Critical Thinking, Logic, Reasoning and Fallacies

[Freethinker]

Different people tend to approach things from any number of directions. But Science requires specific well defined processes, often referred to in fact, as the "Scientific Method". It requires utilizing terminology which has been previously agreed upon, in a manner which matches the agreed definitions. It requires certain demands for valid supporting evidence. It requires that theories presented provide accurate predictions as a result of their understandings. And all of these need to be constructed logically and presented in a well reasoned manner. It therefore requires certain levels of logic and reasoning skills. It rejects the usage of Fallacies as an effort to PROVE something. Differentiating between and rejecting unsupported claims or simple personal opinions as opposed to verifiable facts and logically constructed arguments.

 

Yet many new visitors to this site (and even some long timers) seem to be unaware of the established requirements for verifiable support and correctly constructed arguments. They supply personal opinion as if that is some form of proof. They use any number of Argument Fallacies, again thinking this is valid proof. As this is a Science based site, it would seem reasonable to maintain this higher level of required discourse. How can "newbies" unfamiliar with developing factual reasoned arguments be brought up to speed? Or is it even necessary? Should the site be open to pseudo-science and accepting of fallacies or ideas that lack any valid substance behind them?

 

Even further, is Critical Thinking, logic and reasoning a superior process to use to understand the reality of our existence and to allow accurate communications between individuals? Or is it a case of "To someone with a hammer. everything is a nail". Is society better off when Critical Thinking, logic and reasoning are applied rather than emotional reactions lacking factual support? Or, as post modernism would suggest, are all explanations, no matter how much they lack any factual evidence or logical construction, just as valid as though that are factually supported and rigorously reasoned? Or even more so, is rejection of factual and reasoned concepts preferable should they conflict with religious revelation based ideology?

 

How is Science and human civilization best served?

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Should the site be open to pseudo-science and accepting of fallacies or ideas that lack any valid substance behind them?

 

Excellent post, and excellent question. I hope someone other than me can take up this argument.

 

How is Science and human civilization best served?

 

I think that is a difficult one. It does very much depend on who you ask, of course. Is science in the interest of the human civilization? Would it be better to dump science and follow religion? Or a mixture of both?

 

In our forums we discuss everything from cloning to life in the universe to what is intelligence (plus we have a lot of fun in between). Being able to discuss things like this requires that the participants know something about the topics. If they are only here to learn, however, we STILL want them to participate!

 

The full name of this site is "Hypography - science for everyone". The logo currently has a slogan, "Connect the dots" under it. The way I see it, this site is a place for absolutely everyone to bring up ideas and discuss them.

 

HOWEVER, and this I guess is your issue, a good number of those posters seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that using logic and reason when discussing is a matter of fact to the rest of us. Some people just barge in here, make incredible claims, then yell at us for trying to tell them that there is either a flaw in their logic or because we want them to explain something.

 

If we lock down the forums and just let first-timers post in a single category, I think we'd lose all the good candidates for good discussions. That would also be on the border of censorship (wouldn't it?).

 

I say bring'em on and let's stand up for what we all believe in. If someone comes in here believing that science is only an evil tool to overthrow their religion, there's not much we can do. But I love the other portion - those who come here and post half-intelligent things, who respond with more questions than answers, and who obviously find a challenge in being challenged - that is what this forum should be all about.

 

Anyone?

[IrishEyes]

Ok, I don't think I'm the person that you want to post in this thread, but I'm going to do it anyway.

 

First, to answer the question in the topic summary, Is there a right and wrong way to think?, I don't think that there is a right way or a wrong way to think. How's that??

[IrishEyes]

from Tormod:

HOWEVER, and this I guess is your issue, a good number of those posters seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that using logic and reason when discussing is a matter of fact to the rest of us. Some people just barge in here, make incredible claims, then yell at us for trying to tell them that there is either a flaw in their logic or because we want them to explain something.

 

Some people come here looking for answers to their questions, but when they pose their questions, THEY get yelled at. The coin has two sides, fearless leader. I think a lot of this is how the person is initially treated, either with respect or disdain. I don't think anyone 'just barges in here'. And up until yesterday, the standard for posting things was very lenient. Reading the FAQ (which does not, to me, imply any agreement to a set of rules at all) was not required before posting, and following the FAQ is still rather arbitrary. When a moderator says "Read our FAQ, you must have proof for your ridiculous claims!", most people could reply, "FAQ? Why should I read the FAQ? That's for if I have a question, but I don't. I just want to post."

 

Another quick point here - just about ANY time that a person's logic is dissected, criticized, called into question, or made to look faulty, especially in regard to a first post, that person will most likely reply in the defensive. That is human nature. If someone says something that you view as a personal attack because of their tone, you either attack back, or you never return. That is "fight or flight' at its most basic, right here at Hypography.

[IrishEyes]

FreeT, you were really all over with your post. You went from discussing Science to Argument fallacies, to rejection of logic, and ended with the very loaded "How is Science and human civilization best served?".

 

That question alone raises many more questions for me. For instance, is "science" on par with "human civilization"? What I mean is, should we forsake some of the basic qualities that are necessary for human civilization to continue in favor of a purely "scientific" existence?

 

You ask questions such as "Is society better off when Critical Thinking, logic and reasoning are applied rather than emotional reactions lacking factual support?" This leads me to believe that you value reason and logic above emotion. Notice that I did not say that is what you said, only that it is what you lead me to believe. Are emotional reactions that HAVE factual support ok in your opinion? What degree of factual support would lend itself to acceptability? Is personal experience factual enough? Or is that too subjective?

 

Anyhow, I'm trying to form a thoughtful response to your post, as I think I understand the intent of it. But I'm not looking for a fight, only a discussion. Can we just do a slow waltz instead of our usual tango for this one?

[Uncle Martin]

There is most definately a "right" way to think;.....MY WAY. If you disagree with this, it is evidence that you think the "wrong" way. Any questions?

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

from Tormod:

 

HOWEVER, and this I guess is your issue, a good number of those posters seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that using logic and reason when discussing is a matter of fact to the rest of us. Some people just barge in here, make incredible claims, then yell at us for trying to tell them that there is either a flaw in their logic or because we want them to explain something.

 

Some people come here looking for answers to their questions, but when they pose their questions, THEY get yelled at. The coin has two sides, fearless leader. I think a lot of this is how the person is initially treated, either with respect or disdain.

 

Hm. I tried to make my post reflect that I welcome everyone, but that there is a certain category of people which simply makes life difficult for us. I agree, some of us may have a tendency to yell at first-timers and even long-timers) but we all learn, no? I have always tried to treat people with respect here, but OF COURSE I have made some people upset and angry. But then again I suspect you don't consider me the worst culprit here. I remember how YOU entered the forums.

 

And no, I am not fearless. I remember when TeleMad called me a creationist and I almost threw my keyboard out the window. It took some time to cool down and realize we were really talking past each other and stubbornly staying within our own POV's, not caring to even try to see the other person's arguments. I ended up locking that particular thread because it turned into a good old flame war. So I'm not infallible! (That should be in the FAQ...).

 

I don't think anyone 'just barges in here'.

 

We have a fair deal of those, if you ask me. I won't name names because some will be hurt.

 

And up until yesterday, the standard for posting things was very lenient. Reading the FAQ (which does not, to me, imply any agreement to a set of rules at all) was not required before posting, and following the FAQ is still rather arbitrary. When a moderator says "Read our FAQ, you must have proof for your ridiculous claims!", most people could reply, "FAQ? Why should I read the FAQ? That's for if I have a question, but I don't. I just want to post."

 

When you signed up, you agreed to this document:

http://www.hypography.com/membership_agreement.cfm

 

Notice how it *explicitly* links to the Forum Faq under "Membership rules"? I have discussed this with you before, that I will make sure the FAQ is more promient, but the first step was to make sure the new FAQ was more complete than the old one.

 

Another quick point here - just about ANY time that a person's logic is dissected, criticized, called into question, or made to look faulty, especially in regard to a first post, that person will most likely reply in the defensive. That is human nature. If someone says something that you view as a personal attack because of their tone, you either attack back, or you never return. That is "fight or flight' at its most basic, right here at Hypography.

 

Yes. I realize that. but I think that is the way it should be in a forum. A lot of people come here, post, and get "Hey! That's a great idea" and that's that. Others post, are criticized, answer the criticism, and a good discussion follows. But too often, someone posts a blatantly outrageous claim (one which often has been discussed to death already). This triggers the postaholics among us.

 

And to make it crystal clear: There is of course no "right or wrong" way to think. FT is asking the question to kickstart this argument, and it works. However, there are ri

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

There is most definately a "right" way to think;.....MY WAY. If you disagree with this, it is evidence that you think the "wrong" way. Any questions?

 

As the Intelligence Minister speaks, so speaks the Intelligence Minister. No questions, sir.

[TINNY]

CT is used to understand the world around us. But the fact is, we cannot find any certainty with the faculty of our own minds. so, we should not use pure reason and logic to know the truth.

waht think?

Plz dont yell at me for making this statement.

[IrishEyes]

OUCH, TORMOD!!

 

Does your wife approve of you spanking other women in online forums??

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Ok, I don't think I'm the person that you want to post in this thread, but I'm going to do it anyway.

Actually you are the perfect person to respond to this. Can't wait to reply to your next sentence! lol

First, to answer the question in the topic summary, Is there a right and wrong way to think?, I don't think that there is a right way or a wrong way to think. How's that??

So deciding to intentionally allow your child to die rather than seek medical help is fine because that is the way that parent thinks? The parent adopts a religious based intentional ignorance of medical science and rejects it's factually succesful applications. And this results in children dying while the parents wear eye glasses. But it's OK to use a religious thought process instead of a factual logical reasoned scientific one even if you kill your kids int he process. But according to you, that's OK!

 

NAMBLA members THINK it is OK to have sex with young boys. But according to you, thats OK cause there is no right or wrong way to think.

 

KKKer's follow the biblical concept of inferiority of the races, but that's OK according to you.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

FreeT, you were really all over with your post. You went from discussing Science to Argument fallacies, to rejection of logic, and ended with the very loaded "How is Science and human civilization best served?".

Where is it "all over"? I started with a discussion of how scince works to set up the application of CT logic, reasoning... This IS a Science site and I was keeping it topical. That would create a natural segue to specific discussion of CT, logic, reasoning in an individual's thought process.

 

And again as this is a science site, I ended with a question that ties it all together based on SCIENCE. Yet allowing for the seperate issue of human civilization. How better to get responses to a question that to make it loaded?

That question alone raises many more questions for me. For instance, is "science" on par with "human civilization"? What I mean is, should we forsake some of the basic qualities that are necessary for human civilization to continue in favor of a purely "scientific" existence?

Which is exactly why I framed the question. The very issues hoped to discuss. Is there, should there be, different approaches to thinking based on what you are thinking about? Or does being "rational" work best regardless?

You ask questions such as "Is society better off when Critical Thinking, logic and reasoning are applied rather than emotional reactions lacking factual support?" This leads me to believe that you value reason and logic above emotion.

Of course I do. Emotional reactions that run counter to simple reasoning cause horrendeous results. While rational thought, including accepting emotion based input (reasoning does not outlaw emotional reactions, just tempers it) ultimately helps lead to better answers.

Are emotional reactions that HAVE factual support ok in your opinion?

The key is "that HAVE factual support". Where did I indicate at any point that ANY "factual support" should be rejected regardless of it's source?

What degree of factual support would lend itself to acceptability?

A majority. When a specific result is supported by MORE "factual suipport" than the alternatives, it is LOGICAL to accept it. In fact it is ILLOGICAL, IRRATIONAL to reject it.

Is personal experience factual enough?

Are there magicians and optical illusions?

Anyhow, I'm trying to form a thoughtful response to your post,

After already posting an earlier, (unthoughtful?) one?

But I'm not looking for a fight,

I'd take ya best of 3 falls without breaking into a sweat! :-)

Can we just do a slow waltz instead of our usual tango for this one?

MOSH PIT!

[Freethinker]

WHOA, there was a 2nd one hiding in there. Missed this one before I got to the 3rd one!

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Some people come here looking for answers to their questions, but when they pose their questions, THEY get yelled at.

While there may have been a few that werre inappropriately attacked (I can think of one), in general that is not the case. Speaking personally, I do go aggressive when responding to the easy to identify mindless religious rhetoric. Unc on another thread (in Moderators?) discussed not having enough time in a specific case to take the long route. Esp since historically the long route winds up at the same point at some later time anyway. That is the historical reality I have faced for literally decades of these discussions now. Might as well get things in the right direction from the get go. The warm fuzzy wrappings used by many religionists in early posts are way to obvious. They have their agenda. All we are tryiing to do is cut thru the crap and get to the point. If when we cut thru the crap, nothing is left, we've stop everyone else from wasting all that crappy time.

The coin has two sides, fearless leader. I think a lot of this is how the person is initially treated, either with respect or disdain. I don't think anyone 'just barges in here'.

There are numerous examples of barges. Look at CD2x, he even erased dozens of his posts once he realized his barge was sinking. He made a fool of himself trying to pretend he had anything of substance to offer. It was so obvious he even wanted to hide his trail.

 

Or Tianmenxx. Just wanted ad space for his site.

 

And up until yesterday, the standard for posting things was very lenient. Reading the FAQ (which does not, to me, imply any agreement to a set of rules at all)

netequiette has established a site's FAQ as the basic rules for the site.

Another quick point here - just about ANY time that a person's logic is dissected, criticized, called into question, or made to look faulty, especially in regard to a first post, that person will most likely reply in the defensive.

Not me. Not if my "attempt" at such is FACTUALLY shown to be lacking. But then I am the Freethinker.

That is human nature.

No, that tends to identify a religious mindset. That "Perfect Knowledge" so common in a religious mindset. That claim we hear all the time from Christers that no matter what they are shown, they will not chnage their mindset. So when their fallacies are exposed, and they refuse to accept it RATIONALLY, their response is, as you acknowledge "dcefensive". They are struggling to defend, with-in themselves as much as to the public, views that can no longer be claimed to be rational.

If someone says something that you view as a personal attack because of their tone, you either attack back, or you never return. That is "fight or flight' at its most basic, right here at Hypography.

To "attack back" does not require one to stop being rational. The reply attack can still be based on logical reasoned presmises and proofs.

 

Those that "never return" almost always are those that lack any substance. Once they become selfaware of this, they, again in order to continue to delude themselves, MUST leave lest they are forced to face their previous lack of rational thought.

 

Cognitive dissonance is a pwerful motivator.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

This triggers the postaholics among us.

CLICK![/size]

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

There is of course no "right or wrong" way to think.

I disagree. To ignore FACTS IS the wrong way to think. It has, does and will create horrendeous results for humanity.

 

Christian thought process in the middle ages promoted cats as Pagan evil agents and thus people killed them. This allowed the rat population to skyrocket and we had the Black Plague because of it. But you state that that religious motivated thinking is not WRONG?

 

In a survey a few yars back, 175 infant deaths were reviewed. In each case the parent used a Christian based thought process to decide that medical science was to be rejected in favor of trusting their god. 95% were found to be easily curable, no reason to intentionally be allowed to die. Most of the remaining 5% would ahve had a mocerate chance of survival. But were allowed NONE!

 

YES there IS a ""right or wrong" way to think". At least if end results has anythng to do with the evaluation.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TINNY

CT is used to understand the world around us. But the fact is, we cannot find any certainty with the faculty of our own minds. so, we should not use pure reason and logic to know the truth.

I am not sure of exactly what you are trying to say (not yelling, just exploring). I agree that the human mind might not be able to establish absolute certainty at all times. There are any number of things I am personally not absolutely certain of.

 

But I will still apply the best forms of reason and logic that I know of to help me find the most accurate, "truthful" answers.

 

Do you mean more than that when you say "pure reason and logic"?

[TINNY]

There's a dialogue that objectively defined what is wrong and right. Basically, it is derived from the concept of evolution from the simple to the very complex in the progression of matter. Although it does assume some scientific theories as almost absolutely correct, i hope it can still provide much food for thought.

 

It says that the universe began from nothingness, where all the energy needed to produce all the matter in the universe was together at a singularity. The energy was so intense that it exploded, like the Big Bang. The photons of electromagnetic energy collided and formed simple atoms. Then it describes how the universe eventually ended up like it is now according to widely accepted theories. The simple atoms like hydrogen and lithium existed first, then more complex ones. Then they combined to produce molecules, getting more and more complex structurally. Eventually it arrived at replicator molecules which was the point where biological life started. Biological life progressed to the point of humans as the most developed form of matter. Throughout the progressive development of matter, every step of progress was determined by external influence, such as physical, chemical and biological laws till the point of humans. Along with matter, there was also the progression of conciousness from the simple deterministic beginning till the very complex conciousness at the human level, where conciousness was fully manifested to be able to break free from the deterministic influence of the environment, thus enabling free-will. So, logically, humans, by free-will, was to continue on the path of progression by free-will to a perfected state where free-will is fully manifested.

 

What is defined as right action is what aids in the path of progression of humans and all of existence or, in other words, the usage of free-will to act, and not under any external influence. What is said as free-will is the usage of pure logic and reason since that is the innate way of thinking by the conciousness of human beings. Wrong action would be actions that are based on external influence by the environment, since it is not in the path of material progression towards the full manifestation of free-will.

 

Read the full dialogue