Road to judgment

[coberst]

Road to judgment

A wealthy nation, just like a wealthy individual, can withstand great and numerous mistakes in judgment and still suffer no serious damage to its basic welfare. There is, however, a point in which this margin of safety is diminished to the point that the wealth becomes to small and the results of mistakes to large to withstand the damage suffered by mistaken judgment.

I suspect that such an insufficient margin of safety may be rapidly approaching the US. Due to the rapid acceleration of change and damage incurred by errors--because of technology that present and future circumstances portend--the US faces a need to make a rapid and fundamental adjustment in ability to make significantly better judgments.

In a liberal democracy like our own we cannot out-distance the general judgment capacity of the majority. If the US is going to make better judgments in the future then, by definition, our citizens must be able to make better decisions.

I consider CT for all citizens as the only avenue for improving the judgment of our society in general.

Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.

Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers—trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic fundamentals of logic. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.

The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.

[wollery]

Except that the US is not a democracy, it's a two party federal republic, in which the party that spends the most money on their campaign almost always wins.

The choice is between the lesser of two evils.

[Darth Rotor]

I consider CT for all citizens as the only avenue for improving the judgment of our society in general.


I find a delicious irony in CT being a common abbreviation for both Critical Thinking, and Conspiracy Theorist -- the antithesis of a Critical Thinker.

For a moment, I thought you were advocating Conspiracy Theory as a required regimen for all citizens. :cool:

DR

[I less than three logic]

I find a delicious irony in CT being a common abbreviation for both Critical Thinking, and Conspiracy Theorist -- the antithesis of a Critical Thinker.

For a moment, I thought you were advocating Conspiracy Theory as a required regimen for all citizens. :cool:

DR
If I recall correctly, he was warned of the confusion shortly after making one of his first posts here on the forums. I don’t know of many that refer to critical thinking as CT. Conspiracy Theorist is what pops into my head first when I see the abbreviation as well.

[slingblade]

Coberst, have you gone to your neighborhood school and volunteered to work with the students? You usually can do this, you know. Most schools welcome community involvement.

If you're so big on kids learning how to think, what are you doing about it besides writing about it? Are you active? Have you gotten off your duff to actually implement all the obvious "ideas" you keep coming up with?

Are you just filled with hot air, and it's escaping, or are you expecting the rest of us to do this hard work for you?

Are you prepared to deal with parents who strongly suspect that critical thinking may led to a rejection of religion, and who will get you removed from the school if Johnny and Suzie start doubting God because of what you taught them?

I agree that kids should be taught how to think critically, but I'm also aware that skepticism and religion don't necessarily go well together. There is a very real problem with some religious parents rejecting critical thought as dangerous. They don't want their kids exposed to many things, as if not exposing them will somehow protect them better than teaching them how to think.

There's a mom in Georgia right now who wants Harry Potter banned because it has magic in it. She seems to forget about Saul and the Witch of Endor in her own Good Book, but that's beside the point, to her. She seems to forget or be unaware that her Bible contains stories of incest, rape, murder, torture, slavery, and so on. How are you going to deal with her ilk? Because she's absolutely not the only parent who feels this way.

So what are you actually doing to progress your own ideas?
The world can't wait, you know.

[infornography]

Perhaps a movement should be started to really push this.

People could get together and donate money for the cause.

A large enough group of people might very well change this nation in just one or two generations.

So who is going to get the ball rolling on this? I'll be over here twiddling my thumbs ;-)

[coberst]

Coberst, have you gone to your neighborhood school and volunteered to work with the students? You usually can do this, you know. Most schools welcome community involvement.

If you're so big on kids learning how to think, what are you doing about it besides writing about it? Are you active? Have you gotten off your duff to actually implement all the obvious "ideas" you keep coming up with?

Are you just filled with hot air, and it's escaping, or are you expecting the rest of us to do this hard work for you?

Are you prepared to deal with parents who strongly suspect that critical thinking may led to a rejection of religion, and who will get you removed from the school if Johnny and Suzie start doubting God because of what you taught them?

I agree that kids should be taught how to think critically, but I'm also aware that skepticism and religion don't necessarily go well together. There is a very real problem with some religious parents rejecting critical thought as dangerous. They don't want their kids exposed to many things, as if not exposing them will somehow protect them better than teaching them how to think.

There's a mom in Georgia right now who wants Harry Potter banned because it has magic in it. She seems to forget about Saul and the Witch of Endor in her own Good Book, but that's beside the point, to her. She seems to forget or be unaware that her Bible contains stories of incest, rape, murder, torture, slavery, and so on. How are you going to deal with her ilk? Because she's absolutely not the only parent who feels this way.

So what are you actually doing to progress your own ideas?
The world can't wait, you know.


I consider CT for all citizens as the only avenue for improving the judgment of our society in general.

Our schools have only begun to teach CT. Few adults have any knowledge of the principles of critical thinking. My target is adults. I am trying to introduce adults to this important subject matter, in the hope that they will be energized sufficiently to pick up the books and learn about this very important subject matter.

[coberst]

Perhaps a movement should be started to really push this.

People could get together and donate money for the cause.

A large enough group of people might very well change this nation in just one or two generations.

So who is going to get the ball rolling on this? I'll be over here twiddling my thumbs ;-)


There is no need to donate money. The only thing required is for each citizen to make the effort to learn this important subject and then to convince others to do the same.

[slingblade]

I consider CT for all citizens as the only avenue for improving the judgment of our society in general.

Our schools have only begun to teach CT. Few adults have any knowledge of the principles of critical thinking. My target is adults. I am trying to introduce adults to this important subject matter, in the hope that they will be energized sufficiently to pick up the books and learn about this very important subject matter.

So, you come to a skeptic's board to tell the members, the majority of whom already embrace critical thinking, to embrace critical thinking, but you aren't actually doing anything to help real students in real time do so?


So, in other words, nothing?

[drkitten]

So, you come to a skeptic's board to tell the members, the majority of whom already embrace critical thinking, to embrace critical thinking, but you aren't actually doing anything to help real students in real time do so?

You say this like it's a bad thing.

Look at the level of critical thinking coberst has displayed on this forum.

Then ask yourself if you want him to be a role model for students

[slingblade]

You say this like it's a bad thing.

Look at the level of critical thinking coberst has displayed on this forum.

Then ask yourself if you want him to be a role model for students

Ohmyed. How could I have been so blind? Eternal grats, Doc.

[Dr Adequate]

Road to judgment ... MENE.

MENE.

TEKEL.

UPHARSIN.

[Region Rat]

Road to judgment

A wealthy nation, just like a wealthy individual, can withstand great and numerous mistakes in judgment and still suffer no serious damage to its basic welfare. There is, however, a point in which this margin of safety is diminished to the point that the wealth becomes to small and the results of mistakes to large to withstand the damage suffered by mistaken judgment.

I suspect that such an insufficient margin of safety may be rapidly approaching the US. Due to the rapid acceleration of change and damage incurred by errors--because of technology that present and future circumstances portend--the US faces a need to make a rapid and fundamental adjustment in ability to make significantly better judgments.

In a liberal democracy like our own we cannot out-distance the general judgment capacity of the majority. If the US is going to make better judgments in the future then, by definition, our citizens must be able to make better decisions.

I consider CT for all citizens as the only avenue for improving the judgment of our society in general.

Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.

Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers—trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic fundamentals of logic. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.

The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.

Coberst,
Long time no see.
Still at it with the sermons, I see.
Did you get tired of the response at one of your old stomping grounds and move your act here?

[Loss Leader]

Except that the US is not a democracy, it's a two party federal republic, in which the party that spends the most money on their campaign almost always wins.

I think that there are economists who would disagree (http://www.freakonomics.com/).

[jay gw]

A wealthy nation, just like a wealthy individual, can withstand great and numerous mistakes in judgment and still suffer no serious damage to its basic welfare.

Very true.

[wollery]

I think that there are economists who would disagree (http://www.freakonomics.com/). Was there a particular part of that site that you were expecting me to read?

Because I'm not trawling through all of it to find out how it's relevant.

[Loss Leader]

Was there a particular part of that site that you were expecting me to read?

Because I'm not trawling through all of it to find out how it's relevant.

Sorry. Economist Steven Levitt has shown that campaign spending has almost no effect on the outcome of elections. I can't find an appropriate quote right now, but his findings did not support the contention that campaign spending influenced voter share. See his book Freakonomics or his article Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign Spending on Election Outcomes in the U.S. House in the Journal of Political Economy.