Critical thinking - Revision history

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "--" to " — "

2022-12-10T10:04:16Z

Text replacement - "--" to " — "

Mxmsj: /* Murder Your Darlings */

2021-11-15T07:46:11Z

Murder Your Darlings

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:46, 15 November 2021
Line 64:		Line 64:
	:::- Is it helpful?		:::- Is it helpful?
	:: Discretion is called for also in dealing with professional secrets. They should always be kept, except in special cases defined by strict criteria. Likewise, anyone who publicizes confidential communications that were made under the seal of secrecy commits a sin. Everything we say must be true, but we need not say everything that is true.		:: Discretion is called for also in dealing with professional secrets. They should always be kept, except in special cases defined by strict criteria. Likewise, anyone who publicizes confidential communications that were made under the seal of secrecy commits a sin. Everything we say must be true, but we need not say everything that is true.

	~~== Murder Your Darlings ==~~

	[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Quiller-Couch Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch:] "Whenever you feel an impulse to perpetrate a piece of exceptionally fine writing, obey it — whole-heartedly — and delete it before sending your manuscripts to press. Murder your darlings."

	~~Faulkner: "Kill your darlings."~~

	== References ==		== References ==

Mxmsj: /* Murder Your Darlings */

2021-11-15T07:45:55Z

Murder Your Darlings

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:45, 15 November 2021
Line 67:		Line 67:
	== Murder Your Darlings ==		== Murder Your Darlings ==

	[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Quiller-Couch Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch:] ~~â€œWhenever~~ you feel an impulse to perpetrate a piece of exceptionally fine writing, obey it ~~â€“~~ whole-heartedly ~~â€“~~ and delete it before sending your manuscripts to press. Murder your ~~darlingsâ€~~.		[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Quiller-Couch Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch:] "Whenever you feel an impulse to perpetrate a piece of exceptionally fine writing, obey it — whole-heartedly — and delete it before sending your manuscripts to press. Murder your darlings."

	Faulkner: "Kill your darlings."		Faulkner: "Kill your darlings."

Mxmsj: /* Unreasonable doubt */

2014-06-03T13:19:51Z

Unreasonable doubt

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:19, 3 June 2014
Line 24:		Line 24:
	== Unreasonable doubt ==		== Unreasonable doubt ==

	''Unbalanced'' critical thinking leads to skepticism, relativism, and solipsism. The person who resolves to ''doubt everything'' and accept only what is perfectly proven usually ends up with a "proof" that nobody knows anything for certain. ~~(It~~ is not and cannot be a perfect proof because ~~it depends~~ upon assumptions that themselves cannot be proven.)		''Unbalanced'' critical thinking leads to skepticism, relativism, and solipsism. The person who resolves to ''doubt everything'' and accept only what is perfectly proven usually ends up with a "proof" that nobody knows anything for certain. The proposition that "nobody can know anything for certain" is not and cannot be the conclusion of a perfect proof because this idea is not self-evident, is [[retortion\|self-referentially inconsistent]], and can only be defended by depending upon assumptions that themselves cannot be strictly proven to be true.

	The belief that we should ''doubt everything'' is essentially a religious belief. It is not a self-evident truth. It is not established by rigorous argument. It is supported by some anecdotal evidence (some breakthroughs come from doubting previous convictions) but contradicted by other evidence (some breakthroughs come from following beliefs to their logical conclusions). Because the slogan is itself part of everything, we are required by its meaning to doubt its meaning, which is [[retortion\|self-referentially inconsistent]]. The project is also hopeless, because it requires us to doubt our own powers of perception, memory, reasoning, and expression--the proper behavior to be expected from someone who takes this maxim seriously would be total silence and complete withdrawal from the field of rational discourse.		The belief that we should ''doubt everything'' is essentially a religious belief. It is not a self-evident truth. It is not established by rigorous argument. It is supported by some anecdotal evidence (some breakthroughs in science have come from doubting previous convictions about science) but contradicted by other evidence (some breakthroughs come from following beliefs to their logical conclusions). Because the slogan is itself part of everything, we are required by its meaning to doubt its meaning, which is [[retortion\|self-referentially inconsistent]]. The project is also hopeless, because it requires us to doubt our own powers of perception, memory, reasoning, and expression--the proper behavior to be expected from someone who takes this maxim seriously would be total silence and complete withdrawal from the field of rational discourse.

			Those who seriously try to advance the program of universal doubt prove themselves to be fools, hypocrites, or charlatans. Every argument they make to advance their view testifies against it--"for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear" (Prov 20:12).

	== Questions for historical research ==		== Questions for historical research ==

Mxmsj: /* Self-evaluation */

2014-05-26T15:27:29Z

Self-evaluation

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:27, 26 May 2014
Line 54:		Line 54:
	::: Note well: we may have many motives at work in us as we read and write. The goal is to keep those extra motives from overriding our judgment and distorting our results.		::: Note well: we may have many motives at work in us as we read and write. The goal is to keep those extra motives from overriding our judgment and distorting our results.
	* Have I met the [[Essay Criteria\|standards of my profession for expressing my judgment in writing?]]		* Have I met the [[Essay Criteria\|standards of my profession for expressing my judgment in writing?]]

			:; YOUCAT question #457

			:: When conveying information, we should think of the "three sieves" of Socrates:
			:::- Is it true?
			:::- Is it kind?
			:::- Is it helpful?
			:: Discretion is called for also in dealing with professional secrets. They should always be kept, except in special cases defined by strict criteria. Likewise, anyone who publicizes confidential communications that were made under the seal of secrecy commits a sin. Everything we say must be true, but we need not say everything that is true.

	== Murder Your Darlings ==		== Murder Your Darlings ==

Mxmsj: /* Murder Your Darlings */

2013-10-06T00:19:43Z

Murder Your Darlings

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:19, 6 October 2013
Line 57:		Line 57:
	== Murder Your Darlings ==		== Murder Your Darlings ==

	Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch: â€œWhenever you feel an impulse to perpetrate a piece of exceptionally fine writing, obey it â€“ whole-heartedly â€“ and delete it before sending your manuscripts to press. Murder your darlingsâ€.		[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Quiller-Couch Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch:] â€œWhenever you feel an impulse to perpetrate a piece of exceptionally fine writing, obey it â€“ whole-heartedly â€“ and delete it before sending your manuscripts to press. Murder your darlingsâ€.

	Faulkner: "Kill your darlings."		Faulkner: "Kill your darlings."

Mxmsj: /* Self-evaluation */

2013-10-06T00:18:35Z

Self-evaluation

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:18, 6 October 2013
Line 54:		Line 54:
	::: Note well: we may have many motives at work in us as we read and write. The goal is to keep those extra motives from overriding our judgment and distorting our results.		::: Note well: we may have many motives at work in us as we read and write. The goal is to keep those extra motives from overriding our judgment and distorting our results.
	* Have I met the [[Essay Criteria\|standards of my profession for expressing my judgment in writing?]]		* Have I met the [[Essay Criteria\|standards of my profession for expressing my judgment in writing?]]

			== Murder Your Darlings ==

			Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch: â€œWhenever you feel an impulse to perpetrate a piece of exceptionally fine writing, obey it â€“ whole-heartedly â€“ and delete it before sending your manuscripts to press. Murder your darlingsâ€.

			Faulkner: "Kill your darlings."

	== References ==		== References ==

Mxmsj: /* Self-evaluation */

2013-09-26T14:44:30Z

Self-evaluation

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:44, 26 September 2013
Line 51:		Line 51:
	* Are there reasonable alternatives that I may have overlooked?		* Are there reasonable alternatives that I may have overlooked?
	* Have I presented my case in such a way that others will find it reasonable?		* Have I presented my case in such a way that others will find it reasonable?
	* Am I acting in good conscience? Or are there other motives affecting my judgment? E.g.: desire for financial gain, fame, affection, etc.		* Am I acting in good conscience? Or are there other motives affecting my judgment? E.g.: desire for financial gain, fame, affection, etc.
			::: Note well: we may have many motives at work in us as we read and write. The goal is to keep those extra motives from overriding our judgment and distorting our results.
	* Have I met the [[Essay Criteria\|standards of my profession for expressing my judgment in writing?]]		* Have I met the [[Essay Criteria\|standards of my profession for expressing my judgment in writing?]]

Mxmsj: /* Self-evaluation */

2013-09-26T14:42:42Z

Self-evaluation

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:42, 26 September 2013
Line 52:		Line 52:
	* Have I presented my case in such a way that others will find it reasonable?		* Have I presented my case in such a way that others will find it reasonable?
	* Am I acting in good conscience? Or are there other motives affecting my judgment? E.g.: desire for financial gain, fame, affection, etc.		* Am I acting in good conscience? Or are there other motives affecting my judgment? E.g.: desire for financial gain, fame, affection, etc.
			* Have I met the [[Essay Criteria\|standards of my profession for expressing my judgment in writing?]]

	== References ==		== References ==

Mxmsj: /* Links */

2013-09-26T14:42:07Z

Links

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:42, 26 September 2013
Line 57:		Line 57:

	== Links ==		== Links ==
			* [[Essay Criteria]]

	[[Category:Epistemology]]		[[Category:Epistemology]]
	[[Category:Philosophy]]		[[Category:Philosophy]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:04, 10 December 2022
Line 3:		Line 3:
	== Judging justly ==		== Judging justly ==

	In the academic game, scholars are never supposed to adopt a position uncritically; that's what stupid or poorly-educated people do. In theory, reasons must be given that will stand up to the most severe scrutiny of skeptical inquirers. It is, of course, self-evident among self-styled "critical thinkers" that doubt is respectable and belief contemptible. An unwritten--and unfair!--rule of the game is that the one who launches the first critique is immune from criticism.		In the academic game, scholars are never supposed to adopt a position uncritically; that's what stupid or poorly-educated people do. In theory, reasons must be given that will stand up to the most severe scrutiny of skeptical inquirers. It is, of course, self-evident among self-styled "critical thinkers" that doubt is respectable and belief contemptible. An unwritten — and unfair! — rule of the game is that the one who launches the first critique is immune from criticism.

	; "Go by the evidence."		; "Go by the evidence."
Line 16:		Line 16:

	* "Test everything; hold on to what is good" (1 Thess 5:21).		* "Test everything; hold on to what is good" (1 Thess 5:21).
	* Don't believe everything you hear--until you have made sure that it is from a reliable authority.		* Don't believe everything you hear — until you have made sure that it is from a reliable authority.
	* Check the facts. Check your sources.		* Check the facts. Check your sources.
	* If a theory doesn't correspond to the facts, get rid of the theory, not the facts.		* If a theory doesn't correspond to the facts, get rid of the theory, not the facts.
Line 26:		Line 26:
	''Unbalanced'' critical thinking leads to skepticism, relativism, and solipsism. The person who resolves to ''doubt everything'' and accept only what is perfectly proven usually ends up with a "proof" that nobody knows anything for certain. The proposition that "nobody can know anything for certain" is not and cannot be the conclusion of a perfect proof because this idea is not self-evident, is [[retortion\|self-referentially inconsistent]], and can only be defended by depending upon assumptions that themselves cannot be strictly proven to be true.		''Unbalanced'' critical thinking leads to skepticism, relativism, and solipsism. The person who resolves to ''doubt everything'' and accept only what is perfectly proven usually ends up with a "proof" that nobody knows anything for certain. The proposition that "nobody can know anything for certain" is not and cannot be the conclusion of a perfect proof because this idea is not self-evident, is [[retortion\|self-referentially inconsistent]], and can only be defended by depending upon assumptions that themselves cannot be strictly proven to be true.

	The belief that we should ''doubt everything'' is essentially a religious belief. It is not a self-evident truth. It is not established by rigorous argument. It is supported by some anecdotal evidence (some breakthroughs in science have come from doubting previous convictions about science) but contradicted by other evidence (some breakthroughs come from following beliefs to their logical conclusions). Because the slogan is itself part of everything, we are required by its meaning to doubt its meaning, which is [[retortion\|self-referentially inconsistent]]. The project is also hopeless, because it requires us to doubt our own powers of perception, memory, reasoning, and expression--the proper behavior to be expected from someone who takes this maxim seriously would be total silence and complete withdrawal from the field of rational discourse.		The belief that we should ''doubt everything'' is essentially a religious belief. It is not a self-evident truth. It is not established by rigorous argument. It is supported by some anecdotal evidence (some breakthroughs in science have come from doubting previous convictions about science) but contradicted by other evidence (some breakthroughs come from following beliefs to their logical conclusions). Because the slogan is itself part of everything, we are required by its meaning to doubt its meaning, which is [[retortion\|self-referentially inconsistent]]. The project is also hopeless, because it requires us to doubt our own powers of perception, memory, reasoning, and expression — the proper behavior to be expected from someone who takes this maxim seriously would be total silence and complete withdrawal from the field of rational discourse.

	Those who seriously try to advance the program of universal doubt prove themselves to be fools, hypocrites, or charlatans. Every argument they make to advance their view testifies against it--"for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear" (Prov 20:12).		Those who seriously try to advance the program of universal doubt prove themselves to be fools, hypocrites, or charlatans. Every argument they make to advance their view testifies against it — "for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear" (Prov 20:12).

	== Questions for historical research ==		== Questions for historical research ==