Home | Community | Message Board


World Seed Supply
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,380
Loc: Ontario, Canada
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
    #3243339 - 10/11/04 03:54 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
James Lett
----------------------------------

There are many reasons for the popularity of paranormal beliefs in the United States today, including:
  • the irresponsibility of the mass media, who exploit the public taste for nonsense,
  • the irrationality of the American world-view, which supports such unsupportable claims as life after death and the efficacy of the polygraph, and
  • the ineffectiveness of public education, which generally fails to teach students the essential skills of critical thinking.

As a college professor, I am especially concerned with this third problem. Most of the freshman and sophomore students in my classes simply do not know how to draw reasonable conclusions from the evidence. At most, they've been taught in high school what to think; few of them know how to think.
In an attempt to remedy this problem at my college, I've developed an elective course called "Anthropology and the Paranormal." The course examines the complete range of paranormal beliefs in contemporary American culture, from precognition and psychokinesis to channeling and cryptozoology and everything between and beyond, including astrology, UFOs, and creationism. I teach the students very little about anthropological theories and even less about anthropological terminology. Instead, I try to communicate the essence of the anthropological perspective, by teaching them, indirectly, what the scientific method is all about. I do so by teaching them how to evaluate evidence. I give them six simple rules to follow when considering any claim, and then show them how to apply those six rules to the examination of any paranormal claim.

The six rules of evidential reasoning are my own distillation and simplification of the scientific method. To make it easier for students to remember these half-dozen guidelines, I've coined an acronym for them: Ignoring the vowels, the letters in the word "FiLCHeRS" stand for the rules of Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency. Apply these six rules to the evidence offered for any claim, I tell my students, and no one will ever be able to sneak up on you and steal your belief. You'll be filch-proof.

Falsifiability

It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the claim false.

It may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable. The rule of falsifiability is a guarantee that if the claim is false, the evidence will prove it false; and if the claim is true, the evidence will not disprove it (in which case the claim can be tentatively accepted as true until such time as evidence is brought forth that does disprove it). The rule of falsifiability, in short, says that the evidence must matter, and as such it is the first and most important and most fundamental rule of evidential reasoning.

The rule of falsifiability is essential for this reason: If nothing conceivable could ever disprove the claim, then the evidence that does exist would not matter; it would be pointless to even examine the evidence, because the conclusion is already known -- the claim is invulnerable to any possible evidence. This would not mean, however, that the claim is true; instead it would mean that the claim is meaningless. This is so because it is impossible -- logically impossible -- for any claim to be true no matter what. For every true claim, you can always conceive of evidence that would make the claim untrue -- in other words, again, every true claim is falsifiable.

For example, the true claim that the life span of human beings is less than 200 years is falsifiable; it would be falsified if a single human being were to live to be 200 years old. Similarly, the true claim that water freezes at 32? F is falsifiable; it would be falsified if water were to freeze at, say, 34? F. Each of these claims is firmly established as scientific "fact," and we do not expect either claim ever to be falsified; however, the point is that either could be. Any claim that could not be falsified would be devoid of any propositional content; that is, it would not be making a factual assertion -- it would instead be making an emotive statement, a declaration of the way the claimant feels about the world. Nonfalsifiable claims do communicate information, but what they describe is the claimant's value orientation. They communicate nothing whatsoever of a factual nature, and hence are neither true nor false. Nonfalsifiable statements are propositionally vacuous.

There are two principal ways in which the rule of falsifiability can be violated -- two ways, in other words, of making nonfalsifiable claims. The first variety of nonfalsifiable statements is the undeclared claim: a statement that is so broad or vague that it lacks any propositional content. The undeclared claim is basically unintelligible and consequently meaningless. Consider, for example, the claim that crystal therapists can use pieces of quartz to restore balance and harmony to a person's spiritual energy. What does it mean to have unbalanced spiritual energy? How is the condition recognized and diagnosed? What evidence would prove that someone's unbalanced spiritual energy had been -- or had not been -- balanced by the application of crystal therapy? Most New Age wonders, in fact, consist of similarly undeclared claims that dissolve completely when exposed to the solvent of rationality.

The undeclared claim has the advantage that virtually any evidence that could be adduced could be interpreted as congruent with the claim, and for that reason it is especially popular among paranormalists who claim precognitive powers. Jeane Dixon, for example, predicted that 1987 would be a year "filled with changes" for Caroline Kennedy. Dixon also predicted that Jack Kemp would "face major disagreements with the rest of his party" in 1987 and that "world-wide drug terror" would be "unleashed by narcotics czars" in the same year. She further revealed that Dan Rather "may [or may not] be hospitalized" in 1988, and that Whitney Houston's "greatest problem" in 1986 would be "balancing her personal life against her career." The undeclared claim boils down to a statement that can be translated as "Whatever will be, will be."

The second variety of nonfalsifiable statements, which is even more popular among paranormalists, involves the use of the multiple out, that is, an inexhaustible series of excuses intended to explain away the evidence that would seem to falsify the claim. Creationists, for example, claim that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. They do so despite the fact that we can observe stars that are billions of light-years from the earth, which means that the light must have left those stars billions of years ago, and which proves that the universe must be billions of years old. How then do the creationists respond to this falsification of their claim? By suggesting that God must have created the light already on the way from those distant star at the moment of creation 10,000 years ago. No conceivable piece of evidence, of course, could disprove that claim.

Additional examples of multiple outs abound in the realm of the paranormal. UFO proponents, faced with a lack of reliable physical or photographic evidence to buttress the claims, point to a secret "government conspiracy" that is allegedly preventing the release of evidence that would support their case. Psychic healers say they can heal you if you have enough faith in their psychic powers. Psychokinetics say they can bend spoons with their minds if they are not exposed to negative vibrations from skeptic observers. Tarot readers can predict your fate if you're sincere in your desire for knowledge. The multiple out means, in effect, "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Logic

Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound.

An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true. The rule of logic thus governs the validity of inference. Although philosophers have codified and named the various forms of valid arguments, it is not necessary to master a course in form logic in order to apply the rules of inference consistently and correctly An invalid argument can be recognize by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid. Consider the following syllogism for example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. That argument is invalid because a single flea-ridden feline named Xavier would provide an effective counterexample. If an argument is invalid, then it is, by definition, unsound. Not all valid arguments are sound, however. Consider this example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas. That argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise is false: All dogs do not have fleas.

To determine whether a valid argument is sound is frequently problematic; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation. If the argument passes these two tests, however -- if it is both valid and sound -- then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.

The rule of logic is frequently violated by pseudoscientists. Erich von D?niken, who singlehandedly popularized the ancient-astronaut mythology in the 1970s, wrote many books in which he offered invalid and unsound arguments with benumbing regularity (see Omohundro 1976). In Chariots of the Gods? he was not above making arguments that were both logically invalid and factually inaccurate -- in other words, arguments that were doubly unsound. For example, von D?niken argues that the map of the world made by the sixteenth-century Turkish admiral Piri Re'is is so "astoundingly accurate" that it could only have been made from satellite photographs. Not only is the argument invalid (any number of imaginable techniques other than satellite photography could result in an "astoundingly accurate" map), but the premise is simply wrong -- the Piri Re'is map, in fact, contains many gross inaccuracies (see Story 1981).

Comprehensiveness

The evidence offered in support of any claim must be exhaustive -- that is all of the available evidence must be considered.

For obvious reasons, it is never reasonable to consider only the evidence that supports a theory and to discard the evidence that contradicts it. This rule is straightforward and self-apparent, and it requires little explication or justification. Nevertheless, it is a rule that is frequently broken by proponents of paranormal claims and by those who adhere to paranormal beliefs.

For example, the proponents of biorhythm theory are fond of pointing to airplane crashes that occurred on days when the pilot, copilot, anchor navigator were experiencing critically low points in their intellectual, emotional, and/or physical cycles. The evidence considered by the biorhythm apologists, however, does not include the even larger number of airplane crashes that occurred when the crews were experiencing high or neutral points in their biorhythm cycles (Hines 1988:160). Similarly, when people believe that Jeane Dixon has precognitive ability because she predicted the 1988 election of George Bush (which she did, two months before the election, when every social scientist, media maven, and private citizen in the country was making the same prognostication), they typically ignore the thousands of forecasts that Dixon has made that have failed to come true (such as her predictions that John F. Kennedy would not win the presidency in 1960, that World War III would begin in 1958, and that Fidel Castro would die in 1969). If you are willing to be selective in the evidence you consider, you could reasonably conclude that the earth is flat.

Honesty

The evidence offered in support of any claim must be evaluated without self-deception.

The rule of honesty is a corollary to the rule of comprehensiveness. When you have examined all of the evidence, it is essential that you be honest with yourself about the results of that examination. If the weight of the evidence contradicts the claim, then you are required to abandon belief in that claim. The obverse, of course, would hold as well.

The rule of honesty, like the rule of comprehensiveness, is frequently violated by both proponents and adherents of paranormal beliefs. Parapsychologists violate this rule when they conclude, after numerous subsequent experiments have failed to replicate initially positive psi results, that psi must be an elusive phenomenon. (Applying Occam's Razor, the more honest conclusion would be that the original positive result must have been a coincidence.) Believers in the paranormal violate this rule when they conclude, after observing a "psychic" surreptitiously bend a spoon with his hands, that he only cheats sometimes.

In practice, the rule of honesty usually boils down to an injunction against breaking the rule of falsifiability by taking a multiple out. There is more to it than that, however: The rule of honesty means that you must accept the obligation to come to a rational conclusion once you have examined all the evidence. If the overwhelming weight of all the evidence falsifies your belief, then you must conclude that the belief is false, and you must face the implications of that conclusion forthrightly. In the face of overwhelmingly negative evidence, neutrality and agnosticism are no better than credulity and faith. Denial, avoidance, rationalization, and all the other familiar mechanisms of self-deception would constitute violations of the rule of honesty.

In my view, this rule alone would all but invalidate the entire discipline of parapsychology. After more than a century of systematic, scholarly research, the psi hypothesis remains wholly unsubstantiated and unsupportable; parapsychologists have failed, as Ray Hyman (1985:7) observes, to produce "any consistent evidence for paranormality that can withstand acceptable scientific scrutiny." From all indications, the number of parapsychologists who observe the rule of honesty pales in comparison with the number who delude themselves. Veteran psychic investigator Eric Dingwall (1985:162) summed up his extensive experience in parapsychological research with this observation: "After sixty years' experience and personal acquaintance with most of the leading parapsychologists of that period I do not think I could name a half dozen whom I could call objective student who honestly wished to discover the truth."

Replicability

If the evidence for any claim is based upon an experimental result, or if the evidence offered in support of any claim could logically be explained as coincidental, then it is necessary for the evidence to be repeated in subsequent experiments or trials.

The rule of replicability provides a safeguard against the possibility of error, fraud, or coincidence. A single experimental result is never adequate in and of itself, whether the experiment concerns the production of nuclear fusion or the existence of telepathic ability. Any experiment, no matter how carefully designed and executed, is always subject to the possibility of implicit bias or undetected error. The rule of replicability, which requires independent observers to follow the same procedures and to achieve the same results, is an effective way of correcting bias or error, even if the bias or error remains permanently unrecognized. If the experimental results are the product of deliberate fraud, the rule of replicability will ensure that the experiment will eventually be performed by honest researchers.

If the phenomenon in question could conceivably be the product of coincidence, then the phenomenon must be replicated before the hypothesis of coincidence can be rejected. If coincidence is in fact the explanation for the phenomenon, then the phenomenon will not be duplicated in subsequent trials, and the hypothesis of coincidence will be confirmed; but if coincidence is not the explanation, then the phenomenon may be duplicated, and an explanation other than coincidence will have to be sought. If I correctly predict the next roll of the dice, you should demand that I duplicate the feat before granting that my prediction was anything but a coincidence.

The rule of replicability is regularly violated by parapsychologists, who are especially fond of misinterpreting coincidences. The famous "psychic sleuths Gerard Croiset, for example, allegedly solved numerous baffling crimes and located hundreds of missing persons in a career that spanned five decades, from the 1940s until his death in 1980. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of Croiset's predictions were either vague and nonfalsifiable or simply wrong. Given the fact that Croiset made thousands of predictions during his lifetime, it is hardly surprising that he enjoyed one or two chance "hits." The late Dutch parapsychologist Wilhelm Tenhaeff, however, seized upon those "very few prize cases" to argue that Croiset possessed demonstrated psi powers (Hoebens 1986a:130). That was a clear violation of the rule of replicability, and could not have been taken as evidence of Croiset's psi abilities even if the "few prize cases" had been true. (In fact, however, much of Tenhaeff's data was fraudulent -- see Hoebens 1986b. )

Sufficiency

The evidence offered in support of any claim must be adequate to establish the truth of that claim, with these stipulations:
  • the burden of proof for any claim rests on the claimant,
  • extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and
  • evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is always inadequate for any paranormal claim


The burden of proof always rests with the claimant for the simple reason that the absence of disconfirming evidence is not the same as the presence of confirming evidence. This rule is frequently violated by proponents of paranormal claims, who argue that, because their claims have not been disproved, they have therefore been proved. (UFO buffs, for example, argue that because skeptics have not explained every UFO sighting, some UFO sightings must be extraterrestrial spacecraft.) Consider the implications of that kind of reasoning: If I claim that Adolf Hitler is alive and well and living in Argentina, how could you disprove my claim? Since the claim is logically possible, the best you could do (in the absence of unambiguous forensic evidence) is to show that the claim is highly improbable -- but that would not disprove it. The fact that you cannot prove that Hitler is not living in Argentina, however, does not mean that I have proved that he is. It only means that I have proved that he could be -- but that would mean very little; logical possibility is not the same as established reality. If the absence of disconfirming evidence were sufficient proof of a claim, then we could "prove" anything that we could imagine. Belief must be based not simply on the absence of disconfirming evidence but on the presence of confirming evidence. It is the claimant's obligation to furnish that confirming evidence.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence for the obvious reason of balance. If I claim that it rained for ten minutes on my way to work last Tuesday, you would be justified in accepting that claim as true on the basis of my report. But if I claim that I was abducted by extraterrestrial aliens who whisked me to the far side of the moon and performed bizarre medical experiments on me, you would be justified in demanding more substantial evidence. The ordinary evidence of my testimony, while sufficient for ordinary claims, is not sufficient for extraordinary ones.

In fact, testimony is always inadequate for any paranormal claim, whether it is offered by an authority or a layperson, for the simple reason that a human being can lie or make a mistake. No amount of expertise in any field is a guarantee against human fallibility, and expertise does not preclude the motivation to lie; therefore a person's credentials, knowledge and experience cannot, in themselves be taken as sufficient evidence to establish the truth of a claim. Moreover, a person's sincerity lends nothing to the credibility of his or her testimony. Even if people are telling what they sincerely believe to be the truth, it is always possible that they could be mistaken. Perception is a selective act, dependent upon belief context, expectation, emotional and biochemical states, and a host of other variables. Memory is notoriously problematic, prone to a range of distortions, deletions, substitutions and amplifications. Therefore the testimony that people offer of what they remember seeing or hearing should always be regarded as only provisionally and approximately accurate; when people are speaking about the paranormal, their testimony should never be regarded as reliable evidence in and of itself. The possibility and even the likelihood of error are far too extensive (see Connor 1986) .

Conclusion
The first three rules of FiLCHeRS -- falsifiability, logic, and comprehensiveness -- are all logically necessary rules of evidential reasoning. If we are to have confidence in the veracity of any claim whether normal or paranormal, the claim must be prepositionally meaningful, and the evidence offered in support of the claim must be rational and exhaustive.
The last three rules of FiLCHeRS -- honesty, replicability, and sufficiency -- are all pragmatically necessary rules of evidential reasoning. Because human beings are often motivated to rationalize and to lie to themselves, because they are sometimes motivated to lie to others, because they can make mistakes, and because perception and memory are problematic, we must demand that the evidence for any factual claim be evaluated without self-deception, that it be carefully screened for error, fraud, and appropriateness, and that it be substantial and unequivocal.

What I tell my students, then, is that you can and should use FiLCHeRS to evaluate the evidence offered for any claim. If the claim fails any one of these six tests, then it should be rejected; but if it passes all six tests, then you are justified in placing considerable confidence in it.

Passing all six tests, of course, does not guarantee that the claim is true (just because you have examined all the evidence available today is no guarantee that there will not be new and disconfirming evidence available tomorrow), but it does guarantee that you have good reasons for believing the claim. It guarantees that you have sold your belief for a fair price, and that it has not been filched from you.

Being a responsible adult means accepting the fact that almost all knowledge is tentative, and accepting it cheerfully. You may be required to change your belief tomorrow, if the evidence warrants, and you should be willing and able to do so. That, in essence, is what skepticism means: to believe if and only if the evidence warrants.


References
Connor, John W. 1984. Misperception, folk belief, and the occult: A cognitive guide to understanding. SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, 8:344-354, Summer.
Dingwall, E. J. 1985. The need for responsibility in parapsychology: My sixty years in psychical research. In A Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology, 161-174, ed. by Paul Kurtz. Buffalo, N Y. Prometheus Books.
Hines, Terence. 1988. Pseudoscience and the Paranormal Buffalo, N.Y Prometheus Books.
Hoebens, Piet Hein. 1981. Gerard Croiset: Investigation of the Mozart of "psychic sleuths." SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, 6(1):1728, Fall.
-- -- -- . 1981-82. Croiset and Professor Tenhaeff Discrepancies in claims of clairvoyance. SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, (2):21-40, Winter.
Hyman, Ray. 1985. A critical historical overview of parapsychology. In A Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology, 3-96, ed. by Paul Kurtz Buffalo, N.Y. Prometheus Books.
Omohundro, John T. 1976. Von D?niken's chariots primer in the art of cooked science. SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, 1(1):58-68, Fall.
Story, Ronald D. 1977 Von D?niken's golden gods, SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, 2(1):22-35, Fall/Winter.

http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,380
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: trendal]
    #3243429 - 10/11/04 04:17 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Summary, for those with short attention spans :wink:

The six rules of Critical Thinking are (if a statement/hypothesis/premise fails any of these it is not reasonably sound)

1) Falsifiability: It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the claim false.

2) Logic: Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound.

3) Comprehensiveness: The evidence offered in support of any claim must be exhaustive -- that is all of the available evidence must be considered.

4) Honesty: The evidence offered in support of any claim must be evaluated without self-deception.

5) Replicability: If the evidence for any claim is based upon an experimental result, or if the evidence offered in support of any claim could logically be explained as coincidental, then it is necessary for the evidence to be repeated in subsequent experiments or trials.

6) Sufficiency: The evidence offered in support of any claim must be adequate to establish the truth of that claim, with these stipulations:
-the burden of proof for any claim rests on the claimant,
-extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and
-evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is always inadequate for any paranormal claim


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedeff
lovelightbliss
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 8,372
Loc: all this Flag
Last seen: 1 hour, 3 minutes
Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: trendal]
    #3243466 - 10/11/04 04:26 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Prove it!

:laugh:


--------------------



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: trendal]
    #3243511 - 10/11/04 04:38 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

That was buzz kill in this type of forum.LOL Post it in the science forum and you'll get woot woot woots.

From a cosmic consciousness perspective or multi dimensional perspective, the article was full of flaws itself.

My head hurts from squishing it into that limiting framework. LOL

I'll expanciate up the road as I sort through my thoughts and feelings on this.

The first one I felt was that I was being told how to think in a mannor that will lead me to what to think based on the authors objective. Too limiting and biased for what critical thinking is all about in my book.

This runs us back into it being relative to the subjects objective. That sentence can sum up my feelings on the flaw of its limitations.

Giving this to someone to tell them they can prove God and angels don't exist or to tell them that there is no such thing as non tangible realities and experiences won't fly.

Just some comments from the left field peanut gallery. I need to go back to school and learn PSI Calculous. LOL


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,380
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #3243590 - 10/11/04 04:55 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

The author is obviously rooted in the scientific method (so am I). The scientific method for critical thought (of which this article basically explains) is both widely accepted and has stood up to trial after trial because it is a reproducible method. That is what I like about it :wink:

Irreproducible methods have no place in my mind. If you use a method to "prove" something to yourself, but that method cannot be accurately reproduced by others...why would you even consider trying to explain your method (or its findings) to others?

Dogmatic belief is not a virtue...it is a flaw.


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: trendal]
    #3243623 - 10/11/04 05:00 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

the irresponsibility of the mass media, who exploit the public taste for nonsense

I stopped reading here, when the bias of the article became apparent.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: trendal]
    #3243673 - 10/11/04 05:12 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

trendal said:
Irreproducible methods have no place in my mind. If you use a method to "prove" something to yourself, but that method cannot be accurately reproduced by others...why would you even consider trying to explain your method (or its findings) to others?

Dogmatic belief is not a virtue...it is a flaw.




I agree with that Trendal and I never gave that as an alternate option.

I was affirming its roots in science and commenting on what a buzz kill that is in a spirituality/religion forum.

The day will come when science and spirituality mesh, and religious dogma will be left in the dust, but it aint here yet.
Because this framework is relative to the subjects objectivity, even if it is reproducable, it is biased with limited use.

To me, it almost predicts the outcome and to me, that is telling me what to think in a sneaky way.

When science evolves upon its methodogies to work within the untangible realms of spirit, or what Einstien called "cosmic religiousity", then, I'm sure such methodogies that work to prove the exitance of untangibles will get a big woot woot here. Regarding the multiverse, this method isn't a one size fits all.

It has applications and from a science root, I see why you like it. I'm just wondering why you posted it in this forum. If everyone applied it to wipe away their spiritual or religious life, this forum would die.

No one wants to be stripped of beleifs that bring them peace and deeper understandings of the mechinisms of the universe, provable or not.


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Edited by gettinjiggywithit (10/11/04 05:22 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,380
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: ]
    #3243708 - 10/11/04 05:20 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

If your only reason for reading anything is to determine bias, then by all means stop reading when you determine such a characteristic.

However you must also realize that all human activities are biased in some fashion.

So, if you only chose to read things which are "unbiased"...you will go through life only reading those things that match your bias :wink:


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: trendal]
    #3243828 - 10/11/04 05:46 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Dogmatic belief is not a virtue...it is a flaw. :thumbup:


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHuehuecoyotl
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 10,329
Loc: On the Border
Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: trendal]
    #3244005 - 10/11/04 06:35 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Great read.


--------------------
"A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That's control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That's abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him; no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive, and he survives in the best of all possible fashions." ― Carlos Castaneda


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblekaiowas
mndfrayze'speppet urme
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/14/03
Posts: 5,498
Loc: oz
Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: trendal]
    #3244088 - 10/11/04 07:01 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

"Sufficiency

The evidence offered in support of any claim must be adequate to establish the truth of that claim, with these stipulations:

the burden of proof for any claim rests on the claimant,

extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and

evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is always inadequate for any paranormal claim "

hurray!!!!!  :grin: :thumbup:


--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.---senior doobie


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedeff
lovelightbliss
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 8,372
Loc: all this Flag
Last seen: 1 hour, 3 minutes
Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: kaiowas]
    #3244330 - 10/11/04 08:05 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

What jiggy said. The scientific model can work wonders in proving things currently accepted by science. When you move beyond this surprisingly limited viewpoint, there is so much more untangible experiences. These are what this forum is based largely around, and also why the scientific model cannot be applied to this forum in the way some here would like.

Me having a dream about something is an experience which is very real, for ME. Let's say I post it here, which it would belong in, how can I make the claim I had the dream without being able to adequately prove it to those who did not experience it? I can't, and therefore using this system basically voids all subjective experiences. And afterall, everything we experience is subjective. The scientific assumption of an objective consensual reality is flawed, which is why this method s_u_c_k_s :smile:


--------------------



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,380
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: deff]
    #3244411 - 10/11/04 08:25 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Yes if you stay within the current scientific model you can not make a lot of progress. The scientific method can be used to prove or disprove things that are impossible under the current model.


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedeff
lovelightbliss
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 8,372
Loc: all this Flag
Last seen: 1 hour, 3 minutes
Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: trendal]
    #3244427 - 10/11/04 08:29 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Use the scientific method to prove your most recent dream to me.

:smile:


--------------------



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,380
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: deff]
    #3244542 - 10/11/04 08:53 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

To prove what about it?


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedeff
lovelightbliss
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 8,372
Loc: all this Flag
Last seen: 1 hour, 3 minutes
Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: trendal]
    #3244584 - 10/11/04 09:04 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

That you experienced it :smile:


--------------------



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offline3eyes
Citizen of Earth
Registered: 09/09/04
Posts: 63
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: kaiowas]
    #3244712 - 10/11/04 09:40 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

you can't video tape my dreams for proof.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: Diploid]
    #3244776 - 10/11/04 09:52 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

I want to touch on dogma.

dogma, being beliefs in an authority is what I like to watch out for. Religions have it, the spiritual coomunity deals with hierarchy dogma crap and even the scientific community has dogmatic factions.

I'm all for seeing hierarchy, authority institutions take a flying leap anywhere and everywhere they exist. Anytime anyone in any of these communities sets themselves up as the supreme authority, pride and the need to be right and the power derived make it difficult for progressive change to occur or be accepted, hense dogma.

Though the members of this forum are rooted in the different areas, I think we can all agree that dogma doesn't serve any of us in the pursuit of being truth seekers.


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,380
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: deff]
    #3246474 - 10/12/04 08:43 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Well that's merely a measurement problem, deff.

I could hook up an EEG to myself and go to sleep, then use the brainwave patterns to show you that I was in REM sleep last night during a specific period. We know that REM sleep is where you dream, so that could be considered proof that I had a dream.

If you want proof that I had the specific dream that I remember having...well our current understanding of the brain and human consciousness is inadequate for this task. However that certainly does not mean it will never be possible: we are only beginning to understand how the mind works, but are making progress.

So, presumably, if I was given the right tools I could use the scientifis method to prove to you that I dreamed about playing GT3 last night :wink:


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedeff
lovelightbliss
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 8,372
Loc: all this Flag
Last seen: 1 hour, 3 minutes
Re: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking [Re: trendal]
    #3247427 - 10/12/04 03:25 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

So since we don't have the right knowledge and 'tools', the subject of dreams should be rid from this forum as the scientific method cannot currently work in proving them?

:smile:

I kid of course. I realize that the method in itself is great at logical and "physical" observations. But beyond that, it is only limiting.


--------------------



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Non-critical thinking
( 1 2 all )
OrgoneConclusion 1,831 26 08/17/08 04:05 AM
by Shroomism
* Critical Thinking fireworks_godS 608 8 01/02/06 07:20 AM
by redgreenvines
* How Lack Of Critical Thinking Can Cost You Money
( 1 2 all )
DiploidM 2,491 37 02/15/08 09:02 AM
by elbisivni
* Negative Thinking is NOT Critical Thinking coberst 314 0 11/08/08 09:12 AM
by coberst
* Logic and Critical Thinking. TheShroomHermit 483 4 11/15/05 03:01 PM
by Guerrilla0726
* Shocker: Ex-Mystic Converts to Critical Thinking! OrgoneConclusion 865 15 03/10/08 10:25 PM
by Neanderthal
* finding ones spirit guide? Sampson 933 10 11/26/01 09:36 PM
by COZMKSTRCHLD
* Guides & Guidance
( 1 2 3 all )
egghead1 2,958 52 03/24/05 12:28 PM
by gettinjiggywithit

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Diploid, DividedQuantum
1,431 topic views. 2 members, 2 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
FreeSpores.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.158 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 16 queries.