quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

And the reason I haven't contributed is summed up above.

This entire thread is an ego circle jerk.

How pompous and arrogant can people be to decide their reasoning is superior and others lack critical thinking skills?

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Theodore Roosevelt at the Sorbonne in Paris, France on April 23, 1910

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

I'm not sure the whole false dichotomy thing really works here. I feel as if religiously capitalized individuals would be a little too enthusiastic about this conclusion.

I'd argue more radically that all the mystical, transcendental feelings of infinity and onward () could also be expressed and experienced, to the same effect, within the coordinates of science. In other words, science, in addition to being science proper, can also, in a very separate capacity, be religion as well, for those who so desire.

My critical point is that science itself should always be contested, precisely for not being science. Here is, somewhat abstractly, why I want to reject calling the matter a false dichotomy. There is a very essential structural difference that cannot be reduced, namely, that science is never really science, there is this sort of irreducible gap, whereas religion is always religion.

yeh since science can be a religion it sort of throws a wrench into the works LOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: thomponx

Have you never met someone who lacked critical thinking skills?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

Yeah, but... pomposity? Can words be narcissistic?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8


Or, to play the Hegelian game, I think the synthesis of science and religion is... science!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

Yeah, but... pomposity? Can words be narcissistic?

Pomposity stands in front of the mirror: 'Don't I look stunning? Yes, all eyes will be mine at the gala!'

quote:

ORIGINAL: seekingOwnertoo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8


Or, to play the Hegelian game, I think the synthesis of science and religion is... science!

Really?

I thought it was Self Consciousness!

Guess ... it all depends on the interpreter of the German ... and which of the interpreters interpretations you follow ... now isn't it?

A lot like the bible and how each religion says it different ... funny how people do this ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

Yeah, but... pomposity? Can words be narcissistic?

Pomposity stands in front of the mirror: 'Don't I look stunning? Yes, all eyes will be mine at the gala!'

I guess my critical thinking skills have eluded me.

But since you made two posts about this you'll have to forgive my stupidity and elaborate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

quote:

ORIGINAL: seekingOwnertoo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8


Or, to play the Hegelian game, I think the synthesis of science and religion is... science!

Really?

I thought it was Self Consciousness!

Guess ... it all depends on the interpreter of the German ... and which of the interpreters interpretations you follow ... now isn't it?

A lot like the bible and how each religion says it different ... funny how people do this ...

This is my 'variation'.

Hegel was devout.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack
Sorry, LA - I didn't mean to hijack your thread into a discussion of science. It's just one of those subjects I like to blather on about. (;

I see no highjack! I see a direct discussion of the issues.

As for theorists, yes, gotta love theorists ;-)

- LA

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

And the reason I haven't contributed is summed up above.

This entire thread is an ego circle jerk.

How pompous and arrogant can people be to decide their reasoning is superior and others lack critical thinking skills?

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Theodore Roosevelt at the Sorbonne in Paris, France on April 23, 1910

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dubbelganger

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack
Sorry, LA - I didn't mean to hijack your thread into a discussion of science. It's just one of those subjects I like to blather on about. (;

I see no highjack! I see a direct discussion of the issues.

As for theorists, yes, gotta love theorists ;-)

- LA

I agree with you about IB's post. That truly is an excellent way of categorizing the differing roles scientists fill.

I myself was never much of a theorist - that was my boss's domain. I was more the experimenter/researcher, who designed equipment in order to test certain possibilites regarding tertiary oil recovery technology. After my experiments showed that the tech was viable, the project was scaled up to a pilot plant injection/recovery well system south of Baton Rouge. Very interesting stuff.

quote:


The progress of science requires more than new data; it needs novel frameworks and contexts. And where do these fundamentally new views of the world arise? They are not simply discovered by pure observation; they require new modes of thought. And where can we find them, if old modes do not even include the right metaphors? The nature of true genius must lie in the elusive capacity to construct these new modes from apparent darkness. The basic chanciness and unpredictability of science must also reside in the inherent difficulty of such a task.

-- Stephen Jay Gould in "False Premise, Good Science", in The Flamingo's Smile (1985) p. 138

quote:

But the "science" response often falls short of either science or critical thinking as well, merely buying into the either/or debate with arguments rooted to a narrow view of science. They, too, are repeating dogma, not thinking critically--as evidenced by the reliance on conclusions divorced from methodology, something that would make any "true" scientist cringe.

As Gould notes above, thinking is broader than these narrow views from two artificial poles. Poe is right; we need the mathematicians, but we also need the poets--not for mere entertainment or reflection, but for true critical thinking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub
I guess my problem is I do not see anything wrong with blind faith sometimes.  It is not a bad thing if it helps someone be a better person and live their life in a way that shows kindness and respect to others.  In fact, I would prefer to be that kind of person than a critical thinker. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: thomponx

Have you never met someone who lacked critical thinking skills?

I don't judge people in that way.


You have never posted anything that would lead me to believe that you would.
I only asked if you had ever met someone who lacked critical thinking skills


Some of the people who you would say lack critical thinking skills can surprise you with their abilities to "think outside the box".

I think it is most likely that those who think "outside the box" are often the ones most deeply engaged in critical thinking and not the opposite.

quote:

I know very many good doctors with less than stellar personalities but they can save you from death much faster than a faith healing.