The value of employing critical thinking.

“The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!”

- Brian Cox

Before you start that thread about whether or not evolution is provable, (it is), or whether or not anthropogenic climate change exists, (it does), or whether vaccinations cause autism, (they don't), or whether that rock on the moon that looks a bit like a pyramid is an alien structure, (it isn't), or whether the earth is in fact not an oblate spheroid but is flat, (it isn't), or whether biblical texts are just as valid an explanation for human nature and the universe we live in as scientific inquiry, (they aren't).. Stop.

Stop and consider the alternative argument.
Stop and research the opposing viewpoint.
Stop and give yourself the chance to learn something by carrying out your own independent study.

Check out what people who have held the same opinion have had to say, as well as those who hold the opposing opinion.

Are you debating a scientific finding? Research the science. Read the studies. Find the objective results. If no opposing studies are found to the scientific consensus, or none are found to support your argument, you must realise that there is no basis for your argument. You can not debate a scientific finding unscientifically. It doesn't work.

According to the Collegiate Learning Assessment, critical thinking skills include the following:

-determine what information is or is not relevant
-distinguish between rational and emotional claims
-separate fact from opinion
-recognize the ways in which evidence might be limited or compromised
-spot deception and holes in the arguments of others
-present personal analysis of the data or information
-recognize logical flaws in arguments
-draw connections between discrete sources of data and information
-select the strongest set of supporting information
-recognize that a problem may have no clear answer or single answer

Doing all of this before you form an opinion on the matter will ensure you have a solid, logical, reasoned viewpoint. Afterwards you may:

-articulate the argument and the context for that argument
-correctly and precisely use evidence to defend the argument

Obviously there are issues with the use of critical thinking, described rather hilariously by the 2012 platform of the Republican Party of Texas:

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

Clearly Republicans are against critical thinking because it could challenge what parents teach their kids, even when they’re wrong. But what if the kids want to study the validity of evolution? Doesn’t matter! We can’t have them challenging their parents’ faith. But what about teaching them to question what pseudo-historians like David Barton say? Nope! Just believe what you’re told. You’re too young to be asking questions, keep your fixed beliefs where they are.

But enough about those close minded fools, the point I wish to make here is that if you do not do your due diligence and undertake to exercise your critical thinking, your thread will not be a debate thread. It will be a statement of opinion thread, which is utterly pointless, contributes nothing, and, from the perspective of an objective observer, looks something like this:



If you want your position to be taken seriously, make sure you have an informed, serious position. If you are considering starting a debate thread, find out if there are actually any grounds for such a debate in the first place. Having an opinion that is not based on actual evidence or trying to debate a scientific subject unscientifically will only get you laughed at most of the time. Also, "Prove to me that it is wrong/doesn't exist" is a non argument. You can make the claim that anything is real if the only basis for believing in it is that no one has proven it doesn't exist. The burden of proof always rests on the one making the claim.

If you follow the principles of critical thinking before starting that new thread, you will find not only the quality of your argument increases, but so does the quality of discussion.

"Truth has nothing to do with the conclusion, and everything to do with the methodology.”

- Stefan Molyneux

“A mode of thought does not become 'critical' simply by attributing that label to itself, but by virtue of its content.”

- Alan Sokal

Always remember, you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. What distinguishes fact from opinion is that facts are verifiable, they can be objectively proven to have occurred. Opinions are based on both facts and assumptions, and the only way to find that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another is by analyzing the supporting evidence and eliminating the assumptions.

That's about all I have to say.. Needed to get it off my chest.. I doubt this rant will make much difference, but you never know.

Peace.

SO this long post is telling me you are exactly the subject and example of what you are ranting against.....

Before you start that thread about whether or not evolution is provable, (it is), or whether or not anthropogenic climate change exists, (it does), or whether vaccinations cause autism, (they don't), or whether that rock on the moon that looks a bit like a pyramid is an alien structure, (it isn't), or whether the earth is in fact not an oblate spheroid but is flat, (it isn't), or whether biblical texts are just as valid an explanation for human nature and the universe we live in as scientific inquiry, (they aren't).. Stop.

Unless of course that was sarcasm...Is that sarcasm ?

a reply to: spygeek

Clearly Republicans are against critical thinking because it could challenge what parents teach their kids, even when they’re wrong.

All sounded good till you pissed it away with that dumb ass statement......

So in your opinion, critical thinking is nothing more than agreeing with an ideology?

So much for that!

originally posted by: Gothmog
SO this long post is telling me you are exactly the subject and example of what you are ranting against.....

Before you start that thread about whether or not evolution is provable, (it is), or whether or not anthropogenic climate change exists, (it does), or whether vaccinations cause autism, (they don't), or whether that rock on the moon that looks a bit like a pyramid is an alien structure, (it isn't), or whether the earth is in fact not an oblate spheroid but is flat, (it isn't), or whether biblical texts are just as valid an explanation for human nature and the universe we live in as scientific inquiry, (they aren't).. Stop.

Unless of course that was sarcasm...Is that sarcasm ?

i was giving examples of threads i have recently participated in in which i witnessed people flat out rejecting or ignoring evidence to the contrary of their opinion without having any knowledge or understanding of what they were rejecting. they were threads in support of factually unsupportable opinions, and examples of the lack of critical thinking that is so prevalent.

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: Gothmog
SO this long post is telling me you are exactly the subject and example of what you are ranting against.....

Before you start that thread about whether or not evolution is provable, (it is), or whether or not anthropogenic climate change exists, (it does), or whether vaccinations cause autism, (they don't), or whether that rock on the moon that looks a bit like a pyramid is an alien structure, (it isn't), or whether the earth is in fact not an oblate spheroid but is flat, (it isn't), or whether biblical texts are just as valid an explanation for human nature and the universe we live in as scientific inquiry, (they aren't).. Stop.

Unless of course that was sarcasm...Is that sarcasm ?

i was giving examples of threads i have recently participated in in which i witnessed people flat out rejecting or ignoring evidence to the contrary of their opinion without having any knowledge or understanding of what they were rejecting. they were threads in support of factually unsupportable opinions, and examples of the lack of critical thinking that is so prevalent.

But,but , but you went on to state without question your beliefs in each subject (see parenthesis) . I keep an open mind about ALL unsettled scientific , religious , philosophical , etc debates. No closed mind for me. If it has not been absolutely proven , I will debate that side but still keep an open mind.....

in support of factually unsupportable opinions, and examples of the lack of critical thinking that is so prevalent.

What is a factually unsupportable opinion ? An opinion is based on the information a person has.Not whether I agree with it.

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: spygeek

Clearly Republicans are against critical thinking because it could challenge what parents teach their kids, even when they’re wrong.

All sounded good till you pissed it away with that dumb ass statement......

So in your opinion, critical thinking is nothing more than agreeing with an ideology?

So much for that!

i'm afraid you have completely missed the point of what i was saying. according to the platform i directly quoted, they outright opposed critical thinking because it encourages critical analysis of what kids are taught by their parents, and because critical thinking challenges students' fixed beliefs.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: Gothmog
SO this long post is telling me you are exactly the subject and example of what you are ranting against.....

Before you start that thread about whether or not evolution is provable, (it is), or whether or not anthropogenic climate change exists, (it does), or whether vaccinations cause autism, (they don't), or whether that rock on the moon that looks a bit like a pyramid is an alien structure, (it isn't), or whether the earth is in fact not an oblate spheroid but is flat, (it isn't), or whether biblical texts are just as valid an explanation for human nature and the universe we live in as scientific inquiry, (they aren't).. Stop.

Unless of course that was sarcasm...Is that sarcasm ?

i was giving examples of threads i have recently participated in in which i witnessed people flat out rejecting or ignoring evidence to the contrary of their opinion without having any knowledge or understanding of what they were rejecting. they were threads in support of factually unsupportable opinions, and examples of the lack of critical thinking that is so prevalent.

But,but , but you went on to state without question your beliefs in each subject (see parenthesis) . I keep an open mind about ALL unsettled scientific , religious , philosophical , etc debates. No closed mind for me. If it has not been absolutely proven , I will debate that side but still keep an open mind.....

as if there are any "unsettled debates" in those examples. should any findings disagree with the consensus, i'd welcome the opportunity to learn and possibly change my mind. as it stands these are all scientific certainties.

What is a factually unsupportable opinion ? An opinion is based on the information a person has.Not whether I agree with it.

an opinion that is not based on empirical information, or fact, is factually unsupportable.

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: spygeek

Clearly Republicans are against critical thinking because it could challenge what parents teach their kids, even when they’re wrong.

All sounded good till you pissed it away with that dumb ass statement......

So in your opinion, critical thinking is nothing more than agreeing with an ideology?

So much for that!

i'm afraid you have completely missed the point of what i was saying. according to the platform i directly quoted, they outright opposed critical thinking because it encourages critical analysis of what kids are taught by their parents, and because critical thinking challenges students' fixed beliefs.

Nope!

I didn't misunderstand anything other that your blatant attempt to label people and condemn them based upon nothing more than they are Conservative and you apparently are a Progressive?

So much for Critical Thinking?

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: spygeek

Clearly Republicans are against critical thinking because it could challenge what parents teach their kids, even when they’re wrong.

All sounded good till you pissed it away with that dumb ass statement......

So in your opinion, critical thinking is nothing more than agreeing with an ideology?

So much for that!

i'm afraid you have completely missed the point of what i was saying. according to the platform i directly quoted, they outright opposed critical thinking because it encourages critical analysis of what kids are taught by their parents, and because critical thinking challenges students' fixed beliefs.

Nope!

I didn't misunderstand anything other that your blatant attempt to label people and condemn them based upon nothing more than they are Conservative and you apparently are a Progressive?

So much for Critical Thinking?

this is what they said:

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

how are you interpreting that statement? i condemned their anti-critical stance and their reasoning for it. the fact that it was the texas republican party is irrelevant and coincidental. anyone who is against critical thinking because it might lead to the challenging of accepted beliefs will receive my contempt, regardless of who they are.

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: Gothmog
SO this long post is telling me you are exactly the subject and example of what you are ranting against.....

Before you start that thread about whether or not evolution is provable, (it is), or whether or not anthropogenic climate change exists, (it does), or whether vaccinations cause autism, (they don't), or whether that rock on the moon that looks a bit like a pyramid is an alien structure, (it isn't), or whether the earth is in fact not an oblate spheroid but is flat, (it isn't), or whether biblical texts are just as valid an explanation for human nature and the universe we live in as scientific inquiry, (they aren't).. Stop.

Unless of course that was sarcasm...Is that sarcasm ?

i was giving examples of threads i have recently participated in in which i witnessed people flat out rejecting or ignoring evidence to the contrary of their opinion without having any knowledge or understanding of what they were rejecting. they were threads in support of factually unsupportable opinions, and examples of the lack of critical thinking that is so prevalent.

But,but , but you went on to state without question your beliefs in each subject (see parenthesis) . I keep an open mind about ALL unsettled scientific , religious , philosophical , etc debates. No closed mind for me. If it has not been absolutely proven , I will debate that side but still keep an open mind.....

as if there are any "unsettled debates" in those examples. should any findings disagree with the consensus, i'd welcome the opportunity to learn and possibly change my mind. as it stands these are all scientific certainties.

A consensus does not settle a debate, scientific theory ,etc. One of the times that "majority rules" does not apply .. Again you show you rant against yourself as your examples are of scientific questions that have not been proven as scientific fact one way or another. And , btw, your examples are not debates , just conflicting information for unsettled theories. Please use critical thinking yourself.....

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: spygeek

Clearly Republicans are against critical thinking because it could challenge what parents teach their kids, even when they’re wrong.

All sounded good till you pissed it away with that dumb ass statement......

So in your opinion, critical thinking is nothing more than agreeing with an ideology?

So much for that!

i'm afraid you have completely missed the point of what i was saying. according to the platform i directly quoted, they outright opposed critical thinking because it encourages critical analysis of what kids are taught by their parents, and because critical thinking challenges students' fixed beliefs.

Nope!

I didn't misunderstand anything other that your blatant attempt to label people and condemn them based upon nothing more than they are Conservative and you apparently are a Progressive?

So much for Critical Thinking?

this is what they said:

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

how are you interpreting that statement? i condemned their anti-critical stance. the fact that it was the texas republican party is irrelevant and coincidental.

So does that mean ALL white people are racists?

Apparently your quite comfortable labeling people who don't believe as you do, so are you white? If you are how would you feel if I said your a racist? How would you feel if I told you you should feel guilty for being white and you are privileged because you were born that way?

Yea, put your faith in politics! How is that working out for ya?

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: Gothmog
SO this long post is telling me you are exactly the subject and example of what you are ranting against.....

Before you start that thread about whether or not evolution is provable, (it is), or whether or not anthropogenic climate change exists, (it does), or whether vaccinations cause autism, (they don't), or whether that rock on the moon that looks a bit like a pyramid is an alien structure, (it isn't), or whether the earth is in fact not an oblate spheroid but is flat, (it isn't), or whether biblical texts are just as valid an explanation for human nature and the universe we live in as scientific inquiry, (they aren't).. Stop.

Unless of course that was sarcasm...Is that sarcasm ?

i was giving examples of threads i have recently participated in in which i witnessed people flat out rejecting or ignoring evidence to the contrary of their opinion without having any knowledge or understanding of what they were rejecting. they were threads in support of factually unsupportable opinions, and examples of the lack of critical thinking that is so prevalent.

But,but , but you went on to state without question your beliefs in each subject (see parenthesis) . I keep an open mind about ALL unsettled scientific , religious , philosophical , etc debates. No closed mind for me. If it has not been absolutely proven , I will debate that side but still keep an open mind.....

as if there are any "unsettled debates" in those examples. should any findings disagree with the consensus, i'd welcome the opportunity to learn and possibly change my mind. as it stands these are all scientific certainties.

A consensus does not settle a debate, scientific theory ,etc. One of the times that "majority rules" does not apply .. Again you show you rant against yourself as your examples are of scientific questions that have not been proven as scientific fact one way or another. And , btw, your examples are not debates , just conflicting information for unsettled theories. Please use critical thinking yourself.....

actually, it does. scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. when a consensus is reached, the burden of proof falls on to those who would hold a opposing argument.

consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. these lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.

on occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. in cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.

scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.

for all intents and purposes, scientific consensus is a settled theory. it is the point at which a theory becomes the standard, reached through vigorous experiment and peer review.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: spygeek

Clearly Republicans are against critical thinking because it could challenge what parents teach their kids, even when they’re wrong.

All sounded good till you pissed it away with that dumb ass statement......

So in your opinion, critical thinking is nothing more than agreeing with an ideology?

So much for that!

i'm afraid you have completely missed the point of what i was saying. according to the platform i directly quoted, they outright opposed critical thinking because it encourages critical analysis of what kids are taught by their parents, and because critical thinking challenges students' fixed beliefs.

Nope!

I didn't misunderstand anything other that your blatant attempt to label people and condemn them based upon nothing more than they are Conservative and you apparently are a Progressive?

So much for Critical Thinking?

this is what they said:

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

how are you interpreting that statement? i condemned their anti-critical stance. the fact that it was the texas republican party is irrelevant and coincidental.

So does that mean ALL white people are racists?

Apparently your quite comfortable labeling people who don't believe as you do, so are you white? If you are how would you feel if I said your a racist? How would you feel if I told you you should feel guilty for being white and you are privileged because you were born that way?

Yea, put your faith in politics! How is that working out for ya?

i have no idea what you are talking about now.. how did racism become relevant to the discussion? all i did was condemn an anti-intellectual statement made by a political party.. i have labelled no one.

a reply to: spygeek

Uh ,no . A consensus of opinions DOES NOT make for scientific fact. Scientific results do.DO you know for what 80 years or so it was believed as scientific fact that the speed of light remains constant in a vacuum ? That was a consensus of just about every physicist in the world. Now there has been research and findings that may show it does not.See I have heard those same lines of thought about scientific "consensus" repeated SOOOO many times and usually by the AGW crowd. It is FALSE .I could gather a group of so-called scientists and develop a "consensus" that the moon IS made of green cheese. Would just a "consensus" make it a scientific fact ? NO.So , please I again implore you to use the same critical thinking process that you implore everyone else to use instead of creating a thread i which your very point goes against you. Thanks for playing the game...

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: spygeek

Uh ,no . A consensus of opinions DOES NOT make for scientific fact. Scientific results do.

scientific results make for a scientific consensus, you are arguing over semantics..

DO you know for what 80 years or so it was believed as scientific fact that the speed of light remains constant in a vacuum ? Now there has been research and findings that may show it does not.See I have heard those same lines of thought about scientific "consensus" repeated SOOOO many times. Usually by the AGW crowd. It is FALSE .I could gather a group of so-called scientists and develop a "consensus" that the moon IS made of green cheese. Would just a "consensus" make it a scientific fact ? NO.So , please I again implore you to use the same critical thinking process that you implore everyone else to use....

the great thing about scientific consensus is that it changes with new information. it was the consensus that the speed of light was constant, until it was proven otherwise. now the consensus is that it can change.

you could never gather a group of scientists to develop a consensus that the moon is made of green cheese. you are being facetious and rather uncritical.

scientific consensus relies on critical thinking. scientific method is the application of critical thinking and analysis. there simply is no argument against that fact.

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: spygeek

Uh ,no . A consensus of opinions DOES NOT make for scientific fact. Scientific results do.

scientific results make for a scientific consensus, you are arguing over semantics..

DO you know for what 80 years or so it was believed as scientific fact that the speed of light remains constant in a vacuum ? Now there has been research and findings that may show it does not.See I have heard those same lines of thought about scientific "consensus" repeated SOOOO many times. Usually by the AGW crowd. It is FALSE .I could gather a group of so-called scientists and develop a "consensus" that the moon IS made of green cheese. Would just a "consensus" make it a scientific fact ? NO.So , please I again implore you to use the same critical thinking process that you implore everyone else to use....

the great thing about scientific consensus is that it changes with new information. it was the consensus that the speed of light was constant, until it was proven otherwise. now the consensus is that it can change.

you could never gather a group of scientists to develop a consensus that the moon is made of green cheese. you are being facetious and rather uncritical.

scientific consensus relies on critical thinking. scientific method is the application of critical thinking and analysis. there simply is no argument against that fact.

Like I said , thanks for playing the game. But right now , you are all out of tokens.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: spygeek

Uh ,no . A consensus of opinions DOES NOT make for scientific fact. Scientific results do.

scientific results make for a scientific consensus, you are arguing over semantics..

DO you know for what 80 years or so it was believed as scientific fact that the speed of light remains constant in a vacuum ? Now there has been research and findings that may show it does not.See I have heard those same lines of thought about scientific "consensus" repeated SOOOO many times. Usually by the AGW crowd. It is FALSE .I could gather a group of so-called scientists and develop a "consensus" that the moon IS made of green cheese. Would just a "consensus" make it a scientific fact ? NO.So , please I again implore you to use the same critical thinking process that you implore everyone else to use....

the great thing about scientific consensus is that it changes with new information. it was the consensus that the speed of light was constant, until it was proven otherwise. now the consensus is that it can change.

you could never gather a group of scientists to develop a consensus that the moon is made of green cheese. you are being facetious and rather uncritical.

scientific consensus relies on critical thinking. scientific method is the application of critical thinking and analysis. there simply is no argument against that fact.

Like I said , thanks for playing the game. But right now , you are all out of tokens.

well now that is a strong argument if ever i read one.. i'm out of tokens? nice.

Lol at the people not applying critical thinking to their responses to the OP.

a reply to: spygeek
No , when my opponent in a debate keeps repeating themselves and parsing words instead of replying logically and reasonably , I call the game . Permanently . Too may times I see this as the first step to the whole debate degrading into something that means nothing.Peace....

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: spygeek
No , when my opponent in a debate keeps repeating themselves and parsing words instead of replying logically and reasonably , I call the game . Permanently . Too may times I see this as the first step to the whole debate degrading into something that means nothing.Peace....

what exactly is the debate though? are you arguing over the definition of scientific consensus? you seemed to imply it was not based on scientific certainty a couple of replies ago..

how are my replies not reasonable or logical? you're the one who claimed you could develop a consensus that the moon is made from cheese..

what is the definition of scientific consensus as you understand it and how does it differ from mine?

are you making the error of defining "scientific consensus" in the same way as regular "consensus", like those who mistake the definition of "scientific theory" for regular "theory"?

what exactly is leading you to disagree with any of the examples of publicly debated scientific certainties listed in the op?

are you certain you are not mistaking the map for the territory?