Critical+Thinking


 * Critical Thinking
 * What it is
 * Representative
 * Complete
 * Not cherry picking – watching the news, getting the whole story, or fair representation of the story
 * Not designed to reach a predetermined place
 * Conserving the real meaning, not taking out of context
 * Leader (senator, governor, president, etc) gives speech about the state of the Economy
 * Reporters summarize what the point of the message was, not on a certain line that can turn the message in a different direction
 * Detailed, precise
 * Do you believe that God is an all powerful being?
 * Clear and precise question, less variation in possible answers
 * Only main part is power of God
 * Few or no hidden meanings or associations
 * God wants peace –
 * Statement can’t be misconstrued in many ways
 * Unbiased- unsubjective, doesn’t show many or any group beliefs
 * It is true because it happened
 * It is true because we witnessed it
 * It is true because it has happened consistently
 * The sun rises in the east and sets in the west
 * It is true because it has happened consistently
 * May appear often, and in similar circumstances
 * Appeals to facts and experimentation
 * It has been tested and has been consistent in results so it is true
 * What it is not
 * Cherry picking – don’t watch the news
 * Not representative
 * Not complete
 * Designed to reach a predetermined place
 * Distorting, taking out of context
 * Senator votes against alternative fuel development because inclusion of Arctic drilling – and then is pilloried because of being against energy independence
 * Obligated to give best case of alternative explanations
 * Vague, imprecise
 * Do you believe in God?
 * Before answer, need to clarify meaning
 * Sentient being? Force? Watch maker? Female? Job Description?
 * //Ig//nostic, coined by Sherwin Wine – a person who is //ig//norance of what is meant by a claim of God's existence. Until this ignorance is cleared up, the ignostic is justified in //ig//noring putative arguments for or against God.
 * No - Ignostic should work to clear up ignorance
 * After clarification – answer
 * Unwarranted / hidden associations
 * God is love –
 * “Is” – synonym? Is God my wife? Honey, Let’s make God tonight?
 * Like connotations of love – warm fuzzies to God
 * Begging the question, Unintelligible other, Utilitarian
 * God is just – even when s/he allows the Holocaust
 * Whatever God does is just – beg question
 * God’s definition of just is different from man’s -
 * Not talking to God – Unintelligible other
 * God has greater plan
 * God is Utilitarian – Greatest good for greatest number
 * Egocentric - Biased, subjective
 * It’s true because I believe it
 * It’s true because we believe it
 * It’s true because I have always believed it
 * Marriage has always been between a man and a woman
 * It’s true because I want to believe it – wishful thinking
 * The widower who believes in heaven so he can be with his dead wife when he dies
 * The rabbi who says Judaism has always been pluralistic and uses the existence of contradictory stories in the bible as evidence –same stories Rabbi knows scholars used to prove diff authors at diff times
 * May give wistful vibes
 * It’s true because it’s in my best interest to believe it
 * God wants all Jews to pay a tithe to the temple – as told to us by the priests in their version of the bible
 * Appeals to authority
 * God said it, I believe it and that settles it!
 * God says! So what! Evidence needs to be relevant
 * Midrash – 2 rabbis argue – God moves stream & tree
 * Appeal to authority because of position
 * Appeal to authority as stand-in for evidence
 * Also
 * Ego-centric – I believe it
 * Abandonment of Discussion – that settles it – no argument at all!
 * Consistent but not compelling, Avoiding responsibility, running up the flag pole to see how it flies, throwing ideas over the fence, Possibility, no relevance is enough
 * Sometimes when saying that the 6 days of creation in Genesis I shows that the author was ignorant of geology and evolution, I have sometimes had listeners suggest that maybe the author was using a figurative meaning for day so that each day represented millions or billions of years. Implied, but not said, is that the figurative interpretation deserves equal billing with the literal one.
 * It’s not enough to propose alternatives, that’s the easy part – there needs to be some justification for it.
 * In this case
 * No indication that the story is not meant as history – think of Aesop’s Fables where we know the stories are not true.
 * From other sources, we know that people of that time believed the age of the earth was on the order of thousands of years or less
 * We know that the writer used the days of creation to justify resting on the 7th day which would make no sense if the writer wanted the reader to use a figurative interpretation
 * The giver of the figurative meaning likes immediate results but does not take responsibility for them or their implications.
 * Consistent but not compelling
 * Consistent – more or less of the data
 * Compelling – consistent with most or all, other evidence, testable predictions
 * Web of belief – Cost of changing
 * Sagan – Ordinary claims Ordinary proof, Extraordinary claims Extraordinary proofs
 * Safe – your most cherished values and ideas may be overturned