Critical Thinking, Logic, Reasoning and Fallacies

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: Tormod

 

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.

 

This discussion is fun and annoying at the same time. I keep asking myself whether I am missing something from your argumentation, because it feels we are already going in circles. Your points are all very good but still I feel that somehow we are not taling about the same thing.

 

The quote above shows this to me. You see a contradiction, I see an explanation. My point was that no matter how much you want to control what others think, you cannot be sure that they will always follow orders and blindly do what you tell them to do. Any thought system based on a "right way to think" will have dissenters who think *they* have they right way to think.

 

I believe this boils down to (yes) a matter of *opinion*.

 

Religious systems are excellent machines for brainwashing people (some more aggressively than others), but also political systems like North Korea where people treat their leader like a God. And take the old Rumanian dictator, Ceaucescu (forgot the spelling) who lived in humongous castles and tried to make peolpe fit into a system which obviously was based on training people to think right. Much like any other East Bloc country at the time, in fact. As soon as he fell from grace, his opponents had him shot after a mock trial, and the country was suddenly "free" (such things always take time, of course) from years of oppression. Do I need to mention Saddam Hussein and the US's desire to have him removed because of his rule (would that imply that any Iraqi who followed Hussein were "bad thinkers"?).

 

Obviously, brainwashing is a bad thing. We just had a murder case in Sweden (our neighbor country) where a pastor had allegedely brainwashed a girl in his congregation to shoot and kill his wife. He succeeded, and will now probably spend his life in jail. She is in treatment, not sure what will happen to her.

 

What I am trying to say is, I am still not sure that "is there a right or wrong way to think" is the question we need to discuss. Maybe I am confused. But I find that I tend to dislike statements like "that is the wrong way to think" because what they imply is that the person who says it is clainming a moral superiority and simply use another system to support his claims than the target he aims at.

 

Do you see my point in that? I may be wrong, but I'd appreciate a response on that.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: Tormod

Qcience 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.

 

Science IS a "fixed set of rules". Scientific Methodology is a well documented process.

 

e.g. is "random guess" part of the "set of rules" fixed for "The scientific method"? If there "is not a fixed set of rules", we could not know if "random guess" IS part of the "set of rules" fixed for "The scientific method". But we KNOW that "random guess" is NOT part of the "set of rules" fixed for "The scientific method".

 

"Science involves more than the gaining of knowledge. It is the systematic and organized inquiry into the natural world and its phenomena. Science is about gaining a deeper and often useful understanding of the world."

from the Multicultural History of Science page at Vanderbilt University.

 

I have always looked at it this way: "Science" is many things. "The scientific method" is not.

[Tormod]

Man, this discussion is eating my brain. I need to read more about this stuff. Any book recommendations, FT? Anyone?

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

OUCH, TORMOD!!

 

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

 

Now you're thinking wrong again. She doesn't have to approve, because I base my logic on reason and avoid every fallacy known to humanity thus my argumentation is perfect. So I'm infallible and can spank anyone I want, *particularly* other women. (Of course, I always avoid home spanking of other women because I want my children to grow up thinking right, too).

[Tormod]

FT, back to the beginning:

 

Originally posted by: Freethinker

(...) 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?

 

Okay. Assume for a moment that the above question is not embedded in the rest of your post.

 

For the sake of argument, here are the key issues I struggle with:

 

1) Are there any other processes than (CT, logic and reasoning - CTLR for now) which can be compared to it?

 

2) Can there be any *valid* alternative understandings of the reality of our existence which are NOT based on CTLR?

 

3) Can we be sure that CTLR is applied even when we are told it is? How can we verify every source/claim/proof/evidence/theory/etc? How can we know that the person(s) we are discussing with are using CTLR correctly? (see question 10)

 

4) Is CTLR clearly defined for everyone? Is there no ambiguity as to what CTLR implies?

 

5) Does not our very existence color our definition and use of CTLR?

 

6) How can we define "accurate communications"?

 

7) Is it desirable that everyone apply the *same* interpretation of CTLR to their way of thinking?

 

8) Should we accept that any authority (person, organization, government, church) defines what "correct" CTLR is? Is this not counter to the purpose of CTLR?

 

9) Is it valid that one party in an argument claims to use a "better version" of CTLR in order to counter a point in a discussion? (Ie, "My insight is deeper than yours because I understand CTLR better")

 

10) Is there one correct way to apply CTLR or are there varieties?

[wisdumn]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

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

 

no, everything i do is a similation, i'm really a robot that has no thought, but i can compliment others and still believe in God. those darn engineers are building us better and better every day.

/ wis-bot

[wisdumn]

at least though, being a robot, i want grow OLD and MEAN.( rational thought data# 56-9207

beep...beep...wis-botsigning out

end transmission)

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

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

She sings?

 

I turn the sound off and just watch the picts when she is on! :-)

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

This discussion is fun and annoying at the same time. I keep asking myself whether I am missing something from your argumentation, because it feels we are already going in circles. Your points are all very good but still I feel that somehow we are not taling about the same thing.

Yes I have the same feeling. I think I understand the problem, but have not figured out how to bring our discussions into the same path.

tried to make peolpe fit into a system which obviously was based on training people to think right.

And this seems to be where we are talking past each other.

 

I am talking about establishing an objective standard and you are talking about ideology. You are using "right thinking" to mean a method of getting people to agree with or or think like, someone might want them to. I am talking about an actual metric to develop the "best practice".

 

e.g. Golfing. In your discussion it would be aon any particular coach trying to get a student to swing the club the way that coach wants them to. Such as "your shorter, choke up on the club". In mine, we would use extensive analysis to find out which swing delivers the best results regardless of WHO is swinging the club or who the coach is. Such as "follow thru", Left arm stiff, interlocking grip, throwing hunks of grass over sholder,...

 

Is there THE best way to swing a club reagrdless of who is swinging? Or only a whole bunch of ways equally good depending on who is doing the swinging?

 

I hope that works as an analogy.

I believe this boils down to (yes) a matter of *opinion*.

In your discussion yes, in mine No.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

"Science involves more than the gaining of knowledge. It is the systematic and organized inquiry into the natural world and its phenomena.

Which proves my point precisely. Yes there IS a system and it IS organized. As such, when someone is NOT using that organized system, they are not thinking in a manner that will provide the most correct result. Or if it does, it would be by coincidence, not by a systematic and organized approach.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

Man, this discussion is eating my brain. I need to read more about this stuff. Any book recommendations, FT? Anyone?

 

"The Power of Logical Thinking: Easy Lessons in the Art of Reasoning...and Hard Facts About Its Absence in Our Lives" Marilyn Vos Savant

 

"Beyond Freedom and Dignity" BF Skinner

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

1) Are there any other processes than (CT, logic and reasoning - CTLR for now) which can be compared to it?

First, let's use CT, reasoning and Logic - CTRL - I already have that key on my keyboard! Then we can add it's alternative ("alt" for now) "delusion" ("del" for now) and I can then just push ctrl - alt - del.

 

Wait! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Arg!

[Freethinker]

Rebooted, let me try again!

 

Originally posted by: Tormod

1) Are there any other processes than (CT, logic and reasoning - CTLR for now) which can be compared to it?

Define "compared". :-) Are there "other ways"? Sure. Blind Faith, Revelation, SWAG (Scientific Wild *** Guess), coin flip, ...

2) Can there be any *valid* alternative understandings of the reality of our existence which are NOT based on CTLR?

This is like the fallacy of Argumentum ad logicam This is the "fallacy fallacy" of arguing that a proposition is false because it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument. "I won't vite for Bush because I don't like the letter 'B'", might get the correct results, even if the thought process leading to it is not based on CTRL.

3) Can we be sure that CTLR is applied even when we are told it is? How can we verify every source/claim/proof/evidence/theory/etc? How can we know that the person(s) we are discussing with are using CTLR correctly?

"preponderance of evidence". e.g. if we can identify spots were CTRL ISN'T used, we can identify that wrong thinking was used. If we DON'T find any, we can then move to the next "test". ... If the assertion doesn't outright violate any already known other assertions, .... so on.

 

We seldom would find 10)% nor need to most of the time. It would seem however the more critical the outcome results might be, which movie to watch compared to whether to have open heart surgery, the greater the need for a "preponderance of evidence" would seem to be.

4) Is CTLR clearly defined for everyone? Is there no ambiguity as to what CTLR implies?

With any termonology there is always disagreement. I used to participate in a list specifically for the discussion of CT. (critical-thinking-l). We spent a lot of time trying to defe what CT IS. How often have we discussed what Atheism v Agnosticism is here? Interstingly, we often dcided that CT had as much to do with COMMUNICATING as it did with an individual's thought process. That perhaps CT offered the best way to COMMUNICATE something most accurately to someone else.

 

I think perhaps CTRL is easier to identify when it is NOT being used than when it IS. e.g. it is easier to identify when fallacy is being used to support an assertion than it is to, as you posted above, check every detail to the Nth degree if no fallacy is identified.

5) Does not our very existence color our definition and use of CTLR?

Pygmalion Effect, observer bias, ... Oh ya! But would that mean it is better to not even try? Or to intentionally use some other process?

6) How can we define "accurate communications"?

When you and I finally figure this discussion out! And start talking about the same thing! :-)

 

My best answer would be "measured end results". Is the house built the way we expected? Is it a board swinging via ropes from a branch or is the tree tied to a crane and the tree itself is swinging? THis is what I meant by CT being used for communications.

7) Is it desirable that everyone apply the *same* interpretation of CTLR to their way of thinking?

Yes, as best as it can be catagorized and presented. Or at least that is the very question of this thread.

8) Should we accept that any authority (person, organization, government, church) defines what "correct" CTLR is? Is this not counter to the purpose of CTLR?

Yes it IS counter. Again I think it is RESULTS not conformity that is the end determiner.

9) Is it valid that one party in an argument claims to use a "better version" of CTLR in order to counter a point in a discussion? (Ie, "My insight is deeper than yours becaus

[IrishEyes]

I just wanted to add this as an afterthought to this discussion:

 

FreeT and Tormod, you have both asserted that people 'just barge in"

 

08/18/2004 11:11 AM - FreeT

There are numerous examples of barges.

 

08/18/2004 02:36 AM - Tormod

*quote:from Irish

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.

 

I think you are both missing my point when I say that noone "just barges in". It is an open forum. Tormod, as the site editor, you have the option to prohibit people from entering. You can make it a strictly serious science site by having an 'invitation only' to post. You can have potential members fill out a questionaire that you can review before allowing them to post. You can ban people that post things you do not agree with. Are you getting my point? By NOT implementing these safeguards, you negate the need to "barge in". There is NO barging at all. People sign up and post, because your site's name is "Hypography - science for everyone". It does not indicate that it is a 'serious science site for serious scientists'. Nor does the name imply a place where one would come to have their ideas picked apart for not being scientific enough. Nor does it suggest that people that believe in God are not welcome. If that's the case, you need to change the name to "Hypography - A science site for serious scientitific discussions where you are not welcome if you are religious or not willing to strictly adhere to well-established scientific beliefs".

 

08/18/2004 02:36 AM - Tormod

I tried to make my post reflect that I welcome everyone,

Yes, you welcome everyone, but clearly dislike those that "barge in" and belong to a "certain category of people which simply makes life difficult for us."

 

08/18/2004 02:36 AM - Tormod

But then again I suspect you don't consider me the worst culprit here. I remember how YOU entered the forums.

You remember after I reminded you. Maybe that was a mistake on my part, huh? But hey, thanks for bringing it up again. Rethinking making me a Moderator now?

[wisdumn]

i just want to say that i agree with irishabout this siteand let it be clear what i am saying here:

 

i think people come here to discuss things, maybe to educate others or be educated by others or to just give other opinions. some people here are very young, some are very old and if i might use one of my favorite philosophical statements that i personally came up with: " not one grey hair on your head will ever make you wise" this is thrown in because some people seem to think that because they are older that this gives them superior intellect or reason to dismiss anything someone younger than them says. i think i have been taught many things by people younger than myself, as well as older people, but the moment we dismiss people for their age or whatever then we dismiss education for either ourselves or them, and hey, if you don't have an answer for something oh well! no-one can PROVE everything they believe including certain "scientists" on this site because all i've seen here from EVERYONE here including myself is either 1. well constructed arguments based purely on logic and reason -or- 2. theories that have NEVER been proven factual even in the scientific community. besides- i've seen more than one person here ADMIT that they were not ACTUAL scientist. so to me that gives them as much credability as anyone else here, it's simple- that's what you call a level playing field. so i see it if you want to discuss things, maybe learn something or try to show others why you believe something, then fine, am i saying not to provide evidence? no, but i am saying that things like logic and reasoning are evidential tools and no matter how many formulas and THEORIES you put up, proof is what someone takes home with them at the end as acceptance becausethat particular thinghas then been PROVEN to them. otherwise though, like irish said, if this is such a select site, then maybe just the owner of the site and 2 other mods(i won't mention names) should just sit around and discuss amongst themselves all day because the rest of us might just not be as scientific as you all supposedly are.just how i feel

[Uncle Martin]

Wiz, I refered to you as a "confused young man" one time a while back. It was an offhand remark with none of the connotations that you seem to have inferred and are still dwelling on. Just let it go!!!

[wisdumn]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Wiz, I refered to you as a "confused young man" one time a while back. It was an offhand remark with none of the connotations that you seem to have inferred and are still dwelling on. Just let it go!!!

 

hey i'm fine with letting stuff go, i was emphasizing points that i felt had been implemented not just to me but to others also. i'm merely saying that we ALL including ME should try and not discriminate, that's what the 21st century is supposed to be about, acceptance of others on a broader scale.

 

i hold nothing against you and i appreciate you for being in these discussions. -wisdumn