A while back somebody sent a letter to the editor of the local paper that said that most people don't need critical thinking, only engineers and scientists need it. Then I saw that somebody in Texas was trying to forbid the teaching of critical thinking in public schools. This has been festering for a while and I finally decided to bring up the subject here. I put it in NQS because critical thinking isn't quite science, although it is required for science.
Of course my contention is that critical thinking is useful in all facets of life. For example consider the prevalence of deceitful and misleading advertising that we are subjected to every day. A little critical thinking can lead one to understand that the car dealer who is offering to give you $10,000 if he can't beat any other dealers offer is not making a real offer. Nobody is ever going to collect that $10,000. And there is a lot of other advertising that is just as bad and much that is a lot worse. A little critical thinking can help us, not just in advertising, but in making other decisions in life where there is some question of what is the best way to go.
And of course I think that critical thinking should be taught in schools, although it doesn't get taught as much as is needed. I think this is partly because it is probably a difficult subject to teach and teachers are really busy teaching all the other things that are required. Critical thinking needs to be integrated into most other courses, but it really isn't obvious how to do it. Even science courses tend to be about what is known, not about how the scientists reached their understanding of what is known.
No doubt whatsoever that attempts should be made to inculcate critical thinking in young people. It enhances the ability to make everyday judgements that are logically consistent with observed reality. It doesn't have to be deep thought, but since it would seem to involve an attitude of mind, I imagine it's difficult to teach. You can try to reason with some people till the proverbial cows come home, and get nowhere. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
your probably going to gentle readers me again , but I must show this video , in order to think critically you must be aware of the diverse opinions of subject matter.
pro's and con's
in this video , it speaks of a professor who did not find out that he was taught incorrect information until after he had obtained his professorship.
also , there is a segment in the video about the courts banning a label that was being used in textbooks that asked students to use critical thinking.
You have replicated this in two threads my answer remains the same do you wish to discuss "truth", "education", "evolution" or "who gets to judge matters".
I am happy to give you my thoughts.
The issue here is religion cares about what evolution implies where science has no care at all.
Even if "evolution" was totally wrong by teaching science process, logic and methods a good scientist would easily reach that conclusion.
We could and did teach the "earth is flat" and the "earth was the centre of the universe" and good scientists were able to determine that was not the case. Your speaker even noted and agreed with that.
If your argument and your speakers argument is that science could be taught better you would get no argument from me. However we would still be teaching "evolution" because it hasn't been overturned.
What is important to science is teaching science process, method, logic and testing because we do not elect someone to decide what is the truth we have simple rules for that. If you disagree with "evolution" publish a paper that falsifies it, it is pretty simple.
This is the problem with your video and your view, to me you seem to be seeking to install someone to decide what is the truth and science doesn't work like that.
Science has a basic set of rules and at the moment "evolution" remains a valid science theory and as such there is no problem or harm in teaching it. The only harm I can see if "evolution" is taught with good science principles and were wrong is for the short period some religions have issues which they need to work out how to address them.
So perhaps I will leave it to you to tell me what of all this you would like to discuss.
I should make one comment which I did find amusing your speaker spent 38 min discussing evolution and problems with it. Then in the last 20 seconds it somehow PROVES genesis and god. Funny in 38 min he said very little about proof of a god or genesis but thats the conclusion he reached in a speach about critical thinking ... you have to see the humour and irony in that
the video shows that we need both sides of the story in order to think critically.
or we can just blindly trust our textbooks that our teachers must teach from.
If that is your view then why should I blindly believe a religion and which do I choose?
Yours, Rev K's, islam there are so many I need to critically evaluate them which is what most religions forbid or get nervous around.
Originally Posted By: paul
we can start suing the pants off of those who print textbooks with intentional misinformation in them.
we can start suing the schools who teach our children these known misinformation's using these known textbooks.
You could sue if you could PROVE the above
See thats whats funny you are doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing making unproven claims.
Originally Posted By: paul
we just aren't as gullible as we were anymore , you can call it evolution if you choose.
we are evolving to understand that evolution is a lie.
So you believe this then get someone to publish a falsification it isn't difficult and it is how science settles arguments.
As I said before science is not a democracy we don't care what "people think" we don't give people votes on science get over it.
If you can convince others to move and lets say ban teaching of evolution in school in USA then USA simply ceases to teach science it's that simple to science.
Let me reverse the argument for you, if USA passed a law to say that it was okay to murder people could you ever accept it? You know the answer ... no because it is against your commandments.
If you want to argue that science should be taught better then I am in agreement, if you are trying to vote that "evolution" should not be taught as science then you are wrong to me.
That was my issue with your speaker he spent alot of time dealing with problems with teaching and education and then instead of reaching the obvious conclusion we need to teach science better he reached a conclusion science was wrong and god and genesis was right .... and I went woah where the hell did that crap come from. I did get an enormous laugh at the last 20 seconds about a talk on critical thinking in education that was classic irony.
Paul, I don't see what that has to do with the question of whether critical thinking should be taught in schools. I didn't say anything about what facts are being taught, I just asked if we should be teaching critical thinking. You seem to be saying yes, but then you get side tracked on to something that isn't directly related to critical thinking.
Please stick to the subject, instead of trying to change the argument to whether creationism is true. Obviously I don't think it is, but whether it is or not doesn't having anything specific to do with critical thinking.
I just asked if we should be teaching critical thinking.
I was showing an example of why we need to teach critical thinking in schools.
I guess you didn't critically think about it much.
it clearly shows that students do not think critically because they are only taught one side of the story.
and that side is forced on them even if they have previously been taught and learned opposing views.
critical thinking requires more than one side , otherwise it would not be critical thinking.
it would just be mandated thinking as it is today.
so as long as evolution is a mandated subject they dare not teach critical thinking to student's in fear that the student's will become wise to the lies.
so as long as evolution is a mandated subject they dare not teach critical thinking to student's in fear that the student's will become wise to the lies.
Again I need to correct you "evolution" is not a subject that is mandatory, science is the subject that is mandated and taught.
"Evolution" is a small part of the biological science area. Depending on your school it is probably one or two weeks that it would be discussed.
The wider issue for fundementalists like yourself that even within religions evolution has largely been resolved. We discussed the jewish but even the catholic church which is often thought of as slow acting has resolved the issue.
This isn't saying your concerns and that of your speaker that science on the issue isn't being taught well is not a concern .. I think it is but I also think we should teach QM to students.
I just don't see how you go from there to we shouldn't teach evolution which seems something more to do with your particular religion than religions in general.
Paul, I don't want this thread to go into the big question of creationism. But that is where you seem to be trying to push it. I wanted to have this thread discuss ways to teach critical thinking in the everyday world. I don't think the clash between evolution and creationism is all that big a thing for most people most of the time. But every day we have to make decisions based on what we see around us. In this thread I would much more like to see us agreeing that critical thinking is needed for all the real world experiences we face. Then see if there is some way to teach it to the students in our schools.
Of course if our teachers do practice critical thinking they really don't have time to integrate it into their teaching schedules. Mostly they are running like mad trying to keep up with the facts they are required to teach so that the students can pass the required proficiency tests.
I recall several years ago I saw a story about a school that was planning to add a class in analyzing advertising. I thought that was wonderful idea, but I haven't heard any more about it. I expect that the school just doesn't have the money to put into the class. Here in Oklahoma all of our politicians talk about their support for education, then our legislature goes to work and cuts education budgets some more.
again , I was not trying to vector the discussion.
you mentioned your States current political practices concerning ways to put more money in the pockets of the rich by removing education from the public via budget cuts.
but you live in a republican controlled state , even I live in a republican controlled state , and cutting budgets and giving money to the rich is what republicans are about.
concerning critical thinking , politics and the ability to choose politicians would be a great example of being able to think critically and applying that critical thought to your very important vote.
you really do need examples to be able to teach critical thinking , that would be the overall objective would it not , to be capable of making intelligent decisions.
how would you teach critical thinking?
how do you define critical thinking?
I had to ask because you are a republican and I'm not so concerning critical thinking we may not share the same definition of "critical thinking".
I had to ask because you are a republican and I'm not so concerning critical thinking we may not share the same definition of "critical thinking".
I don't know where you got the idea that I am a Republican. I have never said and I don't intend to do so. It isn't really relevant to a discussion of critical thinking.
I don't know where you got the idea that I am a Republican.
Clairvoyance, Bill. Don't forget clairvoyance!
On the subject of critical thinking; that's probably the last thing our governments would want us to do.
Then there's the danger that if they teach critical thinking in schools students might become critical of the education system, and possibly of their teachers.
I suspect there would have to be a major shake-up in the advertising world if the "masses" started to think critically (or in some cases to think at all).
The time out did give me some time to think about what critical thinking is. It is one of those things that I know what it is, but it is hard to figure out the words to explain it. I will give it a try.
Critical thinking is a process we can use to determine which of several possible choices to make about something that we are considering. The choices may be simple things such as which kind of shoes to buy, or complex things such as what should I do with the rest of my life. The choices may also be about things we believe. The process will involve considering what is known about the choice and also what is not known. What is not known is possibly the most important part of the process. I will give a few examples of some things to consider in evaluating some advertising ploys. I chose advertising because evaluation of advertising is one of the most common actions that the vast majority of people face.
Of course I mentioned one in my first post. The car dealer is claiming that he will give you $10,000 if he can't beat any other dealers offer. He doesn't point out that there is absolutely nothing to keep him from beating any other offer. So this means that I will tend to avoid that dealer, since he starts right out by making a completely misleading claim.
"The lowest price of the season". Ok, this is the lowest price, what is the highest price? If it is the same as the lowest price then the advertisement is highly misleading. This is an example of watching what they are saying. Just because they say something as if it is wonderful doesn't mean anything, if they don't tell you what the other options are. That is an example of what you don't know that might influence your decision.
And try to be aware of what you expect, because the wording of an ad may sound like just what you want, but when you get it it turns out that the description doesn't match what you expected. The description may be completely accurate, but what people assume it means may not be what the advertiser meant. So watch out for hidden assumptions, they will get you every time. Just because every time I have bought something it included "xyz" doesn't mean that the one in the ad will include it.
As for how to teach critical thinking. That one is difficult. Face it, teaching really simple algebra can be difficult and that is just following simple rules. As far as I know critical thinking doesn't have what you might call 'simple' rules, it is a way of thinking. Teaching a way to think is very difficult.
... I don't know where you got the idea that I am a Republican. I have never said and I don't intend to do so. It isn't really relevant to a discussion of critical thinking.
Bill, being from OK, I assume you are an AMERICAN, which is OK by me, as I have numerous relatives in the USA.
Perhaps some--ones with dual citizenship--think of themselves as AmeriCanadians, --one party for NA?
I often joke with my AMERICAN cousins and say:
YOU AMERICANS HAVE A ONE-PARTY SYSTEM. It is made up of
REPUBLICANS/DEMOCANS--both wings promise democracy, liberty, justice and prosperity for all, but this "party" is in Washington simply with their CANS--that is, containers like wallets, bank accounts, investment portfolios, and so on, to store and preserve the wealth and power of the few who actually run things.
Now, fellow members of the R&D party, in unison say with me, the following words of a famous DEMOCAN,
Quote:
We do it because, YES, WE CAN!
Meanwhile, the majority of AMERICANS--the ones who do all the hard work making the cans and their contents, find that there is not enough liberty, justice and prosperity for them to really enjoy. So why bother making cans?
Maybe we should change the name of this type of thinking to analytical thinking and remove the terror of criticism.
I used to teach high school age students critical thinking as part of the English Language curriculum. It was very useful for them, and allowed them to construct arguments and discussions which advanced the subject instead of derailing it, which I must say is what most people seem to regard as discussion now. Well, that and shouting.
Critical thinking requires precision in both factual information and written expression, and is just as important in English* as in Science. The rambling opinion pieces written far too often, (and published too), are examples of what happens when critical thinking gives way to unsupported personal points of view. And of course, there is the influence of the omnipresent bullet points.
The subject of English now does not include formal critical thinking as a stand alone area of study, but I am pleased to say that it is included in the skills that are expected to be encouraged in schools. I am a bit horrified to read that a school area would contemplate scrapping such an essential part of education in every area of a student's study. We learn by thinking clearly and questioning.
Of course now we have the dreadful assessment tests for students spreading world-wide. These do not encourage thinking at all, of any kind. Just tick the boxes and the computer will mark it! What a way to teach children!
Good points Ellis. I hope that that is what I have been trying to say. You make me feel a little inadequate when you are so clear on what you want to say.
I'm of the opinion, that schools should not necessarily teach facts. It seems prudent to teach people HOW to learn, not WHAT to learn.
I'm a product of a system that is among the top rated in the world, and I don't remember a damn thing from school. However, I did leave school with a desire to LEARN.
As a result, I use critical thinking every day in my current job. I applied with no skills, no knowledge, but with the ability to observe, adapt, and learn.
Trained as a cook and restaurant manager, but instead I prototype and manufacture many of the devices that bring us things like internet and television.
Critical thinking got me this job, and critical thinking has allowed me to become ever better at my job over the course of 8 years.
Also, critical thinking is essential when you live in, and maintain, a 40 year old trailer in Albertan winters.
What you have described so accurately is the result of teaching the process of learning rather than teaching what to learn. In other words you teach children how to approach a problem, or a new area of study, and encourage them to find ways to solve, discuss and research the outcome. New learning is then aproached as a possibility, or as something interesting to be discovered and not merely a list of dreary facts.
As you point out, with these skills a student is able to be flexible in their approach, they can perform well in areas in which their experience is limited. These are the sort of people we need in the rapidly evolving new areas of employment. It is in longer sensible to teach students specific skills for a specific job, as that job may no longer be available by the time the student enters the work force. But they can be taught how to learn to adapt to circumstances and how to respond positively to new experiences.
Unfortunately at the moment our governments are madly keen on objective measurements for assessing students. The way to do that is the antithesis of process learning. It is all too possible to check facts, you can even use a computer, however it is more difficult to assess whether a student can solve a problem using research skills, or write a reasoned piece without having to regurgitate a set essay.
I hope the teachers of Texas (or wherever) continue to fight this short sighted and frankly ridiculous idea! We need more clear thinkers, not less!
Neohippy- I have to tell you that today, as you are probably FREEZING in Alberta our temperature is predicted to be 41c. It is supposed to be over 50c in some inland areas of the country. Headlines this morning were screaming that it will be Australia's hottest ever day! Hyperbole I hope!
In every period and every community there is something that everybody believes, but cannot justify. If you want to understand anything, you have to start by ignoring what everyone believes, and thinking for yourself.
Qi Bill S, but what is the article saying? That female fruit flies are a bit stand-offish but the guys aren't?
Until recently, for women, every sexual encounter could lead to pregnancy, so no matter how enjoyable the deed may seem the prospect of 9 months of less than optimum health, and the actual possibility of dying in the act of giving birth to a ninth child they could ill-afford to rear tended to take the gloss off the whole thing.
This has not often been researched, most research seems to concentrate on men's desire to propagate well after the use-by date. Though I have to admit that women (like the lady fruit-flies) recently are catching up in this area.
I am often fascinated by the way researchers leap happily from fruit-flies, mice etc to human behaviour.
Neohippy- I have to tell you that today, as you are probably FREEZING in Alberta our temperature is predicted to be 41c. It is supposed to be over 50c in some inland areas of the country. Headlines this morning were screaming that it will be Australia's hottest ever day! Hyperbole I hope!
Which is worse? Your winter or our summer?
Yikes! 41C That's 105F here in the US. We do that in the summer, but it is considered to be really hot. 50C (122F) is hot any where.
Neohippy- I have to tell you that today, as you are probably FREEZING in Alberta our temperature is predicted to be 41c. It is supposed to be over 50c in some inland areas of the country. Headlines this morning were screaming that it will be Australia's hottest ever day! Hyperbole I hope!
Which is worse? Your winter or our summer?
We just started to warm up actually. We were at -30C for a couple weeks. Warmed up to -10C, freaking shorts weather!
Our summers here usually only max out at maybe 34C, but our winters bottom out at around -45C to about -60C (rare).
Winters are easier for me to handle, as you can always add layers and move around to stay warm, but in summer, you can only remove so many clothes before you are naked, hot, and sweaty.
Well Neohippy, that just shows how wrong you can be. I much prefer warm, even hot, weather. Now I admit you need at least a little technology, but I can endure hot weather much better. When the weather is hot I can wear shorts and a T-shirt and sit around doing nothing. Assuming the humidity is reasonable I can then turn on a fan and drink plenty of water. That may not be just the very best condition, but it sure beats freezing to death. In cold weather the only way to stay warm is to put on enough clothes that you can barely move. Any way we originally evolved in Africa where we grew up used to hot weather, not cold.
Well Neohippy, that just shows how wrong you can be. I much prefer warm, even hot, weather. Now I admit you need at least a little technology, but I can endure hot weather much better. When the weather is hot I can wear shorts and a T-shirt and sit around doing nothing. Assuming the humidity is reasonable I can then turn on a fan and drink plenty of water. That may not be just the very best condition, but it sure beats freezing to death. In cold weather the only way to stay warm is to put on enough clothes that you can barely move. Any way we originally evolved in Africa where we grew up used to hot weather, not cold.
Bill Gill
Wrong? Jeeze, you sound like every Canadian that has driven a car since the age of 14 (my wife says the same stuff as you).
I was a walker up until I was 25. Usually 6-10km to and from work and school. Winter was always better, as you can make good time without over heating. Most of the time, you didn't even need a jacket unless it was less than -20C, or you weren't walking fast enough.
Surviving in the cold climates takes a bit of critical thinking (see? sorta on topic!). I, for one, use a Canadian military surplus winter jacket. Dirt cheap, highly mobile, weather and water resistant, and keeps you toasty warm, even in -40C.
Hell, I've even gone camping in -20C with nothing but a 8C tent, and that jacket.
I kid you not, but my 1986 Grand Marquis (daily driver land yacht) starts better in -20C than it does in +20C.
If it's made in Canada, it just seems to work better in the cold, and I was made in Canada.
All in all, both summer and winter are kinda extreme around here (sometimes the temp will range 90C over the year, or even 40C in a day!) but our short lived spring and autumns, now those are breath taking. I love having the rockies a short drive away, nothin' purdier than ice capped mountains in the autumn.
On that note, I work with an Iranian guy who moved here some 15 years ago, he wears short sleeves even on the coldest days, no jacket at all. Some just handle the temps better than others.
The temperature finally stopped at 42c! Bill S, you may be interested to know that the pug was NOT happy! We both huddled in the a/c!
The difficult part of our weather here at this time of the year is that today is predicted to reach 25c--- which is lovely, but the constant swinging from hot to cool is very enervating. It is not usually very humid here, but my garden looks as though someone has blow-torched it!
Tasmania, which had the country's first snow on Jan 2nd, is doing badly though. Yesterday Hobart was 41c which was the hottest ever recorded. There were huge fires which isolated people in the tourist area of Port Arthur. More than a 1000 were rescued by boat, still more were evacuated this morning. 80 houses have burned down and one man has been killed.
As for heat or cold. I think both have their horrors, but I think heat can kill very quickly in many different ways. Personally I'd rather be too cold than too hot, but I've never experienced -20c!
I like these , in fact I love these. If Im not walking , in the sub temps my toes get numb. wearing these in sub temps will actually make your feet sweat. in norway it was -25 below and my feet were soaked.
What are they made of Paul? Obviously not leather. More like lace-up gum boots! They look as though they would keep feet warm but wouldn't water get through the laces if it snowed. They look very practical, even if they are not very stylish! :-)
They look as though they would keep feet warm but wouldn't water get through the laces if it snowed.
Look at the picture carefully. You can see that the tongue is not separated from the ankle. So that will keep the water/snow from leaking through until it gets above the top of the boot.
