Critical Thinking, Logic, Reasoning and Fallacies

[Uncle Martin]

Tinny,

This is an outstanding post. Much food for thought. I may be mistaken, ...and please correct me if I'm wrong,...but are you not a proponent of the " conscious universe theory"? I seem to remember some of your previous posts leading in that direction. Yes,... I do pay attention. Or maybe I don't. Please tell me if my memory is as good as I hope it is.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: 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.

 

Okay, I'm at my RL work so taking the "short route": I strongly disagree with this. This is another one of those arguments that will boil down to endless semantics. What is "to think"? It is an activity which our brain does constantly. Yet it is also a deliberate action, "I am thinking about it".

 

In the first case, I'd say nature governs the way our minds work. We can take "mind-enhancing drugs" and possibly perform better, if "better" is a way to measure things on that level (which I have second thoughts about).

 

In the second case, when we discuss HOW to use our ability to use our mind as a tool, I still disagree that there is a right and wrong way to think. What I think is at issue here is whether WHAT we think about and HOW we apply these thoughts to our actions.

 

You say to ignore facts is the wrong way to think. It's a good attempt, FT. But I would ask, who decides what the facts are, how many facts are needed to form a concensus, what level of proof is needed to establish a fact (and so on, this we have discussed before).

 

 

You wrote in your reply to Tinny: "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." (my emphasis).

 

Of course. And everyone does that. It's just that not everyone know that there are given rules for logic and reason. Come on, who is to decide whether one set of rules are more correct than any other? You?

 

I agree that a lot of religious thought is seeped through with endlessly bad logic, but then again, a lot of people accept this fallacy and are smart and open-minded and still can hold their own in a good discussion. Just being a Christian (or a member of any faith) does not imply that a person is not "thinking right". He or she may be misguided about certain issues, but I think few people are misguided about *every* issue.

 

I know a lot of non-believers who tend to ignore facts. In fact, I grew up in an atheist family with strong links to the radical left wing politics in the 70s. I tell you THERE was "the right way" to think. Think otherwise, and you're out. No friends, no network, no party - follow the dogma or be gone. The experience from those years, where I was but a child who had no way to understand what was fact and what was not, is not very different from what children who grow up in religious sects experience. It took me many, many years, even after I grew up, to shred the ignorance and realize that yes, there are some good sides to all the evil in this world (the evil being capitalism, conservative politicians, religion, the US, NATO, what have you).

 

I know you love to pick on Irish for her home schooling and strange ideas (yes, Irish). But I deeply respect Irish and her choices. If we want a world where free will is available to all, we must also accept that a lot of people think differently than ourselves. I am not going to tell Irish that she "thinks wrong." I may disagree with her, but that is a matter of opinion.

 

So I repeat my stance on this: There is no right or wrong way to think. But it is everyone's responsibility to look at the way they think about what they preach, and consider "am I really right about this".

 

(Ok, the "short long route", then. My boss hasn't showed up yet...)

[TINNY]

What's the concious universe theory? I'm just suggesting an idea, since you asked what is wrong and what is right. anyway, what's the problem with the concious universe theory?

[Uncle Martin]

Tinny,

I did not say (in this thread) that there is anything "wrong" with the conscious universe theory. I just thought I remembered that you accepted it as reality and that would go against the post I was so impressed with. I was just trying to get a better perpective.

[geko]

In my opinion, a 'correct' way to think would be by a process of thought that brings about consistency.

 

If arguments and beliefs arent consistent (if they dont 'hang together'), they cant claim to be true, or right, because the next belief and argument may contradict the first (as in, "use arguments when they suit you, and reject them when they dont"), thus being unable to count themselves as valid, or even discussable for that matter (whether personal or consensus based).

 

So, since logic is the art of non-contradictory discussion, i propose that being logical is correct (but this itself does not negate the benefits of emotion).

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: 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.

your link

Read the full dialogue

turns out to be some Islam religious site:

 

http://www.islamic-world.net/khalifah-project/ute1.doc

 

OK, I am checking out the link provided. Many questions.

 

Are you "Tinny Rainbird; she is eleven years old."?

 

Do you believe all this stuff? But then if you are THAT Tinny, you have no choice do you?

 

Why bother pretending this stuff is correct if the included disclaimer states that any and all is wrong if someone else says Allah says so?

 

"There may also be some – very few – points in which my writings are actually in conflict with true Islamic knowledge; in these cases I accept the true Islamic knowledge as correct and my work to be in error."

 

Why bother pretending there is ANY truth to it if any part can be tossed at with any whim?

 

Further the whole "Story" smacks of new age mumbo jumbo. Naturally the parental figures are the most intellegent and caring people that have ever existed. Such as the mother who just so happens to be the greatest physicist that ever existed and no one has ever heard of.... Ya right, OK then!

 

All we find out after a long drawn out rambling story, is that the original Abrahamic Sun god Yahweh, is updated to the light god. Not as in Bud Light, but as in Mr Photon!

 

Then I wandered around more of the site, particularly The Khalifah Project which this is part of. What a crock this is! What we find is connected to your post. An attempt to weave science and psuedo-science sounding termonology into Islam and it's god myth. Obfuscation based subterfuge. Brainwash young minds by feeding them just enough science to make them think that "therefore it's all science!".

 

From the site:

 

"It is no longer intellectually possible nor logically reasonable, in light of the finding of modern physics and cosmology, to hold the view of the atheists (that there is no God). The only logically reasonable, and intellectually honest, conclusion that can be drawn from the findings of modern science is that God does exist, that the attributes of God are absolute, and that God did create the physical universe (including human life)... The scientific facts behind these interpretations represent a virtual consensus by a number of the world’s leading physicists, including several Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicists."

 

I'd love to see the list of "several Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicists" that believe that Mr Photon god is Allah!!!

 

Of course we see why the disclaimer is included. Lest at some point some Islamic leader decides the author is violating some part of the Koran, no use setting yourself up for a fatwa.

 

Once more religion crushes logical thinking! Which is framed in the most blatant of militant intent with this part of the site:

 

" The Final Jihad

 

Muslim brothers and sisters,

in the name of Allah you are called to jihad.

 

This statement marks the beginning of worldwide Islamic jihad. To make so serious a call upon the Muslim ummah there must indeed be dire circumstances. It is only right that the basis for this call to jihad be clearly explained. Right now the battle with shaitan is being lost. In modern terms this is the battle against western secular materialism. "

 

Yep, we are talking god's holy war against anything that gets in the way of forcing Allah down everyones throat! And they have

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

You wrote in your reply to Tinny: "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." (my emphasis).

 

Of course. And everyone does that.

 

Yet we have read on this site from a number of members that they will INTENTIONALLY REJECT "reason and logic... to help (them) find the most accurate, "truthful" answers." if it means they have to reject their god myth.

 

Martin Luther stated in no uncertain terms "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."

 

The Jesuits' founder, Ignatius Loyola stated that you must believe black is white and white is black if the church said so.

 

Here on this thread, two posts above yours, Tinny leads us to a site that declares that any of the information supplied is to be outright rejected if someone decides it conflicts with the Koran.

 

And you still want to claim that everyone uses "reason and logic... to help (them) find the most accurate, "truthful" answers."?

 

Obviously this is NOT the case.

 

But this WRONG THINKING is just fine with you?

It's just that not everyone know that there are given rules for logic and reason. Come on, who is to decide whether one set of rules are more correct than any other? You?

We can find out from the RESULTS. Ignore medical science and let your kids die, I think can be shown to be WRONG THINKING. Or is that just ME?

I know you love to pick on Irish for her home schooling and strange ideas (yes, Irish). But I deeply respect Irish and her choices.

You respect her stating she would intentional reject scientific fact merely because it would require her to stop believing her god myth? Sorry, while I respect Irish for many things, this is NOT one I can respect nor condone!

I am not going to tell Irish that she "thinks wrong." I may disagree with her, but that is a matter of opinion.

And when a child is KILLED by a minister and congregation by beating him and crushing the child under them to "save him" from the devil, which was actually Autism, that's OK, it's just " a matter of opinion"?

So I repeat my stance on this: There is no right or wrong way to think. But it is everyone's responsibility to look at the way they think about what they preach, and consider "am I really right about this".

The murderous minister, mother and congregation plead protection of religious freedoms. They are convinced that science was wrong in 'thinking" the child was autistic, and they were right in thinking the devil possesed him.

 

But that is OK, because

There is no right or wrong way to think.

Ask Yvonne if

There is no right or wrong way to think.

after reading:

 

St. Augustine of Hippo "What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman......I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children."

 

St. Thomas Aquinas "As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence."

 

Martin Luther "If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there."

Com

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: 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.

 

your link

 

Read the full dialogue

 

turns out to be some Islam religious site:

 

(link removed)

 

I have already warned you folks about this site. Tinny posts a lot of links to it, and the site is completely unreliable. It has a quasi-scientific disguise but the real message shines through it.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: Tormod

 

(long post snipped)

 

Come on, who is to decide whether one set of rules are more correct than any other? You?

 

I see your point. Who am I to think it is wrong to let women die, since they have no positive value other than childbirth, or to kill kids if they don't act the way a parent wants? That's just my personal POV and is no more correct than the kid killers.

 

Exactly. It is interesting to note that all your arguments go against those from religious sources. Yet the main objection in my previous post was that there are many factions who claim the right to decide how people should think - political extremists being one very common type. Coupled with religion, fanatics are perhaps the worst kind.

 

At the end of the day, one can't control what people think. You can tell them, teach them, brainwash them - but their mind will still work and they are still able to think.

 

The real argument here is not whether it is right or wrong to kill babies. The argument is whether or not one can say that it is the *way of thinking* that is wrong, or whether it is the *reasoning that the acts performed* are based upon that is at fault. I think the difference is quite big.

 

You can hardly blame someone who has been schooled in a system to actually believe in that system. To them, the logic is quote obvious because they have learnt to see it that way. Thef acts are obvious to them because they have been taught what the facts are.

 

It is my opinion that adults must be responsible for their actions. They are also responsible for what they teack to their kids. However, you can't expect *anyone* to be able to teach *all the right things*, because let's face it, it is impossible. Interpretation and free will is a part of human nature and there is nothing you can do about it except keep preaching YOUR way of thinking, because you believe it (and you and I back up our beliefs with scientific evidence when we can, and by logic and deduction when we can't ). I know you dislike to be told you believe anything but your reasoning comes from somewhere, my friend.

 

What happened to Voltaire and "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? It is everyone's right to *think* what they want. It is, however, not everyone's right to act out the results of their thinking. That is why we have laws and social rules.

 

Science is not a fixed set of rules. The scientific method is very old, but has proven to work well when it comes to question research and learn that an issue has many sides.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Tormod: It's just that not everyone know that there are given rules for logic and reason. Come on, who is to decide whether one set of rules are more correct than any other? You?

 

We can find out from the RESULTS. Ignore medical science and let your kids die, I think can be shown to be WRONG THINKING. Or is that just ME?

 

Okay, I'll take up a few of these too.

 

I don't know about you. Wrong thinking just isn't a term I'd use. Flawed reasoning, perhaps. Lack of support for theories. Failure to investigate alternatives. But wrong "thinking"? No.

 

Tormod: I am not going to tell Irish that she "thinks wrong." I may disagree with her, but that is a matter of opinion.

 

And when a child is KILLED by a minister and congregation by beating him and crushing the child under them to "save him" from the devil, which was actually Autism, that's OK, it's just " a matter of opinion"?

 

I think we are talking to different walls here. I was trying to say: "I disagree with Irish. But I have a different opinion than YOU (FT) about whether or not that is wrong thinking."

[Tormod]

Before someone thinks I am standing up for the faithful around here, I'd like to make a point. Those who use the term "wrong thinking" are usually those who try to preach to someone that they must not be tempted to believe otherwise.

 

Google http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=%22what+is+wrong+thinking%22 and see what you come up with. It is an interesting lesson.

 

And my point is?

[Yvonne]

I would simply say it's better to think, and be wrong, than not to think. So many people go through life without thinking. They just let others do their thinking for them. That is much worse than thinking "wrong" (whatever that is).

 

If you think you do something active. The result might not be best sometimes even fatal, but at least you gave it a try. I highly recommend thinking.

 

I have a strong dislike for people who come up to me and want to know what I think, then when I ask them what they think they simply say "I don't know". As if their opinon doesn't count and I should do their thinking for them. I also find it hard to respect people who doesn't want to hear my reasoning, because they already have the answer.

 

Isn't thinking and sharing thoughts and ideas what this forum is about?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

It is interesting to note that all your arguments go against those from religious sources. Yet the main objection in my previous post was that there are many factions who claim the right to decide how people should think - political extremists being one very common type. Coupled with religion, fanatics are perhaps the worst kind.

There are multiple reasons for my usage of religious thought as the negative example.

 

1) it IS! :-)

2) they provide so many clear examples

3) it is virtually manditory to reject logic and CT in order to hold a religious belief structure. That is why it is "Faith" based.

 

Is it possible to hold any number of views (such as your far leftist example) by using illogical, irrational thought processes? Sure. But in most other cases it is not inherent, a requirement in the structure. I can not think of any other philosophy which REQUIRES acceptance of a strictly faith based approach.

 

4) I like picking on believers! (This ought to be used against me for a long time I imgaine!)

At the end of the day, one can't control what people think. You can... brainwash them -

I think you just contradicted yourself. You CAN control what people think, and brainwashing is a perfect example of a technique used for it.

The real argument here is not whether it is right or wrong to kill babies.

good, you had me worried there for a minute! :-)

The argument is whether or not one can say that it is the *way of thinking* that is wrong, or whether it is the *reasoning that the acts performed* are based upon that is at fault. I think the difference is quite big.

I see it as directly connected.

 

The *reasoning that the acts performed* are based upon is based spcefically on their *way of thinking* . I can't see how they could possibly be seperated. If the "reasoning" is faulty, the "acts performed" are more likely to be faulty. In fact "reasoning" would indicate that REASON was used."Reason" would indicate a logical, "reasoned" approach which in an of itself would reject "irrational", "unreasonable" thought.

You can hardly blame someone who has been schooled in a system to actually believe in that system. To them, the logic is quote obvious because they have learnt to see it that way. Thef acts are obvious to them because they have been taught what the facts are.

You use the word "logic" as if ANY thought process is "logical". That if a person is "schooled" in an "illogical" thought process, that they are still using "logic" to believe it. This wouild mean that if at a later time, this person became trained in logic and reason, they would still identify their earlier "illogical" teachings as being "logical".

 

If a person is schooled in illogical thinking, they will think illogically, NOT logically.

It is my opinion that adults must be responsible for their actions. They are also responsible for what they teack to their kids. However, you can't expect *anyone* to be able to teach *all the right things*, because let's face it, it is impossible.

RED HERRING ALERT (so I don't get accused of playing favorites)

 

While the discussion involves actions of adults to show illogical thinking and it's results, the discussion is NOT about where an adult can or can not "teach *all the right things*"

I know you dislike to be told you believe anything but your reasoning comes from somewhere, my friend.

Yes, but not from BELIEFS. There is no requirement for a person to have a BELIEF. (Depending on how literally accurate we use "Belief") My "reasoning" comes from investigation of thought processes amd the accuracy of the results of various methods of thinking.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

Before someone thinks I am standing up for the faithful around here, I'd like to make a point. Those who use the term "wrong thinking" are usually those who try to preach to someone that they must not be tempted to believe otherwise.

 

Google http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=%22what+is+wrong+thinking%22 and see what you come up with. It is an interesting lesson.

 

Ah, you used the wrong booleans

 

You used:

 

"what is wrong thinking"

 

As such you got replies like

 

faithinwhat

what is wrong. Thinking

 

and

 

Worshipping God with Community Sensitivity

"what is wrong" thinking

 

and

 

Gypsy Journal - Jason zhang

what is wrong~~!!! thinking

 

If you use:

 

what is "wrong thinking"?

 

The, what is and ?, tells Google it is a question.

The "wrong thinking" tells google you are asking a question about the exact phrase.

 

Link title edited by Tormod for brevity

 

and get

 

A Better Workplace - Article: Right-wrong Thinking is Just Plain ...

 

Treatment Based on Wrong Thinking?

 

Oh ya and evidently

 

Gerry Rafferty has a song titled, Wrong Thinking :-)

[wisdumn]

yvonne itip my hat, that is a great way to think. everyone definitely has that right, the only time they do not have that right is when others force them not to think.

[Uncle Martin]

Wiz,

Can you tell me just one original thought that is yours?

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: Tormod

 

Before someone thinks I am standing up for the faithful around here, I'd like to make a point. Those who use the term "wrong thinking" are usually those who try to preach to someone that they must not be tempted to believe otherwise.

 

(removed link)

 

Ah, you used the wrong booleans

 

 

If you use:

 

what is "wrong thinking"?

 

(...)

 

Link title edited by tormod for brevity

 

Thanks! I'm not infallible, you know!

 

Gerry Rafferty has a song titled, Wrong Thinking :-)

 

Yeah. And Britney Spears has one titled, Hit Me One More Time.