|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 10/29/2007 : 17:46:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Everyone......
I don't want anyone to think that I have walked away from this topic! I emphatically have not! I am frantically working on two PCs simultaneously to try and catch up - trying to sort out the major sub-issues into a few categories and formulate response to each.(Got a few other things to do, also!)
I greatly appreciate the response to my questions, and I will begin answering specific questions tonight!
|
Of course. I always defer to my elders.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 19:57:29 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
Critical thinking doesn't stifle the imagination. Pretty far from it. I read anywhere from 1-5 books a week (usually, work/school load can cause that to sometimes be zero), the huge majority of what I read is fantasy/sci-fi/ and other sorts of speculative fiction.
|
Dude, I did in no way intend to imply that Skeptics or Critical Thinkers do not possess or exercise imagination in any aspect of their experience. Only that, when Critical Thinking is applied specifically to puzzling problems, that the use of imagination is sometimes inhibited or stifled by a rather blind adherence to the Rules of Critical Thinking during that search for enlightenment.
In my first post on these Forums, I sophomorically asked: "What is Your Opinion of UAP?" The question was poorly worded; everyone ran for their handbook of Critical Thinking, a chorus of "Evidence, give us evidence" erupted, and the dogma of Skepticism was scrupulously observed. Neophite I was astonished, but recovered and tried to use the situation to find out more about this hitherto undiscovered life form, the Practicing Skeptic! The rest is recent history on SFN!
Point being, the folks grouping to begin linquistic violence were not reading books or science fiction, requiring the use of imagination; they were using the tools (dogma) of CT in hot pursuit of what they perceived to be fresh blood, a True Believer! Imagination was inhibited with regard to trying to figure out what this dolt was asking. But my question was poorly worded, so it was understandable that many could not comprehend! Later, I pretty well explained what I was trying to find out, but some of the requests and demands kept coming in! Finally I offered up two fairly good Specific Examples, but only a few participated in the "What if....." exercise.
| Critical thinking does make you think about a subject before you make a claim though. If anything, it challenges the imagination and expands your ability to think creatively when you have to tackle a difficult topic and remain scientifically rigid in your conclusions |
I feel this is a fair statement, and could be applied to me when I started the UAP thread. Although I did not intend to make any "claims", I was perceived to be doing so and I certainly had not thought the subject through enough to realize I would be seen as making "claims"| The least imaginitive people I know are those who LACK the skill of thinking critically! |
Yeah, like the fundamentalist fools that wrote and now read the Bible and are all obsessed with visions of fishes and loaves, and walking on water, raising and rising from the dead, etc. No imagination there!
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 20:32:20 [Permalink]
|
H. Humbert.....
You comment:
| Yeah, when confronted by an unknown phenomenon, settling on an answer such as "a ghost did it" is about as lazy and unimaginative as you can get. Far from being close-minded, the skeptic is keeping an open mind to all the other possibilities that the true believer has dismissed! |
Well, If a group of people see a picture fall off a wall for no apparent reason, the Skeptics among them who care, for some reason, why the picture fell; should properly use their imagination to think of various rational reasons for the event.
However, if a True Believer postulates that it was caused by a ghost, and the TB is then badgered by the Skeptics to give evidence that it was indeed caused by a spirit; before (the Skeptics) offering simpler (Occam's)reasons, the Skeptics are not using their perfectly good imaginations soon enough in the process of investigation!
If they never come up with simpler or more rational reasons for the picture falling off the wall, (very unlikely in this example) the Skeptics have failed to use their imagination because the need to debunk the TB's claim was so imperative that it preempted such use!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 20:59:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
However, if a True Believer postulates that it was caused by a ghost, and the TB is then badgered by the Skeptics to give evidence that it was indeed caused by a spirit; before (the Skeptics) offering simpler (Occam's)reasons, the Skeptics are not using their perfectly good imaginations soon enough in the process of investigation! |
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Skepticism isn't an us-versus-them proposition. If someone says it was ghosts, it's up to them to provide support for their hypothesis whether or not anyone provides any other reasons, simpler or not. The truth value of the "it was ghosts" hypothesis must be determinable on its own, or it fails. There is no theory which reads, "nothing else can explain phenomenon X, so it must be caused by Y."| If they never come up with simpler or more rational reasons for the picture falling off the wall, (very unlikely in this example) the Skeptics have failed to use their imagination because the need to debunk the TB's claim was so imperative that it preempted such use! |
We can use our imaginations all day long, from speculating about heretofor unknown species of picture-wire-eating bacteria to guessing that the army of cockroaches inside the wall hates Picasso (and so pushed the nail out). We can offer up hundreds of conjectures every day, none of which will lead us any closer to the truth because we're spending all our time imagining things instead of investigating. Skepticism doesn't function in an evidenciary vacuum. First we examine the evidence, then we imagine a hypothesis, then we test and then we modify the hypothesis using the results of the testing as further evidence (and using imagination again if necessary). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 21:05:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
...everyone ran for their handbook of Critical Thinking, a chorus of "Evidence, give us evidence" erupted, and the dogma of Skepticism was scrupulously observed. |
If you think that's "dogma," you need to go back to your dictionary. Unless you think that requesting evidence is an authoritative opinion.
Oh, wait...| ...they were using the tools (dogma) of CT... |
So now using a hammer to drive nails is dogmatic?| Yeah, like the fundamentalist fools that wrote and now read the Bible and are all obsessed with visions of fishes and loaves, and walking on water, raising and rising from the dead, etc. No imagination there! |
No, actually, those were all taken from earlier myths. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 23:56:43 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck said:
Point being, the folks grouping to begin linquistic violence were not reading books or science fiction, requiring the use of imagination; they were using the tools (dogma) of CT in hot pursuit of what they perceived to be fresh blood, a True Believer! Imagination was inhibited with regard to trying to figure out what this dolt was asking. But my question was poorly worded, so it was understandable that many could not comprehend! Later, I pretty well explained what I was trying to find out, but some of the requests and demands kept coming in! Finally I offered up two fairly good Specific Examples, but only a few participated in the "What if....." exercise.
|
When you throw the word "dogma" around and fail to indicate a specific connotation or usage of the word, then it defaults to the most widely used meaning. Dogma indicates an unquestioned set of principles or belief, when used my most people. Even if you used a different connotation, as in a settled or established opinion or principle, it still does not correctly describe skepticism or critical thinking.
When you call critical thinking "dogma", you are calling a skill and tool "dogma". Does it make any sense to call a carpenter's ability and tools dogma?
The only way you can make your statement make sense is if you mean to say that it is dogmatic to believe that critical thinking should be applied to all claims of fact. If that is indeed what you are saying, then yes, I would have no problem being called dogmatic in that regard.
But that is clearly not what you are saying.
| I feel this is a fair statement, and could be applied to me when I started the UAP thread. Although I did not intend to make any "claims", I was perceived to be doing so and I certainly had not thought the subject through enough to realize I would be seen as making "claims" |
Well, when you come into a skeptic's house and write "UFO" on the walls there is always going to be an initial reaction to that. Almost every person who has ever visited this forum (since I have been posting here) to talk about UFOs, ghosts, 9/11, ear candles, jesus, flowers of life, or the surface of the sun.... has been a true believer.
You have to establish some street cred first, before you drop UFOs on us, or the reaction is going to be what it was. Do you believe UFOs are alien life comming to visit earth?
Yeah, like the fundamentalist fools that wrote and now read the Bible and are all obsessed with visions of fishes and loaves, and walking on water, raising and rising from the dead, etc. No imagination there!
|
More like the fundamentalist fools who accept "goddidit" as an explanation for anything they don't understand.
But really. Human imagination is probably our single defining character trait. (I could make an argument for stupidity here as well) It allows us to think of things in original and unique ways, it allows us to have empathy, it allows us to truly understand another person without having to have literally shared their experiences (I don't have to walk a mile in another's shoes to obtain a fair understanding of their experiences, off topic but this also have implications in human evolution), and it is the only thing that lets us solve problems about the world around us that are counterintuitive.
Imagination, combined with rigorous logic and critical thinking, has turned out to be a powerful tool. You can thank them for every modern convenience you enjoy today, and for every medical advance that has expanded the average human lifespan in the US to 77.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 00:56:32 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
You ask:| What do you mean by "precious little?" |
I mean as antecedent to a rebuttal, members state "I was wrong" or "you were right" far fewer times, than when they proceed to argue that they were right before rebuttal.
You, and perhaps Mabuse, have the technical ability to quantify my statement into numbers or a percentage, but I would wager that it is true far less than half the time!| If you were to go to almost every one of your local minor-league baseball team's games, would you complain that they don't play enough golf for your taste? Honestly, if you're going to frequent a skeptic's website, what should you expect? |
At my first visit, I didn't know what I should expect, but I did not expect the variance from the train of thought that I had intended!| Perhaps you've missed the moral-dilemma threads and the "is there anything that's impossible" threads. |
I would like references to these, they would be fun!| - and then there's "Moonscape News" and marf's artwork, and the not-too-infrequent mentions of role-playing games. Really, the second step of the proverbial Scientific Method is "come up with a hypothesis to explain your observations," which is nothing less than a demand to be imaginitive. |
I'm pretty familiar with Half Moon's work by now, also Marf's art work (don't really grasp the Skeptical relevance, but, as I have attempted to make clear elsewhere, I am not an art critic)I would dearly love to find the role-playing games in the Archives, or wherever, as this is subject matter that I do have some familiarity with.Really, the second step of the proverbial Scientific Method is "come up with a hypothesis to explain your observations," which is nothing less than a demand to be imaginitive.
|
Not being an active practitioner of The Scientific Method, nor worshipping at its throne, I gather that the first step is "give me evidence for your claims" Is this correct?| Second: Occam's Razor is often misused by skeptics and non-skeptics alike. I've done it myself, and was wrong to. Many people take it to mean that the more complex of two explanations is likely to be wrong, and thus abuse the Razor by ignoring such possibilities. But really, the Razor is only useful for showing which of two research paths might be more rewarding - at the start or research. It's intent was never to be used after the research had been done, to pick between competing theories, but that's the way a lot of people apply it (to "snip away" excess baggage). And (to tie back in to my first point), if you can't dream up multiple hypotheses for the same phenomenon, then Occam's Razor is utterly useless: it's proper use depends upon imagination. |
I guess my verbose prose is failing to convey that what you are stating as the exact meaning of the good friar's observation is precisely what I learned back in 1948 as a Philosophy minor. Some things never change!| The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. |
I do fail to understand in what way I have misused the concept!
However, be careful:
Wiki says:| However, while the necessity of some method or another to determine a working hypothesis in spite of the problem of underdetermination is by and large undisputed, the progression of actual science and actual scientific consensus is far removed from some simple formula which accepts "the evidence" and outputs "the best theory". Axioms may be taken for granted that are not at all true; theories might exist that are better supported by the evidence but will be overlooked because scientists were collecting data from the wrong places or asking the wrong questions to begin with (this was emphasized by Thomas Kuhn, who outright rejected induction as the main driving force of scientific progress altogether in favor of paradigm shifts). Resorting to the importance of Occam's Razor within the limits of inductive arguments still leaves open problems of formulation; "the simplest explanation tends to be the best" is hardly a formally precise statement and cannot be used, as is, to rigorously compare two competing hypotheses. This leaves open the possibility of rigorous modern formulations, and indeed such formulations have been derived which- while being outside the scope of Occam's original razor- are true to its spirit and yield useful results. |
One (I) could quibble endlessly about the true meaning of and proper application of fr.William's barber tool, but I don't see much point in slicing the poor equine cadaver to shreds.| Except when it doesn't, which is quite often. But you'll probably not see that here as much, because people generally don't come here to discuss their creative hobbies (not that we don't have room for it). They come here to exercise their skepticism. |
You know, I don't know what you mean! I'm trying to talk about the exercise of imagination during the application of Critical Thinking to the solution of a problem, NOT imagination as it may apply to a hobby, or science fiction, or recreational reading, or reviewing art, or enjoying humor! I really think we must be on different pages, and I'm not sure I know the name of the book.
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 02:22:02 [Permalink]
|
Humbert......
| And critical thinking is the exact opposite of uncritically accepting dogma. An uncompromising critical thinker is a person dogma cannot touch. |
Again:Webster| Dogma 1 a: something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet |
Wiki| Fundamentally, critical thinking is a form of judgment, specifically purposeful and reflective judgment. |
H.Humbert am I then to see opinion as antithetical to judgement? I think not!
Humbert:| Skepticism is the opposite of a religion, even when practiced vigorously. Maybe especially so. An uncompromising critical thinker is a person dogma cannot touch. |
Well....wiki again:| A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people |
and....also wiki| (Skepticism is)the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain. |
Is not that very doctrine a set of common beliefs held by the Group Common of Skeptics?
Finally:| bngbuck is just repeating a popular misconception--that science and skepticism are cold, dour, joyless pursuits intent on destroying any vestiges of creativity, hope, and whimsy left in the world. Needless to say, it's an utterly false (and quite insulting) accusation. |
I am repeating nothing of the sort! Your imagination seems to be running rampant here.
Cold, dour, joyless, intent on destruction of creativity, hope and whimsy? My goodness, are you reading Nabokov or Dr. Seuss, Humbert? Did you go off your medications? I try not to insult anymore, but I am a bit concerned about your mental health! Chill out a little, Hum! Christmas is coming, there is no Grinch and things will look better after the elections! |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 02:33:10 [Permalink]
|
Halfmoon, Dude, Gorgo, Dave x 3(knew I'd get you all shook up!), and Astropin.......
Bedtime, see you tomorrow!
Go the fuck to sleep, Moonstruck! |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 08:53:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Humbert......
| And critical thinking is the exact opposite of uncritically accepting dogma. An uncompromising critical thinker is a person dogma cannot touch. |
Again:Webster| Dogma 1 a: something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet |
Wiki| Fundamentally, critical thinking is a form of judgment, specifically purposeful and reflective judgment. |
H.Humbert am I then to see opinion as antithetical to judgement? I think not! |
No, you're supposed to see that accepting an opinion merely because it has been established by others is the exact opposite of making a judgment yourself. The distinction is quite apparent.
Humbert:| Skepticism is the opposite of a religion, even when practiced vigorously. Maybe especially so. An uncompromising critical thinker is a person dogma cannot touch. |
Well....wiki again:| A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people |
and....also wiki| (Skepticism is)the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain. |
Is not that very doctrine a set of common beliefs held by the Group Common of Skeptics? |
These definition games are tiresome. You're obviously plucking out the loosest definition of religion you can find so that the term is reduced to meaning nothing more than a group of people with common interests. Under such a definition, chess clubs, kite fliers, and NASCAR fans are all "religions." And I'm sure that's the meaning you meant to originally convey. Right.
What an infantile game you are playing.
Finally:| bngbuck is just repeating a popular misconception--that science and skepticism are cold, dour, joyless pursuits intent on destroying any vestiges of creativity, hope, and whimsy left in the world. Needless to say, it's an utterly false (and quite insulting) accusation. |
I am repeating nothing of the sort! Your imagination seems to be running rampant here.
Cold, dour, joyless, intent on destruction of creativity, hope and whimsy? My goodness, are you reading Nabokov or Dr. Seuss, Humbert? Did you go off your medications? I try not to insult anymore, but I am a bit concerned about your mental health! Chill out a little, Hum! Christmas is coming, there is no Grinch and things will look better after the elections!
|
You just basically waltzed in and asked a group of strangers why they are close-minded and dogmatic, and you fail to see why that might be see as an insulting provocation? Well, at your advanced age I suppose I can't expect you to learn any new manners, otherwise I might point out how obnoxious your question was.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 09:25:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave.....
You ask:| What do you mean by "precious little?" |
I mean as antecedent to a rebuttal, members state "I was wrong" or "you were right" far fewer times, than when they proceed to argue that they were right before rebuttal. |
The most likely explanation here is that people are careful about what they say, so they don't have the need to say "I was wrong" very often. It could be that people here tend to shut up when they don't know something, and let other people write, so there is really no need to say "I don't know" very often. That could be part of the reason why it happens "precious little" if that is a true description. There are a lot of egos of different sizes and shapes here, including my own, so that might have something to do with it as well. It could be that some of us just dont learn, so we're not likely to say "I was wrong" when we don't see that we were wrong, but I think that happens very little here. (edited to say, depending on what you mean by "very little)
I think it doesn't happen enough, but it does happen, and Dave is correct to ask how often it happens. That puts it in a good perspective. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/30/2007 09:41:03 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 10:33:44 [Permalink]
|
| Damn, I never knew there was a Handbook of Critical Thinking, which I had to adhere to?!? We are not robots bng. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 12:19:07 [Permalink]
|
Humdrum.....
| No, you're supposed to see that accepting an opinion merely because it has been established by others is the exact opposite of making a judgment yourself. The distinction is quite apparent. |
Yeah, when I read A Brief History of Time, I almost always substitute my own judgement as to the nature of black holes et al, for that of Stephen Hawking, whose opinion on such matters is pure shit!
| These definition games are tiresome. You're obviously plucking out the loosest definition of religion you can find so that the term is reduced to meaning nothing more than a group of people with common interests. Under such a definition, chess clubs, kite fliers, and NASCAR fans are all "religions." And I'm sure that's the meaning you meant to originally convey. Right. |
I am sorry that you were never trained in syllogistic reasoning, but I don't think I can help you much! Has to do with Aristotle and all that.
| These definition games are tiresome. You're obviously plucking out the loosest definition of religion you can find so that the term is reduced to meaning nothing more than a group of people with common interests. Under such a definition, chess clubs, kite fliers, and NASCAR fans are all "religions." And I'm sure that's the meaning you meant to originally convey. Right. |
Sorry you are worn out! you might try Yoga?
Well, It sure looks that way sometimes!
| What an infantile game you are playing. |
Hi, playmate! Welcome to the playground! Thanks for playing with me!
|
| Edited by - bngbuck on 10/30/2007 12:43:29 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 12:21:20 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck said:
Only that, when Critical Thinking is applied specifically to puzzling problems, that the use of imagination is sometimes inhibited or stifled by a rather blind adherence to the Rules of Critical Thinking during that search for enlightenment.
|
I want to go back to this one more time and say... you are completely wrong.
Or, from the "critical thinking handbook": You have made an unsupported assertion. Please provide some evidence that, in general or specific, skeptics or scientists exhibit the character of rather blind adherence to the Rules of Critical Thinking when faced with a difficult problem.
Seriously, the language you use here is indicative of a non-skeptic. You deliberately mischaracterize science, skepticism, and critical thinking. The only reason I have ever seen for a person to create these kinds of strawmen is to agrue in favor of something (like aliens flying down and buzzing our airports in their improbable little saucer shaped ships) that is entirely unsupported by evidence. Because if you have no evidence, the only way to make your case is to cast doubt on the methods that, well, demand evidence.
I hope I'm wrong about you, but I don't think I am.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 12:56:15 [Permalink]
|
A few general words on the "dogma" of critical thinking:
If some technique works demonstrably better than the known large arsenal of tools of critical thinking, skeptics will take it in hand and use it. In fact, that is how Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" and all other collections of skeptical tools were put together in the first place. Of course, each prospective tool itself needs to be examined skeptically, and tested for utility. That's why, for instance, some are rejected as useless. This explains why skeptics don't employ psychics to determine the existence of ghosts.
Like a genotype developed over deep time, the armamentarium of critical thinking tends to become better and better suited for its use. Anything that works will be used, anything that doesn't will be discarded.
Though I think I've shown how critical thinking's methods change and become better suited for their function through time, like evolving living organisms, I cannot think of a living species that would parallel dogmatism. Some haven't changed much in a very long time, but that because what they do works for them, so far. Real dogmatism rejects change on principle.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Suicide Bombing - AAI
