Critical thinking, an outline from my notes.
|
|
|
28-07-2012, 02:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 31-07-2012 05:21 AM by fstratzero.)
|
||||
|
||||
Critical thinking, an outline from my notes.
After my de-conversion I was fooled by many conspiracy theories, the news, and other sources of information. I'd be proven wrong by other people, and that prompted a thought.
Quote:What if the way I think is broken? People have been thinking since the beginning of the species. I'm sure there must be information on how to think. That's when I assailed the internet and found out about critical thinking. After reading some books, listening to podcasts, watching youtube videos, I found a new way to think! Finally I could think more clearly, accurately, and actually enjoy being corrected. Loosely defined its a system of opening ones mind to logically analyze, with out bias, both positions on a topic, then to reach a conclusion that's closest to reality. Now for the outline. Personal Barriers Enculturation - is the process by which a person learns the requirements of the culture by which he or she is surrounded, and acquires values and behaviours that are appropriate or necessary in that culture. Ego Defenses - Ego defenses are psychological coping strategies that distort reality in order to protect ourselves from anxiety, guilt, and other bad feelings. Denial - When we simply refuse to accept an unpleasant reality, we are using denial. Projection - Projection is the defense mechanism by which we see in others a part of ourselves that we cannot accept and do not recognize. Emotions - Emotions are an important mark of human experience. They are in part what separates humans from machines and the lower animals, for machines can compute but they can not experience joy. And animals may find themselves attached to others, but they do not love them. Emotions give our world taste and richness, joy and surprise, but also pain and sorrow. Emotions can affect and inspire thought, said William James, but he also said they can destroy it. Later in this book we look at how emotions can give birth to thinking, but for now our attention focuses on their inhibiting influence, on their capacity to bury, twist, and fragment the thinking process and take it to the depths of the irrational. Rationalization - Of all the defense mechanisms, rationalization is perhaps the greatest inhibitor of clear thinking. Rationalization is distorted thinking that attempts to justify behavior motivated by self-interest or unacceptable drives. It serves to protect us from bad feelings by, for example, turning selfish motives into honorable ones. Self Serving Biases - If our motives are good they do not need to be rationalized. But sometimes, in spite of our good motives, undesirable consequences occur, consequences that threaten our self-esteem. The actions of others can also threaten our self-esteem. Such ego-threatening situations can lead us to cognitive biases. Schemata - Not only do we tend to think about the world according to what we want to see and what we need to see, we tend to think of it in terms of what we expect to see. We tend to perceive and think about others and situations in terms of the ideas we have already formed about them. These ideas are called schema. Cognitive Dissonance - is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. Expectations - expectation is directly linked to the Self-fulfilling Prophecy. Whether or not such an expectation was truthful or not has little or no effect on the outcome. If a person believes what they are told or convinces himself/herself of the fact, chances are this person will see the expectation to its inevitable conclusion. *Six common thinking errors* 1) Personalization - taking something personal, when it's not meant to be. 2) Polarized Thinking - black and white thinking 3) Over generalization - drawing broad conclusions on the basis of a single incident. 4) Catastrophizing - assuming the worst possible outcome. IE car crash equals death 5) Selective Abstraction - focusing on a small point of something, ignoring the bigger picture 6) Belief Identity Duality - We are not our beliefs, rather they are a piece of knowledge we've chosen to be true. Logical Thinking Deductive Thinking - is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements regarding what is known to reach a logically certain conclusion. Deductive reasoning involves using given true premises to reach a conclusion that is also true. Deductive reasoning contrasts with inductive reasoning in that a specific conclusion is arrived at from a general principle. If the rules and logic of deduction are followed, this procedure ensures an accurate conclusion. p1 All men are mortal. p2 Socrates is a man. c Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Basically premise + premise = conclusion. Inductive Thinking - The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is much more nuanced than simple progression from particular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it. In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from generalizations to individual instances. Inductive reasoning consists of inferring general principles or rules from specific facts. A well-known laboratory example of inductive reasoning works like a guessing game. The participants are shown cards that contain figures differing in several ways, such as shape, number, and color. On each trial, they are given two cards and asked to choose the one that represents a particular concept. After they choose a card, the researcher says "right" or "wrong." Categorical Syllogisms - is an argument consisting of exactly three categorical propositions (two premises and a conclusion) in which there appear a total of exactly three categorical terms, each of which is used exactly twice. The following summarizes the basic rules for the valid categorical syllogism. Structural Requirements 1. At least one affirmative premise (“All humans are mortal”) 2. At least one universal premise (“All humans are mortal” or “No humans are immortal”) 3. Exactly three terms Logical Rules 1. If one of the premises is negative, the conclusion must be negative. 2. If both premises are positive, the conclusion must be positive. 3. If one of the premises is particular, the conclusion must be particular. 4. If one of the premises is singular, the conclusion must be singular. 5. The middle term must be distributed at least once. 6. A term distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in a premise. Remember, even if a syllogism meets all these rules, if the premises are false, we cannot rely upon the conclusion. Logical Fallacies - is usually an error in reasoning often due to a misconception or a presumption. The Scientific Method - is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." Observation - The scientific method relies primarily on systematic observation of the world. It uses formal procedures for testing ideas about cause-and-effect relationships between variables. Hypothesis - A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two variables, usually in the form of a prediction: “If A, then B.” For example, if (1) we had observed that people dying of cancer are usually heavy cola drinkers, (2) we were aware that cancer rates were lower before cola was invented, and (3) there was considerable scientific debate about the safety of cola additives, then our thinking and observation might lead us to suspect that the cause of cancer is excessive cola drinking. We could express the hypothesis in an ifthen statement, such as “If people drink large amounts of cola, then they are more likely to develop cancer.” This if-then hypothesis could be simplified into a single statement: “The cause of cancer is drinking too much cola.” No matter how the hypothesis is formulated, it must be tested for its truthfulness because the casual observations alone are not enough to support it. Experimentation - The testing of the hypothesis is done through research and experimentation, and is the third step of the scientific method. There are many ways to conduct these studies, each with its own advantages and disadvantages, as we discuss later. For instance, in our cola example, we could feed large quantities of cola to chimpanzees and after a while compare their cancer rates with those of a group of chimpanzees that did not receive cola. Or we could find human beings with a history of excessive cola consumption and compare their cancer incidence with that of humans who avoid such consumption. Once the experiment or a data collection is complete, we move on to the last step of the scientific method, verification. Verification - is the analysis of our data to see if the data support or deny the hypothesis. In our example, we would analyze the results of our experiment to see if the excessive cola drinkers did indeed have a higher incidence of cancer. If they did, then our hypothesis was supported (but not proven). If there was no difference between the groups, then we must go back to our first step to look for new observations or begin thinking about other causeand-effect relationships that might explain our observations. This last step of the scientific method can be fortified through replication, which means running the study again to ensure that the results are reliable. It is especially helpful if other researchers replicate the results. Verification can also be fortified through prediction, which is the ability to use our study’s conclusions to reliably predict other outcomes. Problem Solving Defining the Problem - We cannot solve a problem unless we know what it is. If our car doesn’t start, we wouldn’t want to define the problem as “Life is one frustration after another.” Even something like “My car doesn’t work right,” although more precise, is still an ill-defined problem. Defining the problem carefully means being as precise and as specific as possible. We could state, “My car doesn’t start,” or better, “My car doesn’t start in the morning,” or better yet, “My car doesn’t start on wet mornings.” This more specific definition enables us to identify the possible causes of the malfunctioning, and it shortens our path to the solution of the problem. Discovering Causes - We can discover the causes of our problems by noticing the relationships among details. For example, if we notice that our concentration is impaired only when our children are playing in the house, we can be fairly confident that our children distract us. Problems Without a Cause - Some problems calling for answers do not have a cause. For instance, members of a product-marketing committee gridlocked over a marketing strategy for a new product do not look for causes but for creative ideas to sell their product. Another example of a causeless problem is the classic nine-dot problem. The challenge is to connect all nine dots with only four straight lines without the pencil leaving the paper. A search for causes will not help you. Removing Barriers - 1) One barrier that clearly stands in the way of problem solving is the irrational wish for a perfect solution and the related belief that one best solution exists. 2) Everyone has problem-solving ability. Problem solving requires creativity, which correlates only modestly with intelligence (Barron and Harrington, 1981). Thus, one does not have to be Immanuel Kant or Albert Einstein to be a good problem solver. That Gathering information - Trying to solve a problem without information is like trying to drive a car without a steering wheel. Consider a college student faced with a scheduling problem and in a dilemma about what courses to take this semester. If she chooses her courses without adequate information about the college’s policies and course scheduling, she may never see graduation. However, if she acquires information that answers the following questions, she will likely find a way to graduate on time: (1) what courses are required for the major? (2) do those courses require a prerequisite? (3) which of those courses are offered only once a year or every other year? (4) how many upper-level courses are required? (5) how many credits are allowed to transfer from other institutions? (6) what courses are offered during the summer session? (7) is independent study an option to meet a degree requirement when a scheduling conflict occurs? (8) are there any conditions under which course substitutions are allowed? (9) what general requirements must still be completed? And so on. Without gathering this information, she may not be able to solve her scheduling problem adequately. Identify the Components - The more information we can collect, the better we are able to solve the problem. We can gain comprehensive information by identifying each known component of the problem and then obtaining information about each one. The components of any problem are the persons and objects involved in the problem, as well as the problem goal itself. Member of the Cult of Reason
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason. -Baron d'Holbach- |
||||
![]() |
28-07-2012, 03:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Critical thinking, an outline from my notes.
Awesome looking thread Fstrat
![]() ![]() edit: of your expanded outline I mean ![]() |
||||
28-07-2012, 03:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Critical thinking, an outline from my notes.
(28-07-2012 03:29 PM)morondog Wrote: Awesome looking thread Fstrat You are correct! I'll be updating it soon from my books! ![]() Member of the Cult of Reason
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason. -Baron d'Holbach- |
||||
28-07-2012, 05:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Critical thinking, an outline from my notes.
f=ma does not apply here. Quit teasing us! Give!
![]() |
||||
![]() |
29-07-2012, 09:49 AM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Critical thinking, an outline from my notes.
Tell me if you guys want more!
Member of the Cult of Reason
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason. -Baron d'Holbach- |
||||
29-07-2012, 09:52 AM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Critical thinking, an outline from my notes.
Is good
![]() |
||||
![]() |
29-07-2012, 10:30 AM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Critical thinking, an outline from my notes.
Id like to read more please.
I feel so much, and yet I feel nothing. I am a rock, I am the sky, the birds and the trees and everything beyond. I am the wind, in the fields in which I roar. I am the water, in which I drown. |
||||
![]() |
29-07-2012, 10:50 AM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Critical thinking, an outline from my notes.
I had/have a similar problem of either broken or developmentally flawed thinking processes so I appreciate you sharing what you've been learning.
![]() It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness ![]() ~Izel |
||||
![]() |
29-07-2012, 11:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Critical thinking, an outline from my notes.
I'll expand more on the logic part.
Member of the Cult of Reason
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason. -Baron d'Holbach- |
||||
30-07-2012, 07:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Critical thinking, an outline from my notes.
Added the logical fallacy section!
Member of the Cult of Reason
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason. -Baron d'Holbach- |
||||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)