اتباع المنهج التحليلي العلمي الطريق الأفضل وصولا إلى نقد الفكرة ثم البحث عن الإجراءات البديلة الرقي بتلك الفكرة بعد نقدها وبالامكان عرض النقد على دراسات متخصصة حول الموضوع أو على مختصين في ذات المجال
You can start by asking yourself, when you find yourself saying "P is true", whether on reflection it might be better to be more modest in your claim and just say "It is possible that P is true", or "It is plausible that P is true", or "It is probable that P is true".
OK, Gerardo Óscar Matía Cubillo . "P" is meant to stand for a categorical, modally unqualified statement, otherwise you would of course get a regress. The point is to allow some room for the possibility of error when warranted.
If I look out a window on a sunny day and say it is sunny outside, no problem. If I'm in my underground bunker, having only a day old TV weather report to go by, saying it's sunny outside is better qualified as "it's probably" or "it's supposed to be".
Whenever you question what is agreed on with a method, you are critical.
Zied Ben Amor Yet there is uncritical disagreement. "Critical" can be simply descriptive, or an honorific evaluative term.
Here's an analogy: my late father would look at a modernist abstract painting and say, that's not art, that's merely smeared paint, whereas I'd be inclined to say that's bad art because it's merely smeared paint. He says it's not art, I say it's art. But there's no contradiction because he's using the term "art" in an honorific evaluative sense, whereas I'm using it in a descriptive sense (and adding the evaluative modifier "bad").
Gerardo Óscar Matía Cubillo Let me go back too. I said "You can start by asking yourself, [...] whether on reflection it might be better [...]."
Clearly my remark was a pointer in a direction to take, an initial move, not a complete story (which in any case would have to be a work-in-progress). "On reflection" suggests some recognition and consideration of appropriateness or warrant. Mere gratuitous out-of-the-blue assertion of probability is not a critical move. Rather than confidence, I would suggest something like an appropriate appreciation of fallibility and different possibilities.
In 1979, when I attended the American Philosophical Association meetings in NY, the Los Angeles Police Department, surprisingly, was recruiting at the job fair. One of the reasons given was that philosophy PhDs were more alert in recognizing different possibilities and therefore would make useful forensic consultants; a sort of corrective to tunnel-vision feelings of certainty.
Gerardo Óscar Matía Cubillo It's Sunday morning here in Melbourne. Yes, there has to be a lot of elaboration of context to avoid polysemic entendres. Ultimately we are trapped in circularity with ostensive definition [sic] as the only way out. Lots of philosophical crime novels already out there, so writing one that attracts attention may nonetheless prove difficult. Philosophy of crime fiction seems to be an up-and-coming field too. Belated Feliz Navidad.
Karl Pfeifer The story you gave is very interesting. I don't see any contradiction between what I said and your story becaus when there is a method in disagreement, there is criticism.
اتباع المنهج التحليلي العلمي الطريق الأفضل وصولا إلى نقد الفكرة ثم البحث عن الإجراءات البديلة الرقي بتلك الفكرة بعد نقدها وبالامكان عرض النقد على دراسات متخصصة حول الموضوع أو على مختصين في ذات المجال
Critical thinking occurs after a focused thought and concentration. This intense focus will be revealed at night and you will dream of what you were critically thinking. So when I dream of something, it means I have been thinking critically.
Critical thinking allows you to question certain opinions, statements, assumptions, etc. Critical thinking allows you to verify the theses. Critical thinking is the basis of debates, brainstorming, working together on the best solution to a problem, etc.
Regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
I think rethinking your own thinking shows what critical thinking is all about.
In my opinion, critical thinking can lead to the maturity and evolution of an idea.
Question1: How do I know if I am thinking critically or not? The simplest and easiest answer I can give you is: You know you are thinking critically when you decision resulted in the expected outcomes or led you to sustained solution to a given problem.
Question2: Do I need to question my own assumptions? Why not! it is just an assumption and it could be wrong. If your assumptions are wrong, you might be misled by the outcome. Don't only question your own assumptions but others as well. Question not only assumptions but also theories, in fact question everything except your own insanity.
If you can make connections between the things, then you think critically.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking