Categories Are Meaningful: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life

[Buffy]

I have been trying to sell CT on these Internet forums for 4 years and I have learned that everyone is convinced that they are a critical thinker.

So what's wrong with just declaring victory?

 

Now I know your real implication here is that none of us are, but you're totally missing out on a major marketing opportunity using the old trick of "affinity marketing."

 

You're wasting your time trying to convince people to do something by saying they're either not doing it or doing it wrong, which is *offensive*.

 

With affinity marketing you *take advantage* of people's belief that they either are or want to be associated with something whether they want to or not.

 

Why do you think there are all those cute skinny cheerleaders in beer ads?

 

You really need to turn your pitch around to emphasize *improving* one's *existing* CT abilities. Don't emphasize what you perceive as their "self-deception" that they have CT abilities when you think they don't. Use persuasion and introduction of "new CT techniques" to trick them into *wanting* to redefine what they perceive as CT to be more in line with your views.

 

Honest, it works a whole lot better!

 

Your friendly neighborhood marketing maven, :eek2:

Buffy

[Pyrotex]

...When does a human female egg fertilized by a human male sperm become a person?...

According to the Hebrews of OT fame, it was three days after birth. That was when male infants were circumsized.

[coberst]

Buffy

 

I used the word "sell" in my post in a rather off-handed way. I am not selling anything but am trying to help people to become conscious of an important concept. A person must first become conscious of the concept before they can begin to study that concept and hopefully understand it. I have manage to make people conscious of the concept and the rest is in their hands. But at least they now are conscious of the fact that what they call critical thnking is not what CT is.

[jedaisoul]

According to the Hebrews of OT fame, it was three days after birth. That was when male infants were circumsized.

Hi Pyro, I think you have been mislead. As far as I can see there was no intention to start a discussion about categories, or legalised abortion. These were "devices" to grab people's attention, get them talking, and then explain the wonders of CT.

 

Of course, you could have a perfectly reasonable discussion about when an embryo becomes a person with or without coberst's input, I just don't think that was the intention...

[jedaisoul]

I have been trying to sell CT on these Internet forums for 4 years and I have learned that everyone is convinced that they are a critical thinker.

 

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble; it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so”—Mark Twain

Has it occurred to you that this quote may apply to you?

 

You're wasting your time trying to convince people to do something by saying they're either not doing it or doing it wrong, which is *offensive*.

Listen to Buffy. Also, I'd suggest you avoid insulting people's intelligence by throwing in controversial topics just to grab attention. If you want to start a thread about the meaningfulness of categories, or the pro's and con's of elective abortion, by all means do so. Using them as intro's to CT (which is what you appear to have done) is not a good idea.

[jedaisoul]

But at least they now are conscious of the fact that what they call critical thnking is not what CT is.

So what makes you so sure we don't know what CT is, and don't use it every day? Isn't that just a little presumptuous?

[coberst]

So what makes you so sure we don't know what CT is, and don't use it every day? Isn't that just a little presumptuous?

 

Yes I am conscious of the possibility that I, rather than the vast majority, may be confused. If this matter were decide by majority then I would certainly lose; just as Socrates lost 2500 years ago.

 

Using Plato’s cave analogy, I would say that I am trying to illuminate the facts of our cave dwelling existence while simultaneously recommending that CT provides one of the means for escaping that cave. If I avoid illuminating our cave dwelling existence how can the cave dwellers recognize the need for CT?

 

I think that I have one sure way for judging if a person understands what I mean by CT. If a person understands the meaning of CT that person would be joining with me in the crusade of illumination.

[jedaisoul]

Yes I am conscious of the possibility that I, rather than the vast majority, may be confused. If this matter were decide by majority then I would certainly lose; just as Socrates lost 2500 years ago.

I did not speak of the "vast majority". I spoke of the members of this site, who are a tiny minority of mankind.

I think that I have one sure way for judging if a person understands what I mean by CT. If a person understands the meaning of CT that person would be joining with me in the crusade of illumination.

Using your powers of CT, can you point out and answer the flaw in your statement? I'll give you a hint: What if your "crusade" were mis-directed, and you were "preaching to the converted". How many critical thinkers would join your crusade, if it were apparent that you fail to recognise critical thinking in others?

 

Anyway, I've said enough, and perhaps too much. This is not intended as an attack on you. I just think you may need to be a little more open minded when people do not respond in the way you expect.

[coberst]

I did not speak of the "vast majority". I spoke of the members of this site, who are a tiny minority of mankind.

 

 

Good point. However, since I get this same response from almost every board that I post on the phrase or the insinuation that "you are preaching to the choir here" causes me to think in universal terms about this matter.

 

I think that it is very difficult to obtain the knowledge, skills, and attitude of CT through social osmosis, even though that seems to be the universal assumption.

[jedaisoul]

However, since I get this same response from almost every board that I post on the phrase or the insinuation that "you are preaching to the choir here" causes me to think in universal terms about this matter.

Well, have you thought that perhaps the people who are attracted to science forums may have certain factors in common that might distinguish them from the "man (or woman) in the street"? So it could be true that you are preaching to the converted, without implying that the "man (or woman) in the street" has advanced CT skills.

I think that it is very difficult to obtain the knowledge, skills, and attitude of CT through social osmosis, even though that seems to be the universal assumption.

Can you see the logic flaws in this sentence? Lets break the statements down:

1. I think that it is very difficult to obtain the knowledge, skills, and attitude of CT through social osmosis,

2. even though that seems to be the universal assumption.

 

Statement 1 can be true, without leading to the statement 2 "that seems to be the universal assumption". You have made an assumption that people attribute their CT skills to "social osmosis". On what basis did you come to that conclusion? It is certainly not true in my case.

 

Also "very difficult" is not the same as "impossible". So it can be "very difficult to obtain the knowledge, skills, and attitude of CT through social osmosis" withot it being impossible, given appropriate motivation and circumstances.

 

Your motivation is to be applauded, but if you are repeatedly told that you are preaching to the converted, perhaps you should reconsider whether that might be true?

 

But one thing I do not want you to do is to stop generating interesting threads. I think there is a lot of mileage in both the subjects you mentioned in the title of this tread. I would have liked to discuss the meaningfulness of categories, entirely divorced from the abortion issue, and CT.

[Buffy]

I am not selling anything but am trying to help people to become conscious of an important concept.

And how's that workin' for ya?

 

Its always amusing to see people blithely dismiss marketing as a useless endeavor, or see it as something exclusive to making money.

 

In fact "marketing" is needed in convincing anyone of anything.

 

I know the resistance is natural. It took a while before I was able to convince most of my teacher friends that what they do to get their students interested in a subject and get them to learn actually is marketing...

I have manage to make people conscious of the concept and the rest is in their hands. But at least they now are conscious of the fact that what they call critical thnking is not what CT is.

Declaring victory: a classic marketing technique!

 

Now you're getting the hang of it!

 

The least of learning is done in the classrooms, :lol:

Buffy

[Pyrotex]

Good point. However, since I get this same response from almost every board that I post on the phrase or the insinuation that "you are preaching to the choir here" causes me to think in universal terms about this matter.

 

I think that it is very difficult to obtain the knowledge, skills, and attitude of CT through social osmosis, even though that seems to be the universal assumption.

There are other possibilities. As one who is a self-professed expert in CT, I would be happy to elucidate.

 

Perhaps you have aimed your "pitch" either over the heads of your intended audience, or in some other manner equivalently esoteric so as to appear sufficiently arcane as to prevent their immediate comprehension. This may in fact be done subconsciously by the pervayer as a remedy for deep seated feelings of inadequacy. I.e, if your audience does not understand, then obviously they are intellectually hobbled and you are not, thus belaying your internal disquietudes.

 

There are, of course, other explanations that might, with fell due, expiate your concerns over our abilities to understand your illuminating posts. But I will assay those anon as circumstances invite.

[Kriminal99]

A new paradigm is a difficult thing to introduce especially one like the conceptual metaphor.

 

Especially when that new paradigm is about 500% more arcane and roundabout then it actually needs to be. Oh and is not really new.

 

Just between you and me coberst...

 

People with good deductive reasoning skills have probably deduced the nature of metaphor since ancient times. They have probably deduced more practical knowledge of them then the book you refer to explains. And died with this knowledge due to an inability to effectively communicate it. They did this, using an introspective approach and would attempt to explain it using by causing them to use introspection and following the same path of reasoning. This approach is infinitely better for explaining things than trying to get others to perceive a self contained third person body of knowledge. And yet they have still failed to communicate the knowledge.

 

Accepting your explanation would require, in addition to everything else required already for the introspective version, an irrational devotion to scientific knowledge over introspective knowledge. Any non scientist who was capable of the type of reasoning skills required would not value the scientific approach due to knowledge that logic combined with personal experience can provide MORE assurance than information provided by third parties with various biases and competencies (or there is just the instinct to trust your own experiences over what people tell you if you don't want to get into the reasons)

 

It is irrational because with the scientific approach I have to memorize a lot of additional information in addition to using immaculate reasoning.

 

If you would get this information across to people, I think your best bet is to start speaking English.

 

But because I have used this approach all along, I can tell you I already have a head start on you. I can communicate the nature of REAL CT in a couple paragraphs, and I am filling my book with additional information atm.

 

@ Pyrotex, Jedaisoul et al...

 

Few persons care to study logic, because everybody conceives himself to be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already. But I observe that this satisfaction is limited to one's own ratiocination, and does not extend to that of other men.

 

Charles Peirce, The Fixation of Belief

I would suggest to you all that you could benefit from the information Coberst is trying to get across.

[coberst]

 

Few persons care to study logic, because everybody conceives himself to be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already. But I observe that this satisfaction is limited to one's own ratiocination, and does not extend to that of other men.

 

Charles Peirce, The Fixation of Belief

I would suggest to you all that you could benefit from the information Coberst is trying to get across.

 

We are born with the ability to draw inferences from our conceptions, i.e. reasoning. We are born also with the ability to deal mathematically with small quantities, i.e. addition and subtraction. Fortunately our culture has determined that it is worthwhile that we augment this gift of math through our educational institutions. Unfortunately it has not sufficiently made that same determination in matters of reasoning, i.e. CT.

[freeztar]

Unfortunately it has not sufficiently made that same determination in matters of reasoning, i.e. CT.

 

Out of curiousity, can you cite specific examples of this?

[coberst]

Out of curiousity, can you cite specific examples of this?

 

I may be misunderstanding your request but if you are asking for evidence that our schools and colleges are not teaching CT then I would say that a short conversation by someone who has been taught CT with almost anyone will demonstrate the fact. If you have children you might ask them if they have been taught CT. Have you been taught CT?

[freeztar]

I may be misunderstanding your request but if you are asking for evidence that our schools and colleges are not teaching CT then I would say that a short conversation by someone who has been taught CT with almost anyone will demonstrate the fact.

 

Ok, fair enough, but I was hoping for a specific example.

 

If you have children you might ask them if they have been taught CT. Have you been taught CT?

 

I don't have children, so I can't speak to that. I can ask my friend who is a middle school teacher, but my guess is that he will say, "What is CT?". :naughty:

 

I was taught CT both in high school and college. In high school, it was integrated into courses such as literature and philosophy. In college, it was specifically addressed on its own.

 

I would imagine it is difficult to assess the level of CT being taught. Since CT uses internalization, analysation, and synthesis, much of the CT that one develops is personal attainment, rather than something that is taught. Of course, a good teacher will foster this internalization. In my experience, I've had both types of teachers. I've noticed that even the best teachers (the most Socratic) have trouble enabling CT in students, not because of their lack of capability or something inherent in the educational system, but because of the inherent ambivalence in the students.

 

But, rather than blame the teachers, the educational system, or the ambivalence of today's youth, I believe a much more helpful approach is to teach the synthesis. One easy step in this direction would be to do away with "lecture-style" teaching. When the students are engaged, the mind is engaged.

 

In other words, the best way to enable CT in others is to practice it oneself. "Be the change you wish to see in the world" -Gandhi :phones: