogus claims from legitimate claims regularly.

But you go on with your ranting… it is what you do best.

Later

Thomas Hood wrote:

Help me out here, Suzanne. Didn't you say you had an Aunt who taught Critical Thinking at Berkeley?

Interbane wrote:

It's concerning that you feel cornered enough to persuade people to share your confused perspective on who a person is that doesn't believe in a deity.

"Help me out here, Suzanne."

Tom asked me for imformation from a professor of Berekely, who teaches critical thinking, she happens to be my aunt, Tom knew this. Tom's request for additional informaton from a credible source supports the aim of critical thinking. The above statement by Interbane, in my opinion, defeats the purpose of critical thinking. Instead of asking yourself, "will more information be helpful", you instead concerned yourself with the idea that Tom was trying to persuade me, and dissmissed his request. Interbane, you made a statement without any supporting facts to base it on. If you are to use critical thinking to support your opinion, all information needs to be utilized. If your opinion is fast and firm, you can not consider yourself a critical thinker.

Frank 013 wrote:. . . Critical thinking is fair to all sides of the debate, it involves honest evaluation of all claims, it takes nothing for granted and even the thought process is scrutinized. . . .

Being fair and honest and taking nothing for granted are aspects of critical thinking? How do you know this, Frank? What books or classes or websites or conversations are your sources for the doctrines of critical thinking? Do you consider Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World to be an authoritative definition of critical thinking?

Tom

Frank wrote:

You have preconceived notions that you do not waver from and no amount of legitimate counter evidence can persuade you…

So, Frank, show me. Where is your legitimate evidence that God does not exist?

There is none.

There is no credibile evidence that God does exist.

If a critical thinker relies on evidence, and the subject of debate is subjective, and carries no evidence, you can not apply critical thinking to the debate. It becomes a debate over opinions. Opinions are never wrong, you may disagree, but without that magic evidence, you can never say opinions are incorrect. No matter how forceful you say it, you have an opinion, and nothing else.

Thomas Hood wrote:

Being fair and honest and taking nothing for granted are aspects of critical thinking? How do you know this, Frank? What books or classes or websites or conversations are your sources for the doctrines of critical thinking?

Oh dear. Is there a smiley for playing ping pong?

The issue is whether or not critical thinking can be applied to the existance or non existance of God. I believe Frank, has a grasp on the meaning of critical thinking. I also believe critical thinking is common knowledge and does not require citations.

Frank wrote:

Critical thinking is fair to all sides of the debate, it involves honest evaluation of all claims, it takes nothing for granted and even the thought process is scrutinized.

The thought process is scrutinized. There seems to be more thought process, and character scrutinization (and character defaming) going on then anything productive or useful. I don't know if there are any doctrines to critical thinking, but I have realized that discussions or debates that offer nothing, that do not expand the mind, are worthless.

You guys kill me, I make an observation, and a small joke in a forum about libraries, and the flood gates burst open. I feel like there are hawks circling the forums, waiting for something to attack. I feel like road kill all of a sudden.

Suzanne: "Tom asked me for information from a professor of Berekely, who teaches critical thinking, she happens to be my aunt, Tom knew this."

And entirely devoid of ulterior motive, right. Critical thinking should be applied to everything, even itself. Thomas is on a crusade to take it beyond what it means to most people to attempt to discredit atheists, who employ critical thinking, or genuinely hope to. After all, none of us can truly use logic or critical thinking until we have our PhD in it, right? I took Tom's sentence in context, and I was spot on as I can see.