Article Discussion: Critical Thinking as Knowledge of Biases

[livius drusus]

Clutch has written a fascinating article on critical thinking and biases (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11584) which is easily the best overview of the term I've encountered. I've posted a lot on various skeptically-themed discussion boards (mainly JREF (http://forums.randi.org/) and skepticalcommunity.com (http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/)) and I've seen "critical thinking" bandied about at a dizzying pace, but very little actual examination of what is meant by the term.

Clutch's position - and he is more than welcome to tell me to stfu and quit mischaracterizing him - that an awareness of one's own sensory, social interaction, memory, perception and situational biases is a necessary element for critical thought, strikes me as an excellent starting point.

What do y'all mean when you say critical thinking? What does the McGurk effect sound like to you? Most importantly, did you fall for the audio priming lock, stock and barrel like I did?

[Clutch Munny]

liv, your summary is bang-on, though I'm always a bit squeamish about the word "necessary". Say "very important", and that's just what I think.

As for JREF and the like: I often see critical thinking and scepticism depicted (and exercised) in a way that connotes the rational sanctity of the individual -- as if critical thinking amounted solely to an attitude of caution and rigor toward the information from an unreliable Outside that one accepts Inside. The overarching theme I try to teach, by contrast, is that critical thinking is first and foremost a matter of learning not to trust yourself. All the requisite scepticism about other people and institutions follows naturally from this, but without the false confidence that good reasoning consists in minding the informational gates. What happens within is at least as important.

[viscousmemories]

Really great article, Clutch. A lot of good food for thought there. I only recently learned about the Fundamental Attribution Error by way of the Wikipedia entries. It was interesting to see it in the context of your thesis.

Incidentally:

I heard "lah lah", pretty much as plain as day and even after I knew what I was supposed to be hearing. Am I crazy?

[Clutch Munny]

I heard "lah lah", pretty much as plain as day and even after I knew what I was supposed to be hearing. Am I crazy?

Yes, but for entirely independent reasons. :D

Linguistically you're just in a smallish minority. 'L' is alveolar -- about as close to halfway between velar and bilabial as the interdental 'D'. What makes 'd' more common is that it, 'g' and 'b' are all voiced stops, while 'L' is liquid. When I get my own McGurk sample up, maybe you'll get the "right" effect.

[Clutch Munny]

Update: I've split the article and added a second part, in order to make room for a missing section.

[viscousmemories]

Yes, but for entirely independent reasons. :D

Linguistically you're just in a smallish minority. 'L' is alveolar -- about as close to halfway between velar and bilabial as the interdental 'D'. What makes 'd' more common is that it, 'g' and 'b' are all voiced stops, while 'L' is liquid. When I get my own McGurk sample up, maybe you'll get the "right" effect.
/me grins.

Cool.

[Clutch Munny]

Yes, but for entirely independent reasons. :D

Linguistically you're just in a smallish minority. 'L' is alveolar -- about as close to halfway between velar and bilabial as the interdental 'D'. What makes 'd' more common is that it, 'g' and 'b' are all voiced stops, while 'L' is liquid. When I get my own McGurk sample up, maybe you'll get the "right" effect.


vm, I've put my own example in there now. (Note the production values.) I'll be interested to see if you and anyone else who'd been getting something other than the majority response from the first sample will get anything different from the new one.

Article (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11584)

(Right now the audio file that comes later in the article doesn't seem to be there, but I reckon that'll get solved.)

[viscousmemories]

vm, I've put my own example in there now. (Note the production values.) I'll be interested to see if you and anyone else who'd been getting something other than the majority response from the first sample will get anything different from the new one.
That's fascinating, Clutch. "Da, da", but closer to "thah, thah" is exactly what I heard even before re-reading the bit of the article that tells me what I'm supposed to hear. :)

[livius drusus]

(Right now the audio file that comes later in the article doesn't seem to be there, but I reckon that'll get solved.)

You reckoned correctly. Of course.

[viscousmemories]

You reckoned correctly. Of course.
Yes, I apologize for that Clutch. I deliberately deleted that file from the server last week because I couldn't remember what it was. From now on, no more delete first, ask questions later policy. :)

[trendkill]

Well, I thought critical thinking was just not uncritically accepting things as they are presented. Looks like I was sort of right. After reading that, though, it seems I can't help but do so. But like G.I. Joe said, knowing is half the battle.

That "McGurk effect" movie blew my mind. It's almost unbelievable that my brain averages between what it expects because of visual cues and what it actually hears to create the sound I perceive--and even knowing exactly what's happening doesn't really mitigate the effect at all. Looking away invariably produced "bah", looking back at the video produced "thah" almost every time. I also reacted just as predicted to the audio priming.

[Clutch Munny]

Well, I thought critical thinking was just not uncritically accepting things as they are presented. Looks like I was sort of right. After reading that, though, it seems I can't help but do so. But like G.I. Joe said, knowing is half the battle.

That "McGurk effect" movie blew my mind. It's almost unbelievable that my brain averages between what it expects because of visual cues and what it actually hears to create the sound I perceive--and even knowing exactly what's happening doesn't really mitigate the effect at all. Looking away invariably produced "bah", looking back at the video produced "thah" almost every time. I also reacted just as predicted to the audio priming.

Hee-hee. Very satisfying feedback, that.

Like I said, Jedi mind tricks... and we perform them on ourselves. Bottom line: "Well, I was there, and I saw/heard it myself!" is very far from decisive evidence, even when sincere.

[naturalist.atheist]

Critical thinking is more than a list of biases you should avoid. That is the philosophical approach. Critical thinking is more about how one should go about thinking that helps in revealing biases. A bias is simply a way that we can fool ourselves. It is a recognition that we fool ourselves all the time. To think critically is not only to recognize this but to recognize that adopting a practice of fairness and honesty is how we identify biases in the first place. Some people like Richard Feynman consider this to be the most important thing a person can learn about how science goes about its business.

[livius drusus]

The second paragraph covers that, only articulately. Try reading past the title for a change.

[naturalist.atheist]

The second paragraph covers that, only articulately. Try reading past the title for a change.

I am such a philosophy boob. Apparently describing critical thinking as what one should try to do is not as articulate as listing a limited list of what to try not to do. This articulate thing must be very philosophical.

[The Lone Ranger]

Knowing what not to do is at least as much a part of critical thinking as is knowing what to do.

Maybe moreso. We all have our biases (some of them are inevitable results of how the human brain is constructed, and how it processes data), and learning what they are and how to avoid them is a crucial part of learning how to think critically.

Cheers,

Michael

[Clutch Munny]

Critical thinking is more than a list of biases you should avoid. That is the philosophical approach.

You have managed to say the least informed, falsest possible thing.

The standard philosophical approach makes little or no mention of the heuristics and biases that characterize perception, cognition, emotional influences, memory, or social effects on reasoning and the spread of information. Philosophers have written hundreds of critical thinking texts over the centuries, and continue to do so, but most of these books are concerned exclusively with teaching basic logic with as little formal symbolism as possible, at the outset. Standard elements include classical syllogistic (Barbara, Celarent, Darii, Ferio, etc), Venn diagrams, rhetoric, and the analysis of fallacies; modern texts commonly progress toward an introduction of the elementary propositional calculus, since many critical thinking courses are conceived as pre-formal-logic courses.

This is a pretty good approach overall, I think, and a very good approach to the problem of getting students ready to take a course on formal logic. But whatever its virtues, it is nothing like the approach taken in this essay.

An empirically-based approach to critical thinking, motivated by serious attention to our best data and theories on how people actually reason, on the conditions under which they reason badly, and on how they can use this information to self-monitor and hence reason better, is essentially the opposite of the classic philosophers' critical thinking approach.

Indeed, one criticism of my approach -- actually, at some dim and muddled level, your attempt at a criticism -- is that it minimizes the philosophical normative element of critical thinking, putting too little emphasis on the canons of correct reasoning, and focusing instead on scientifically-based metacognitive awareness of errors that can arise through bias. There's something to the complaint that my essay is insufficiently philosophical, in the relevant sense! Had I been writing a book rather than an essay, I would have included a good deal of material on what makes for cogent (valid deductive; or empirically strong inductive) reasoning as well.

The rest of your ramble seems benign enough; certainly it's consistent with both the letter and spirit of the article.

[naturalist.atheist]

Critical thinking is more than a list of biases you should avoid. That is the philosophical approach.

You have managed to say the least informed, falsest possible thing.

The standard philosophical approach makes little or no mention of the heuristics and biases that characterize perception, cognition, emotional influences, memory, or social effects on reasoning and the spread of information. Philosophers have written hundreds of critical thinking texts over the centuries, and continue to do so, but most of these books are concerned exclusively with teaching basic logic with as little formal symbolism as possible, at the outset. Standard elements include classical syllogistic (Barbara, Celarent, Darii, Ferio, etc), Venn diagrams, rhetoric, and the analysis of fallacies; modern texts commonly progress toward an introduction of the elementary propositional calculus, since many critical thinking courses are conceived as pre-formal-logic courses.

This is a pretty good approach overall, I think, and a very good approach to the problem of getting students ready to take a course on formal logic. But whatever its virtues, it is nothing like the approach taken in this essay.

An empirically-based approach to critical thinking, motivated by serious attention to our best data and theories on how people actually reason, on the conditions under which they reason badly, and on how they can use this information to self-monitor and hence reason better, is essentially the opposite of the classic philosophers' critical thinking approach.

Indeed, one criticism of my approach -- actually, at some dim and muddled level, your attempt at a criticism -- is that it minimizes the philosophical normative element of critical thinking, putting too little emphasis on the canons of correct reasoning, and focusing instead on scientifically-based metacognitive awareness of errors that can arise through bias. There's something to the complaint that my essay is insufficiently philosophical, in the relevant sense! Had I been writing a book rather than an essay, I would have included a good deal of material on what makes for cogent (valid deductive; or empirically strong inductive) reasoning as well.

The rest of your ramble seems benign enough; certainly it's consistent with both the letter and spirit of the article.

So the list of fallacies that goes back millennium is not typically philosophical?

An example of what would be considered the scientific approach to critical thinking is IMO well summed up in an essay by Fenyman, "Cargo Cult Science (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cargocul.htm)". Trying to reduce critical thinking to a list of biases misses the point of critical thinking as much as those South Sea Islanders missed the point of science by building a mock airfield.

[Clutch Munny]

Where do you think you've spied a "list of fallacies" in the article? Which of them do you think go back, umm, "millennium"? My knowledge of the medieval sources is incomplete, I'll admit; just where does Duns Scotus discuss Argumentum Ad McGurk Effect?

Well, anyhow.

Feynman's graduation address is not even a scientific approach to critical thinking, still less the scientific approach to critical thinking, still less, outside of your head, "considered" the, or a, scientific approach to critical thinking.

If it were even intended to be such, Feynman would be savaging his own approach through the whole thing, since he gives no primary data, provides no details of his analysis, offers no alternative explanations for the anecdotal example he presents, cites none of the nameless experts and studies to which he alludes, completely fails to "bend over backwards" to facilitate criticisms, and in general makes no attempt to live up to his dictum that "If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it."

He also says nothing about critical thinking. Curious, isn't it, for someone whose message is the importance of being perfectly explicit as to one's point?

That's not to say there isn't some insight in what he says. It does show, however, that he is absolutely not demonstrating a scientific approach to critical thinking. Rather, he's dabbling (humorously, cleverly, engagingly) in some personal sociological reflections on a few phenomena that strike him as pseudoscience.

To describe Feynman's essay, which is completely unscientific by Feynman's own clearly defined standard, and which nowhere mentions critical thinking, as a "scientific approach to critical thinking" is an unbelievably silly error.

[naturalist.atheist]

Silly me. Clutch, I am sure you are far more brilliant and insightful when it comes to science and thinking than Feynman. What was I thinking!

[davidm]

What was I thinking!

Not much, as usual.

[naturalist.atheist]

What was I thinking!

Not much, as usual.

I am sure you know about it personally.

[LadyShea]

Silly me. Clutch, I am sure you are far more brilliant and insightful when it comes to science and thinking than Feynman. What was I thinking!

Well, Clutch is a philosophy professor, so should have a pretty good grasp on thinking.

[seebs]

Er, ...

You know, na, every so often I forget just how much you can manage to miss the point of essentially any text.

Clutch never claimed to be more insightful about science or thinking than Feynman. He did, however, claim to be more insightful about science, thinking, and Feynman's thoughts on that topic, than you. A point I think he has demonstrated with adequate rigor.

[naturalist.atheist]

Silly me. Clutch, I am sure you are far more brilliant and insightful when it comes to science and thinking than Feynman. What was I thinking!

Well, Clutch is a philosophy professor, so should have a pretty good grasp on thinking.

And Feynman won the Nobel Prize in physics as a co-inventor of QED. Take your pick. Because if any area of reality requires very careful thinking it would have to be just about anything involving quantum phenomenon. Because our biases appear to be mostly wrong. I assure you that Feynman did not do it by referring to a list of biases.

[Clutch Munny]

Never mind. I'd prefer to restrict my remarks to actual discussion of the actual essay.

[Clutch Munny]

Never mind. I'd prefer to restrict my remarks to actual discussion of the actual essay.

[seebs]

Fair enough. It's a good essay.

[naturalist.atheist]

Never mind. I'd prefer to restrict my remarks to actual discussion of the actual essay.

The essay is not bad but maybe you should apply some critical thinking to that title.

[livius drusus]

You haven't read the essay, n.a. That much as obvious. Also obvious is your ignorance of English grammar, or you would know that "x as a y" isn't some absurd blanket statement that x consists solely of y, but rather than in this particular treatment, x is being examined through the spectrum of y.

[naturalist.atheist]

Drusus, assume that I am the stupidest person on the earth. This does not relieve anybody from looking at that title critically. Say anything you like about me, but it is what it is.

Articulate on that because critical thinking doesn't appear to be your forte.

[viscousmemories]

Drusus, assume that I am the stupidest person on the earth.
Give us a challenge.

[naturalist.atheist]

Drusus, assume that I am the stupidest person on the earth.
Give us a challenge.

Make it about me all you like. It simply shows that you don't know the difference between critical thinking and being critical.

[livius drusus]

Drusus, assume that I am the stupidest person on the earth.
Done.
This does not relieve anybody from looking at that title critically. Say anything you like about me, but it is what it is.
True. And what it is is a description of an approach to critical thinking that Clutch has chosen to take in this essay. It is not some blanket statement equating critical thinking solely with a knowledge of biases. It's an angle, an aspect, a way of looking at things that many people, including your proudly ignorant ass, may not have considered before.

Articulate on that because critical thinking doesn't appear to be your forte.
Done.

[naturalist.atheist]

My comment about critical thinking being more than just a list of biases was a legitimate comment whether you agree with it or not and not withstanding personal evaluations of my ability to articulate.

If comments are not allowed here perhaps you should remove the functionality.

[viscousmemories]

Relevant comments are allowed on the articles. Intellectual masturbation belongs here.

[naturalist.atheist]

I moved the recent comments to the ancient discussion thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=202) created for that purpose.

So is no comment allowed when it come to Munny's "essays"?

[naturalist.atheist]

Relevant comments are allowed on the articles. Intellectual masturbation belongs here.

I suppose you are an expert in such things.

[livius drusus]

As we've explained to you before, we like to keep article comments pertinent to the substance. We have a whole Philosophy forum here for you to loudly proclaim your ignorance of and hatred for the subject.

In the unlikely event that you should actually address anything written in the articles rather than stopping at the titles and launching into your pet polemics, that comment will remain.

[viscousmemories]

It really isn't complicated. The comments section on the articles is for comments about the articles. When someone makes a comment that is relevant to an article, we'll leave it in place. When someone appears to be seeking discussion that is obviously irrelevant to the content of an article, we will move it to the forum for discussion.

[naturalist.atheist]

Pardon me for being suspicious but is Munny throwing a fit about comments cluttering up his precious essay or are you two just Munny worshipers. This fit of moderation is very odd.

[viscousmemories]

I can't speak for liv but I'm definitely a Munny worshipper.

[livius drusus]

Abject.

[naturalist.atheist]

Oh Clutch, thank you so much for this essay. I have learned so much about how you practice critical thinking.

[Clutch Munny]

Silly me. Clutch, I am sure you are far more brilliant and insightful when it comes to science and thinking than Feynman. What was I thinking!

Well, if we're off the article page, it's worth noting that I never claimed to be brilliant at all, never mind more brilliant than Feynman. All I said, as seebs observed, was that you didn't read, or didn't remotely comprehend, or (most likely, I suspect) just didn't care about accurately representing, Feynman's article.

Because if you think Feynman's speech/essay was meant to be scientific, then, by Feynman's own clearly stated position, it was the worst possible attempt at science -- since it gave no primary data, was based on a few anecdotes, cited no sources, suggested no alternative explanations... in short, did none of the things Feynman says science is supposed to do. So either

A. Feynman's article was meant to be a scientific approach to something or other, and Feynman was either the biggest dolt or the biggest hypocrite in recent scientific history; or

B. It was in no way meant to be an example of science, was rather meant as a set of anecdotal personal reflections about what he thought was important about scientific practice and wrong with pseudo-science; and you're talking utter shite.

Now, on inductive grounds at this point, we could be pretty confident in treating as true any statement along the lines of "Either P or Starboy is full of shit". But in this case "confident" seems to underdescribe the situation.

[Clutch Munny]

Clutch never claimed to be more insightful about... thinking than Feynman.

I didn't, but I certainly don't think there'd be anything outrageous about claiming this. Feynman was a physicist; he made no systematic study of cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, neurology, decision theory, or any other rigorous field involving human thinking. I have backgrounds in a few of these fields (no better and no worse a background than thousands of other academics, I should say). Had Feynman devoted himself to one or more of these fields, he might have become to cognition what he actually was to physics. But there's no reason to think his actual gifts in physics particularly enfranchise any opinions he ended up holding about reasoning, or biology, or economics, or morality, or philosophy.

In short, it is not hubris to suppose that people who actually study a field know more about it than savants in another field. Roger Penrose is a famously smart physicist; but you'd be nuts not to trust the relatively unfamous The Lone Ranger for biology facts over Penrose. Why? Well, it's simple: because Michael has studied biology, and Penrose hasn't.

[LadyShea]

Well, Clutch is a philosophy professor, so should have a pretty good grasp on thinking.

And Feynman won the Nobel Prize in physics as a co-inventor of QED. Take your pick.

As the essay is about thinking and not about physics, I choose Clutch on this one.

[Watser?]

No, as usual you haven't learned a goddamn thing, but we all have.

[naturalist.atheist]

Silly me. Clutch, I am sure you are far more brilliant and insightful when it comes to science and thinking than Feynman. What was I thinking!

Well, if we're off the article page, it's worth noting that I never claimed to be brilliant at all, never mind more brilliant than Feynman. All I said, as seebs observed, was that you didn't read, or didn't remotely comprehend, or (most likely, I suspect) just didn't care about accurately representing, Feynman's article.

Because if you think Feynman's speech/essay was meant to be scientific, then, by Feynman's own clearly stated position, it was the worst possible attempt at science -- since it gave no primary data, was based on a few anecdotes, cited no sources, suggested no alternative explanations... in short, did none of the things Feynman says science is supposed to do. So either

A. Feynman's article was meant to be a scientific approach to something or other, and Feynman was either the biggest dolt or the biggest hypocrite in recent scientific history; or

B. It was in no way meant to be an example of science, was rather meant as a set of anecdotal personal reflections about what he thought was important about scientific practice and wrong with pseudo-science; and you're talking utter shite.

Now, on inductive grounds at this point, we could be pretty confident in treating as true any statement along the lines of "Either P or Starboy is full of shit". But in this case "confident" seems to underdescribe the situation.

Feel better now. It is interesting that your response is mostly to attack the person.

I may be the stupidest person on the planet but an idea, no matter where it came from, must rest on its own merits. Because otherwise you are practicing bias.

Sorry if it bothers you that I think that critical thinking is more than avoiding a list of biases. You may not like the idea but it is a legitimate comment to your "article".

[Kael]

Still struggling mightily to completely miss the point, I see.

[naturalist.atheist]

Still struggling mightily to completely miss the point, I see.

Which point? My own point? Critical thinking is more than a list of biases. How in the world do you think that the biases were identified in the first place?

[Adam]

Divine revelation from our Lord Munny, probably.

[beyelzu]

Drusus, assume that I am the stupidest person on the earth.

it is generally best to make that assumption when dealing with you.

[beyelzu]

na,

for bonus points please detail how qed applies to human cognition and neurobiology.


for even extra bonus points explain how that comment wasnt a completely fallacious appeal to authority.

[naturalist.atheist]

beyelzu, do you kick puppies and drown kittens for fun?

[Kael]

Drusus, assume that I am the stupidest person on the earth.

it is generally best to make that assumption when dealing with you.
No, we know he can't be the stupidest person on earth, seeing as we have posters like Iacchus, Sovereign, and Michali on this very forum...

[Goliath]

Drusus, assume that I am the stupidest person on the earth.

it is generally best to make that assumption when dealing with you.
No, we know he can't be the stupidest person on earth, seeing as we have posters like Iacchus, Sovereign, and Michali on this very forum...

You're assuming that none of those three are :grey:.

"Take me to your ledger! I wish to meet the one you call 'President'."

"Don't you mean 'leader?'"

"Same thing, close enough, whatever...I need to find an enormous cup of coffee to put on my flying saucer."

[naturalist.atheist]

Drusus, assume that I am the stupidest person on the earth.

it is generally best to make that assumption when dealing with you.
No, we know he can't be the stupidest person on earth, seeing as we have posters like Iacchus, Sovereign, and Michali on this very forum...

It doesn't matter how stupid, smart, articulate, inarticulate, or whatever. If those things matter to you rather than the point being made then you are not thinking critically. It is a bias that apparently didn't make Munny's list so that would explain why so many people here just don't get it.

[beyelzu]

oh mighty critical thinker, grandpuppy of proclamations, please explain to this poor benighted poster how critical thinking arises from quantumelectro dynamics and the appropriate use of appeal to authority logical fallacies.

[beyelzu]

beyelzu, do you kick puppies and drown kittens for fun?

are you saying that you are as defenseless as a puppy or kitty?


Cuz I can totally see that, and i am starting to feel guilty about fucking with you.

[beyelzu]

Drusus, assume that I am the stupidest person on the earth.

it is generally best to make that assumption when dealing with you.
No, we know he can't be the stupidest person on earth, seeing as we have posters like Iacchus, Sovereign, and Michali on this very forum...

It doesn't matter how stupid, smart, articulate, inarticulate, or whatever. If those things matter to you rather than the point being made then you are not thinking critically. It is a bias that apparently didn't make Munny's list so that would explain why so many people here just don't get it.

also, I am not one to judge people on grammar or being articulate, those posters, much as yourself, all make shitty arguments and dont seem to understand basic argument structure. Further they consistently miss points much as you yourself do.

Yall should make a club.

Shitty posters of the world unite!!!!!!!

[LadyShea]

Sorry if it bothers you that I think that critical thinking is more than avoiding a list of biases.

Why yes, yes it is. Nobody has said it isn't.

The article hit upon one, single aspect of a larger topic. Nowhere did Clutch say "This is the entirety of critical thinking in 8 pages" or anything like that.

[naturalist.atheist]

Sorry if it bothers you that I think that critical thinking is more than avoiding a list of biases.

Why yes, yes it is. Nobody has said it isn't.

The article hit upon one, single aspect of a larger topic. Nowhere did Clutch say "This is the entirety of critical thinking in 8 pages" or anything like that.

Errr, did you read the title?

[beyelzu]

Puppy,


did you read anything other than the title?

[naturalist.atheist]

Puppy,


did you read anything other than the title?

Did you stop beating your wife?

[beyelzu]

hah we are just engaged and why would i stop sometimes she really deserves it.


stupid starboy iz stupid.

[beyelzu]

seriously though lets get back to what this thread is really about, how physics allows one to understand critical thinking and neurobiology.



hows that post coming along starpuppy?

[LadyShea]

Sorry if it bothers you that I think that critical thinking is more than avoiding a list of biases.

Why yes, yes it is. Nobody has said it isn't.

The article hit upon one, single aspect of a larger topic. Nowhere did Clutch say "This is the entirety of critical thinking in 8 pages" or anything like that.

Errr, did you read the title?

Yes, yes I did

livius covered that nicely
Also obvious is your ignorance of English grammar, or you would know that "x as a y" isn't some absurd blanket statement that x consists solely of y, but rather than in this particular treatment, x is being examined through the spectrum of y.

Maybe you are not familiar with this particular phrasing, but it's common.

I looked for a few examples and found the following
book "Literature as Exploration"
article "Literature as Equipment for Living"
Many references of the phrase "Fashion as art"

[naturalist.atheist]

Sorry if it bothers you that I think that critical thinking is more than avoiding a list of biases.

Why yes, yes it is. Nobody has said it isn't.

The article hit upon one, single aspect of a larger topic. Nowhere did Clutch say "This is the entirety of critical thinking in 8 pages" or anything like that.

Errr, did you read the title?

Yes, yes I did

livius covered that nicely
Also obvious is your ignorance of English grammar, or you would know that "x as a y" isn't some absurd blanket statement that x consists solely of y, but rather than in this particular treatment, x is being examined through the spectrum of y.

Maybe you are not familiar with this particular phrasing, but it's common.

I looked for a few examples and found the following
book "Literature as Exploration"
article "Literature as Equipment for Living"
Many references of the phrase "Fashion as art"

I understand the reference but perhaps you should brush up on English grammar yourself. To say "Literature as Exploration" is to imply that literature is a kind of exploration. or that literature is a kind of equipment for living. So to apply that to the title would imply that Critical Thinking is a kind of Knowledge of Biases, which frankly is just stupid. Critical Thinking can help one detect biases but it is not simply a knowledge of biases. That is getting the cart before the horse.

[Kael]

Damn, how much effort does it take to be that doggedly insistent about something that no one is claiming? This isn't mickthinks hijacking your account, is it?

[Doctor X]

This isn't mickthinks hijacking your account, is it?

I am reporting your Bullying of mickthinks.

:offended:

--J.D.

[Clutch Munny]

Silly me. Clutch, I am sure you are far more brilliant and insightful when it comes to science and thinking than Feynman. What was I thinking!

It is interesting that your response is mostly to attack the person.

Apparently, 'smugnorance' needs a corollary: 'stupocrisy'.

[Wonderbread Leotard]

Notice how Kael attempts to paint me as very stupid, yet he has never established that I am stupid at all. Want to go by IQ? From some of his past posts Kael apparently embraces it as a measure. Well, mine is significantly above average. Intellectual curiosity? Mine always has been high. Literacy? Strong. Vocabulary? Far above average. If I am stupid at all, let alone very stupid, why did Ensign Steve assess me as smart? If what Liar Kael is saying were true, that would mean ES is an awful judge of character. In fact, she's a good one. She was being honest, while Kael is being his usual lying self. Notice also that when Texas Lynn observed that I'm articulate, Kael implied that articulateness and intelligence have nothing to do with one another! He's clearly out of his depth when he talks about intelligence. Indeed, according to Kael, I'm somehow one of the stupidest people in the world when I was already reading PhD level history books as a 13 year old - and enjoying it. According to Liar Kael, that doesn't have anything to do with intelligence, either. Considering how determined Kael is to mangle the truth, let's hope that someday his own body is maimed in an accident. That would be extremely fitting.

PS: And Iacchus and Michali? Liar Kael just wants to cause them psychological pain. He has offered no evidence that their IQs are subnormal, let alone very low.

No, we know he can't be the stupidest person on earth, seeing as we have posters like Iacchus, Sovereign, and Michali on this very forum...

[Wonderbread Leotard]

also, I am not one to judge people on grammar or being articulate, those posters, much as yourself, all make shitty arguments and dont seem to understand basic argument structure. Further they consistently miss points much as you yourself do.Your kneejerk emotional reaction to my ideas precludes for you an honest assessment of my argumentation. I've debated people with strong academic backgrounds in logic and their assessments of my ability are nowhere close to yours. If only you'd get past being just a dishonestly sadistic asshole trying and failing to run me down, then perhaps we could have some real debates like you claimed to want. You'd need to get past thinking that essentially repeating "ur an evil tard" over and over is the acme of sound argumentation. I believe you have the potential.

Hah, "miss points?" I make points. And one good point I've made is that threads like these are venues for figuratively ganging up on people and attempting to cause them psychological pain for your own pleasure. And bask in your own hypocritical self-righteousness as you watch them suffer. Suffering that could lead to depression, to suicide, and so forth. No offense intended toward them, but a couple of those guys you are beating up on seem a bit on the unstable side. They're at heightened risk of exploding or melting down from being mentally traumatized by you and certain others here.

So why condemn me for my honest sadism when you are a dishonest sadist yourself?

[LadyShea]

Nobody gives a shit about IQ. Some people with very high IQs are stupid in a number of ways.

My uncle was assigned to assist a brilliant physicist who wouldn't dress or feed himself without being prompted.

And what's with the name dropping? ES is a very good friend of mine, but I don't give a shit if she once said something nice about you. It doesn't affect my personal opinion.

[Smilin]

I think that was my physics teacher in college....

The guy would get so preoccupied in his lectures he'd actually write off the blackboard and onto the classroom wall.

[Wonderbread Leotard]

Nobody gives a shit about IQ.You could quickly find out otherwise with a few searches of Google, or by considering that the lines and levels of mental retardation are often demarcated by IQ. However, I am something of an IQ skeptic myself. I've previously mentioned as much on here.
Some people with very high IQs are stupid in a number of ways. My uncle was assigned to assist a brilliant physicist who wouldn't dress or feed himself without being prompted.I haven't argued otherwise. I brought up IQ because I've seen Kael mention that he finds it a fairly solid measure of intelligence. Therefore, my relatively high IQ clashes with his claim that I'm one of the stupidest people in the world. Anyway, my skepticism re: IQ is probably even stronger than yours. Let's put IQ aside for now. Let's consider intellectual curiosity: Indeed, according to Kael, I'm somehow one of the stupidest people in the world when I was already reading PhD level history books as a 13 year old - and enjoying it.Does the above strike you as compatible with me being stupid, let alone among the stupidest people in the world? In Kael's fantasy world that is what kids with profound mental retardation do: among other things, they stay up all night reading history books and encyclopedias! He needs to learn to accept that someone can have a different moral worldview without being stupid at all, let alone mentally retarded. His attitude is seriously bigoted - in the sense of being obstinately devoted to prejudice, in this case against me. He reminds me of some Christians who claim that "true" intelligence is impossible in an atheist mind. Also keep in mind that he never says I'm stupid in some ways but smart in others, as you describe the physicist. Instead, he says I'm stupid or among the stupidest people in the world. He's also claimed that I lack thought process altogether. He's never explained how a thoughtless, stupid or mentally retarded person could write as I do.

[livius drusus]

It was a flame, not a scholastic aptitude assessment. You have repeatedly called multiple people on this forum "retards". Did you actually think that Watser?, who speaks 4 languages fluently that I know of and possibly more, and rigorist, a practicing attorney, are mentally retarded? I doubt it.

If you want to strike back at everyone and anyone who has ever made a dig at you, that's fine, but this hyperliteral high dudgeon doesn't really suit given your own flaming record.

Meanwhile, why not read the article being discussed and express your opinion of it? That might be a more effective way of telegraphing your putative intelligence than simply declaiming it.

[Adam]

I have a better idea. Why not just read the title of the article being discussed and then go on a tirade about how it doesn't encapsulate, in six words, the entire breadth of its subject? It's a popular activity that's really catching on with the kids at the :ff:!

[LadyShea]

Why are you even here Sovereign? We aren't worth your time, remember.

[Smilin]

If you want to strike back at everyone and anyone who has ever made a dig at you, that's fine, but this hyperliteral high dudgeon doesn't really suit given your own flaming record.

Ya'll are keeping records?:gasp:

[Kael]

That's fucking hilarious. He even brings his whining here.
It was a flame, not a scholastic aptitude assessment. You have repeatedly called multiple people on this forum "retards".
Srsly. You'd think someone with such a propensity for flaming would not only recognize it but also have a bit of a thicker skin.

And yes, they're keeping records Smilin', you tard.
:D

[Smilin]

I thought that was turd? :grin:

[seebs]

Sov, you got a number for that "above average" IQ? You can't have a dick-sizing contest without numbers.

[BDS]

Indeed, according to Kael, I'm somehow one of the stupidest people in the world when I was already reading PhD level history books as a 13 year old - and enjoying it. ]

I was reading PhD. level history books when I was 2 and ½, although I didn’t enjoy it. In fact, I just did it to show off. When nobody was looking I went back to reading “Harold and the Purple Crayon” and “Where the Wild Things Are.”

(By the way, what is “PhD. Level”? I know people talk about a 2nd grader reading at an 8th grade level, but I’m not sure “PhD. Level” is an official designation of reading skill. PhD.s are generally awarded for WRITING, not reading.)

[Adam]

My mom used to make money for blow by vaginally inserting a pencil, some paper, and a tiny booklight so I could write doctoral theses in the womb, which she would then sell. You're welcome, Dr. Feynman.

[Watser?]

:rofl:

[Clutch Munny]

:lolhog: :heart:s Adam.

[LadyShea]

Look up the Theory of Multiple Intelligences

[naturalist.atheist]

Damn, how much effort does it take to be that doggedly insistent about something that no one is claiming? This isn't mickthinks hijacking your account, is it?

I don't suppose you are making any claims about Munny's article but Munny makes claims both in the title and in the opening paragraphs of that article.

I contend that the best way to master skeptical or critical thought is, first, by understanding the biases that affect human thinking; second, by attending to the behaviour of oneself and others, as a matter of sheer reflexive habit, in order to recognize these biases at work; and third, to leave open always the element of doubt introduced by the knowledge that many such biases are invisible.

Now Munny is free to think and claim anything he cares to. That is fine with me. My major point of interest is why comments that disagree with Munny’s article are whisked away and only saccharine and complementary comments are allowed to stand. On other forums it would make sense, but at FF it is just too singular a phenomenon and is very interesting given the stated policies of the forum. It seems to be the height of bias.

[naturalist.atheist]

Silly me. Clutch, I am sure you are far more brilliant and insightful when it comes to science and thinking than Feynman. What was I thinking!

It is interesting that your response is mostly to attack the person.

Apparently, 'smugnorance' needs a corollary: 'stupocrisy'.

Don't hold back on my account. It is a typical philosophical argument.

[naturalist.atheist]

Let's see how long this stands.

No, as usual you haven't learned a goddamn thing, but we all have.

But my guess is that it is also very philosophical.

[Wonderbread Leotard]

Why are you even here Sovereign? We aren't worth your time, remember.For one, because I've found that not all here are a waste. There's a clique characterized by self-righteous hypocrisy, dishonest sadism, and an often-blind group mentality, but not everyone here really is absorbed into it. I've gotten some new friendly and interesting contacts here and I'm sure I'll get more.

Do you have an answer to the following?Indeed, according to Kael, I'm somehow one of the stupidest people in the world when I was already reading PhD level history books as a 13 year old - and enjoying it.Does the above strike you as compatible with me being stupid, let alone among the stupidest people in the world? In Kael's fantasy world that is what kids with profound mental retardation do: among other things, they stay up all night reading history books and encyclopedias! He needs to learn to accept that someone can have a different moral worldview without being stupid at all, let alone mentally retarded. His attitude is seriously bigoted - in the sense of being obstinately devoted to prejudice, in this case against me. He reminds me of some Christians who claim that "true" intelligence is impossible in an atheist mind. Also keep in mind that he never says I'm stupid in some ways but smart in others, as you describe the physicist. Instead, he says I'm stupid or among the stupidest people in the world. He's also claimed that I lack thought process altogether. He's never explained how a thoughtless, stupid or mentally retarded person could write as I do.

[naturalist.atheist]

No, as usual you haven't learned a goddamn thing, but we all have.

I am sure there is no bias there.

[naturalist.atheist]

There's a clique characterized by self-righteous hypocrisy, dishonest sadism, and an often-blind group mentality,...

Now that you mention it there is a sort of high school quality to the social groups here.

[naturalist.atheist]

So I can't even post positive comments here? It is one thing to remove the derogatory comments and snide remarks about my comment but to remove the positive comment is out and out biased. Please explain this.

[livius drusus]

It was blatantly sarcastic, but I would have left if it hadn't resulted in a stupid little flamewar. Stupid little flamewars belong here.

[naturalist.atheist]

It was blatantly sarcastic, but I would have left if it hadn't resulted in a stupid little flamewar. Stupid little flamewars belong here.

You are so biased that you incapable of showing any kind of charity at all.

Choke on it.

[livius drusus]

Wotcha.

[naturalist.atheist]

Wotcha.

Your bias is your problem. You did read Munny's essay?

[livius drusus]

In great detail. Did you?

[naturalist.atheist]

In great detail. Did you?

Then read the second paragraph.

[livius drusus]

Done. Now, a simple yes or no will suffice. Have you read the article?

[naturalist.atheist]

Done. Now, a simple yes or no will suffice. Have you read the article?

I read the first page and skimmed the rest. The first page outlines Munny's concept of critical thinking and the rest lists several biases. What is your point? Will studying it change the content of the essay?

[livius drusus]

Thank you for finally admitting you haven't read it. Amazing, albeit hardly surprising, it took so long. Anyhoo, you might want to "re"read the first page again, specifically paragraphs 4 and 5 to understand why your accusation that I am biased against doesn't obviate my understanding Clutch's article.

Here, I'll quote it for the people who actually read things before spouting off about them (emphasis mine):

First, however, a note on how I will be using the term "bias". In common parlance this term has universally negative connotations. I will not be using it in that way. A bias, as I use the term, is simply a factor that predisposes one to reach a particular kind of judgment. In itself, this is neither good nor bad. Most often, though, it is good. We could hardly be the thinking machines we are, were we not biased to pare away the huge number of irrelevant judgements and inferences surrounding any daily action or decision, inferences that a more open-minded system would have to crunch through, somehow, in real time. (Which is why it is so incredibly difficult to build computers that mimic our reasoning skills, even though their inference-crunching capacity is, in some obvious respects, vastly superior to our own. The trick is to engineer the right, and enough, overlapping biases to restrict the class of relevant inferences in any particular case. And it turns out to be a very difficult trick indeed.)

Biases get a bad reputation because they tend not to come to our attention unless something has gone wrong with them. In this way the term has acquired the connotation of a pure prejudice, often with overtones of racism, misogyny, and the like. Since I am discussing critical thinking, I too will be disproportionately interested in the cases in which something goes wrong. But understanding those cases, understanding how they go wrong, requires a broader conception of biases as systematic shapers of our thought, normally for better and occasionally for worse.

[naturalist.atheist]

I understand that Munny referred to biases as a kinda shortcut that for most people and situations works well enough. I have no problem with that. But Munny in that second paragraph makes claims about Critical Thinking. That has always been my point of contention.

If he wants to change the title and rewrite that first page to make the essay more in line with an exploration of biases and their strengths and weaknesses that would be fine but that is not how he starts off.

Now you may not agree with this, but it is a legitimate comment that for some reason you are too biased to allow to stand.

[Deadl0kd]

Why are you even here Sovereign? We aren't worth your time, remember.For one, because I've found that not all here are a waste. There's a clique characterized by self-righteous hypocrisy, dishonest sadism, and an often-blind group mentality, but not everyone here really is absorbed into it. I've gotten some new friendly and interesting contacts here and I'm sure I'll get more.Your an evil vicious man and I'm going to put you on ignore. I'm going to put you on ignore. You should be like Australians, good people who genocided the flea infestated aborigines. Aborigines are paedophiles. Japs are paedos too look at their porn. I wish 1000 atom bombs could of been dropped on the japs. Your on ignore fucktard.

[Qingdai]

Well that isn't transparently obvious at all.
:rolleye1:

[Adam]

:lolwut:

[Kael]

Classy.

[Angakuk]

Do you have an answer to the following?Indeed, according to Kael, I'm somehow one of the stupidest people in the world when I was already reading PhD level history books as a 13 year old - and enjoying it.Does the above strike you as compatible with me being stupid, let alone among the stupidest people in the world?

Expecting anyone here to lend any credence to your unattested testimonials about your own awesomeness is pretty compatible with your being one of the stupidist people in the world.

[erimir]

I haven't read the whole article, Clutch, but I (as you might expect) was interested in the examples involving language, so I checked them out.

The video you now have up for the McGurk effect didn't work very well for me, since I actually heard it mostly as "ba ba", altho I could hear it as "da da" if I didn't look at the movie as closely.

This movie, on the other hand, worked perfectly well:
YouTube - The McGurk effect

[beyelzu]

It was blatantly sarcastic, but I would have left if it hadn't resulted in a stupid little flamewar. Stupid little flamewars belong here.

You are so biased that you incapable of showing any kind of charity at all.

Choke on it.

starpuppy, I asked you upthread if you wanted to dance, you have thus far been ducking me again.


afraid of being humiliated by the ape that is beyelzu again?


I understand your fear, but I will be gentle and use lube.


Bend over and take it like man.

[Clutch Munny]

Thanks, erimir. That's a great video, but I didn't want to use it, in case it disappeared. So I put my own together -- very haphazardly!

[viscousmemories]

I read the first page and skimmed the rest.
Ladies and gentlemen, a self-proclaimed "scientist".

[Adam]

Do you have an answer to the following?Indeed, according to Kael, I'm somehow one of the stupidest people in the world when I was already reading PhD level history books as a 13 year old - and enjoying it.Does the above strike you as compatible with me being stupid, let alone among the stupidest people in the world? In Kael's fantasy world that is what kids with profound mental retardation do: among other things, they stay up all night reading history books and encyclopedias! He needs to learn to accept that someone can have a different moral worldview without being stupid at all, let alone mentally retarded. His attitude is seriously bigoted - in the sense of being obstinately devoted to prejudice, in this case against me. He reminds me of some Christians who claim that "true" intelligence is impossible in an atheist mind. Also keep in mind that he never says I'm stupid in some ways but smart in others, as you describe the physicist. Instead, he says I'm stupid or among the stupidest people in the world. He's also claimed that I lack thought process altogether. He's never explained how a thoughtless, stupid or mentally retarded person could write as I do.

For the love of fuck:

It was a flame, not a scholastic aptitude assessment. You have repeatedly called multiple people on this forum "retards". Did you actually think that Watser?, who speaks 4 languages fluently that I know of and possibly more, and rigorist, a practicing attorney, are mentally retarded? I doubt it.

I'm sure Kael is very sorry that he injured your poor feelings on the internet. In the future, I'm positive he'll take greater care to ensure that his flames are all literally accurate. Hey, on that topic, what's your momma's weight like? I have some real zingers about what happens when she sits around the house, but I wouldn't want to suggest anything counterfactual in the course of flaming you.

[LadyShea]

For one, because I've found that not all here are a waste. There's a clique characterized by self-righteous hypocrisy, dishonest sadism, and an often-blind group mentality, but not everyone here really is absorbed into it. I've gotten some new friendly and interesting contacts here and I'm sure I'll get more.


You stopped name dropping. Does this mean you are lying, or you now realize that appealing to "popular" people is kinda sad?


Do you have an answer to the following?Indeed, according to Kael, I'm somehow one of the stupidest people in the world when I was already reading PhD level history books as a 13 year old - and enjoying it.Does the above strike you as compatible with me being stupid, let alone among the stupidest people in the world?

You made an unverifiable assertion about one kind of intelligence. I am not impressed. Read up on emotional, social, intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligence.

In Kael's fantasy world that is what kids with profound mental retardation do: among other things, they stay up all night reading history books and encyclopedias!

He didn't say you were profoundly mentally retarded, that would be a clinical diagnosis based on IQ that Kael is not qualified to make, and I dare say doesn't give a shit about. He thinks you're stupid, based on your ideas and the way you express yourself here.

You're fighting a strawman with the whole IQ line of response.

[mickthinks]

... that would be a clinical diagnosis based on IQ that Kael is not qualified to make ...

LOL You make it sound like that kind of thing never happens here, LS?
:chin:

[Watser?]

Wow, we have the whole set of forum clowns in here now :clownlaugh:

[LadyShea]

... that would be a clinical diagnosis based on IQ that Kael is not qualified to make ...

LOL You make it sound like that kind of thing never happens here, LS?
:chin:

Nope, it doesn't. Saying "I think you may be autistic, due to X, Y, Z and should be tested" is not a clinical diagnosis, it's a statement of opinion.

However, in this case, it's a complete strawman anyway. Kael did not say "I think you may be profoundly mentally retarded and should be tested", he said "You're stupid". It's a flame, not an assessment.

[BDS]

When I was 10, I read a PhD. level autobiography of Joe Pepitone (former Yankee and Cub firstbasemen, for you youngsters). I enjoyed it, especially the parts about Pepitone hanging out with Frank Sinatra.

If that doesn't demonstrate intellectual curiosity I don't know what does!

[naturalist.atheist]

I read the first page and skimmed the rest.
Ladies and gentlemen, a self-proclaimed "scientist".

There is just too much for me to read to not skim most of the time. Besides Munny has not presented anything about biases that has not been said before. But whether I am a "self-proclaimed scientist" or not, I find it very interesting just how biased you are. Say anything you like about me, your actions speak volumes about yourself.

[Adam]

:lol:

I don't have time to read the essay, but I do have time to pontificate at length about how wrong it is.

[naturalist.atheist]

Adam what exactly is going on here? Are you relieving yourself of any obligation to honestly consider the comment by denigrating the person? That is what it looks like.

[Adam]

No, atheist, I'm pointing out that "I didn't have time" is a poor excuse for not having read the article when you've clearly spent quite a bit of time arguing about it.

[naturalist.atheist]

No, atheist, I'm pointing out that "I didn't have time" is a poor excuse for not having read the article when you've clearly spent quite a bit of time arguing about it.

This thread was not created because I read the first page and skimmed the rest. It was created because for some reason I am not allowed to comment about what I did read. That even a positive comment is whisked away. That is far more interesting and significant than whether I skim or not.

[beyelzu]

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN.


See adam, the issue isnt how full of shit he is, if he is in fact full of shit. Rahter its the horrible bias of socalled critical thinkers and the horror of having a comment moved.

[beyelzu]

No, atheist, I'm pointing out that "I didn't have time" is a poor excuse for not having read the article when you've clearly spent quite a bit of time arguing about it.

This thread was not created because I read the first page and skimmed the rest. It was created because for some reason I am not allowed to comment about what I did read. That even a positive comment is whisked away. That is far more interesting and significant than whether I skim or not.

and yet, I can find your comments myself, starpuppy.

hmm, i think it might be time for you to shift goalposts again.

[livius drusus]

This thread was created 5 years ago for discussion of the article, actually. Looks like n.a didn't read the first post, nevermind the first page, of this one either.

[Adam]

OH SNAP!

[naturalist.atheist]

beyelzu, what are you talking about? I am referring to comments under the article.

I didn't start this thread. Some of my comments were moved here.

Now you may think and say anything you like about me or my comments but what is going on here makes the FF slogan and the people who run this place look like a joke.

I don't run this place and that is not my slogan. If they are not willing to allow me to think what I like and say what I think in the articles then perhaps they should remove the ability to post comments or change their slogan and policies to accurately reflect their moderation.

[naturalist.atheist]

This thread was created 5 years ago for discussion of the article, actually. Looks like n.a didn't read the first post, nevermind the first page, of this one either.

Why would that matter regarding my ability to think what I like and say what I think?

[naturalist.atheist]

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN.


See adam, the issue isnt how full of shit he is, if he is in fact full of shit. Rahter its the horrible bias of socalled critical thinkers and the horror of having a comment moved.

Finally you have posted something that is remotely related to what I have been saying. Because frankly if they will allow you to spew the crap you do so often just about anywhere you like then I have no idea why they moved my comments from the article no matter how old it is or what they think of those comments. As far as I know there is no statute of limitation on how recent a thread must be in order to make a post.

[LadyShea]

Why would that matter regarding my ability to think what I like and say what I think?

Has your ability to do so been hampered? No, simply moved to the more appropriate article discussion thread that was already in place.

[naturalist.atheist]

Why would that matter regarding my ability to think what I like and say what I think?

Has your ability to do so been hampered? No, simply moved to the more appropriate article discussion thread that was already in place.

It is hampered in as much as the comment is not left on the article itself. Frankly if the proprietors only allow congratulatory remarks to be made on the article they should remove the ability to post and replace it with a rating selection of "good, great, awesome, fantastic". [And based on what I have seen of their "Critical Thinking" abilities, they probably won't see anything wrong with that.]

[LadyShea]

I am going out on a limb and stating that had you worded your comment as constructive criticism, rather than a flame, it wouldn't have been moved.

Since your bitch appears to be the title, perhaps you could have commented
"I feel the title is confusing/misleading, might I suggest X"

[Kael]

This is hilarious. Almost as good as Sov's meltdown. Today is a good day for lulz.

[beyelzu]

I am going out on a limb and stating that had you worded your comment as constructive criticism, rather than a flame, it wouldn't have been moved.

Since your bitch appears to be the title, perhaps you could have commented
"I feel the title is confusing/misleading, might I suggest X"

He probalby would have bitched about more if he had read it.

[LadyShea]

And I am pretty comfortable on that limb, BTW, because I know livius and how she admins.

[livius drusus]

Or even if he had just posted a critique of the substance of the article, rather than project some non-existent absolute meaning onto the title and furiously debate a position nobody, much less Clutch, holds.

That sort of content-free obsessiveness is fine for threads. Lucky for him, we don't moderate the forum for pertinence, reading comprehension, or even just plain reading.

In the articles section, however, we've chosen to keep things clean and relevant. That's why I started this thread for open discussion 5 years ago.

[naturalist.atheist]

I am going out on a limb and stating that had you worded your comment as constructive criticism, rather than a flame, it wouldn't have been moved.

Since your bitch appears to be the title, perhaps you could have commented
"I feel the title is confusing/misleading, might I suggest X"

Frankly most of the bitching appears to be from people who seem to think that I should not ask about what is going on with the moderation. Because no matter what comment I make it is removed. And the tone and content of the comment itself should not matter if the people that run this place take their slogan seriously.

I find this whole thing fascinating, and your response to it simply adds to to it since a post by me any place else on this forum would most likely not elicit any interest from you about it at all.

[beyelzu]

hey na, i think we should wait another five years, maybe by then you will have read the article and we can actually talk about it.

[naturalist.atheist]

Or even if he had just posted a critique of the substance of the article, rather than project some non-existent absolute meaning onto the title and furiously debate a position nobody, much less Clutch, holds.

That sort of content-free obsessiveness is fine for threads. Lucky for him, we don't moderate the forum for pertinence, reading comprehension, or even just plain reading.

In the articles section, however, we've chosen to keep things clean and relevant. That's why I started this thread for open discussion 5 years ago.

If you are gonna change the rules of moderation then perhaps you should update the FAQ.

[naturalist.atheist]

hey na, i think we should wait another five years, maybe by then you will have read the article and we can actually talk about it.

It is funny that it took you five years to read it and comment on it and that only happened after I made a comment. That is odd.

[beyelzu]

and yet 5 years is still quicker than you, want me to help with the reading, starpuppy?

[Adam]

...a post by me any place else on this forum would most likely not elicit any interest from you about it at all.

Hey, now you're catching on. Unlike the rest of the forum, where you can say whatever the fuck you please, comments on the articles are supposed to be relevant to the articles themselves. Much like the last time you complained because you had a comment you made on an article moved to an open thread, it is entirely clear that you did not read the article in question before using it as a pretext to engage in freeform philosophy bashing. If you had done so, and made a comment that actually addressed something in the article to which you responded (other than your goofy misinterpretation of the title, anyway), your comment would still be there.

[naturalist.atheist]

...a post by me any place else on this forum would most likely not elicit any interest from you about it at all.

Hey, now you're catching on. Unlike the rest of the forum, where you can say whatever the fuck you please, comments on the articles are supposed to be relevant to the articles themselves. Much like the last time you complained because you had a comment you made on an article moved to an open thread, it is entirely clear that you did not read the article in question before using it as a pretext to engage in freeform philosophy bashing. If you had done so, and made a comment that actually addressed something in the article to which you responded (other than your goofy misinterpretation of the title, anyway), your comment would still be there.

Hey, it is not my forum. If that is the rule then change the FAQ and amend the slogan, otherwise I have a legitimate point.

If I found the posting on this forum to follow your idea that comments should actually address something then you might have a point, but you don't even follow that sentiment. Why hold me to something not even you follow. Be that as it may, my comment did address the essay, you just don't agree with it. Unless you are saying that the rules are that only comments that Adam likes should be allowed then you are just bitching.

Again, if there is a moderation rule here in question then the FAQ and slogan should reflect this otherwise what has happened is not consistent with much of anything that happens here.

[beyelzu]

and yet 5 years is still quicker than you, want me to help with the reading, starpuppy?

quoted cuz starpuppy must have missed it.

[naturalist.atheist]

and yet 5 years is still quicker than you, want me to help with the reading, starpuppy?

Still beating your girlfriend? Or just beating your meat?

[beyelzu]

look, he knows how to use loaded questions, mostly starpuppy, the gf beats my meat after I beat her.


dont you know anything?

[naturalist.atheist]

look, he knows how to use loaded questions, mostly starpuppy, the gf beats my meat after I beat her.


dont you know anything?

Since making and asking loaded statements and questions is the brunt of your posting style I thought I would respond with the same. But don't let me stop you from at least trying to make statements as if you actually wanted to learn anything about anybody or anything.

[Adam]

Hey, it is not my forum. If that is the rule then change the FAQ and amend the slogan, otherwise I have a legitimate point.

Change it to what? The FAQ doesn't say anything about the Articles section. I guess if you think it should include an Infrequently Asked Question about whether or not you're allowed to post off topic garbage in the article comments, that's valid, I guess, but it doesn't seem to mystify anyone but you.

If I found the posting on this forum to follow your idea that comments should actually address something then you might have a point, but you don't even follow that sentiment. Why hold me to something not even you follow.

Seriously, did you bother to read even the post to which you are responding? Do you understand the difference between a thread on the forum and a comment on an article? Or is that difference as exotic and difficult to comprehend as the distinction between a PM and an open thread at IIDB?

Be that as it may, my comment did address the essay, you just don't agree with it. Unless you are saying that the rules are that only comments that Adam likes should be allowed then you are just bitching.

No, your comment did not address anything actually written in the essay. Your comment assumed that the title was intended to indicate that "Knowledge of Biases" was synonymous with "Critical Thinking" and was devoted to attacking that position. Note that the position you attacked is not presented anywhere in the essay

[LadyShea]

If you are gonna change the rules of moderation then perhaps you should update the FAQ.


I'll give him this one, liv.

This here page
Freethought Forum - Powered by vBulletin (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/ffintro.php?do=ffother)
says article comments are not moderated. Just remove that sentence and voila, problem solved

[Adam]

How do you get to that page? It isn't the FAQ.

[naturalist.atheist]

Hey, it is not my forum. If that is the rule then change the FAQ and amend the slogan, otherwise I have a legitimate point.

Change it to what? The FAQ doesn't say anything about the Articles section. I guess if you think it should include an Infrequently Asked Question about whether or not you're allowed to post off topic garbage in the article comments, that's valid, I guess, but it doesn't seem to mystify anyone but you.

If I found the posting on this forum to follow your idea that comments should actually address something then you might have a point, but you don't even follow that sentiment. Why hold me to something not even you follow.

Seriously, did you bother to read even the post to which you are responding? Do you understand the difference between a thread on the forum and a comment on an article? Or is that difference as exotic and difficult to comprehend as the distinction between a PM and an open thread at IIDB?

Be that as it may, my comment did address the essay, you just don't agree with it. Unless you are saying that the rules are that only comments that Adam likes should be allowed then you are just bitching.

No, your comment did not address anything actually written in the essay. Your comment assumed that the title was intended to indicate that "Knowledge of Biases" was synonymous with "Critical Thinking" and was devoted to attacking that position. Note that the position you attacked is not presented anywhere in the essay

Adam why are you bitching about this. The FAQ says article comments are unmoderated. I did address the article you just don't like it.

[LadyShea]

How do you get to that page? It isn't the FAQ.
Archway > Freethought Forum Rules and Information > Other Features

[livius drusus]

If you are gonna change the rules of moderation then perhaps you should update the FAQ.
I'll give him this one, liv.

This here page
Freethought Forum - Powered by vBulletin (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/ffintro.php?do=ffother)
says article comments are not moderated. Just remove that sentence and voila, problem solved
True enough. It's high time we updated all those pages anyway.

Edit: vm reminds me that what we meant by that line was that comments do not go into a moderation queue like articles do, not that we don't reserve the right to move them as we see fit. The entire paragraph is about the submission procedure for articles, how they go into the moderation queue after submission until we approve them for posting.

So to clarify, we'll change that line to "Comments post automatically instead of going into a moderation queue, but we reserve the right to move/delete/whatever them as we see fit."

On a side note, it's pretty amusing that n.a, who is way too busy to actually read an article before commenting on it, has so thoroughly perused our FAQ. :lol:

[Adam]

The FAQ says article comments are unmoderated.

Technically, the FAQ says no such thing, but as LS pointed out, there is another page that does make that claim, so granted.

I did address the article you just don't like it.

Your dogged insistence, after admitting that you have not read the article in question, that you reallyreallyreally did address it in your comment is simply adorable. You took issue with the notion that "Critical thinking is...a list of biases you should avoid", a notion that is expressed nowhere in the article but which you, for some reason, inferred from the title, which appears to be the only thing you bothered to read.

[Sock Puppet]

I get the impression that the statement about comments not being moderated is more of a warning than a promise, anyway.

[livius drusus]

Pretty much. We've always been strict with article comments, otherwise we wouldn't have been starting threads for open discussion since 10 days after the forum opened.

[naturalist.atheist]

The FAQ says article comments are unmoderated.

Technically, the FAQ says no such thing, but as LS pointed out, there is another page that does make that claim, so granted.

I did address the article you just don't like it.

Your dogged insistence, after admitting that you have not read the article in question, that you reallyreallyreally did address it in your comment is simply adorable. You took issue with the notion that "Critical thinking is...a list of biases you should avoid", a notion that is expressed nowhere in the article but which you, for some reason, inferred from the title, which appears to be the only thing you bothered to read.

Look if you are gonna hold me to reading the entire article then you should hold yourself to the same standard and read all my posts. Because if you did you would know that I read more than just the title.

You are still bitching.

[mickthinks]

... that would be a clinical diagnosis based on IQ that Kael is not qualified to make ...

LOL You make it sound like that kind of thing never happens here, LS?
:chin:

Nope, it doesn't.
:orly:No, you're just autistic. Seriously ...
Mick is probably retarded.
It's totally unprofessional to diagnose people over the internet. Luckily, I'm not a professional, so I can do it!

You sure?

[Kael]

Yep. None of those are qualified clinical diagnoses.

[mickthinks]

Spot on, dude! (Something tells me you've missed the point here entirely.)

[Kael]

I guess I have. It seemed to my lazy skimming that LS was commenting on the fact that I was flaming someone, rather than offering up an official diagnosis, while you were wondering if LS thought official diagnoses were never offered here (with the apparent unstated opinion that they are). If that's right and those were intended to be examples of where official diagnoses were offered, then I disagree because to me those are all statements of opinion. In the last one seebs is clearly being ironic.

If I have missed something here, feel free to bring it up sporadically for the next few years.

[LadyShea]

Yes Mick, seebs and others are pretty convinced you are autistic based on laymen's experience and research. He has suggested multiple times that you seek a qualified evaluation and diagnosis, as he knows he isn't a professional. Whether you accept it or not, seebs is trying to help you, and I was seeking to aid our communication when I mentioned it originally...because i think if we communicated better I would benefit from some of what you might have to say.

I am almost convinced Iacchus is schizophrenic, but I have never mentioned it before now because I don't really care about communicating with him.

Nobody has claimed Sovereign is mentally retarded and should seek a qualified evaluation, they called him stupid.

[erimir]

Now that you mention it (about Iacchus)... I could totally see that. I mean, I really don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me.

[Iacchus]

I am almost convinced Iacchus is schizophrenic, but I have never mentioned it before now because I don't really care about communicating with him.So, when we talk to God, we are praying but, when God talks to us, we are schizophrenic? There appears to be a contradiction here somewhere.

[Iacchus]

Now that you mention it (about Iacchus)... I could totally see that. I mean, I really don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me.Hey, I just happened to notice your time stamp: 10 + 01 = 11. Well, we are (at least I am) in the 11th hour anyway. :)

[Qingdai]

Hmm. Not a contradiction at all.

Come to think of it, when my mother had an episode when she thought the TV was watching her, and she was hearing voices, that was clearly considered a sign of psychosis by her doctor.

[Iacchus]

The point being is that there is either something there or there isn't. And we're not going to find out just by listening to the sound of our own voice ... unless of course that's all it is.

Whereas when we begin to hear voices, that isn't to say the spirits are not communicating with us. However, we make a mistake when we begin to think this is actually God talking to us. More often than not, it isn't. At which point, yes, it becomes evidence of our psychosis.

[Qingdai]

If you hear spirits talking to you, I suggest you bring it up with a mental health professional, if you want a diagnosis.

[beyelzu]

look, he knows how to use loaded questions, mostly starpuppy, the gf beats my meat after I beat her.


dont you know anything?

Since making and asking loaded statements and questions is the brunt of your posting style I thought I would respond with the same. But don't let me stop you from at least trying to make statements as if you actually wanted to learn anything about anybody or anything.

dude, i want to learn plenty from everyone.

Teach me how christians started slavery again.


That was a fucking riot.


If you had anything worth saying, I would listen.


See I have constructive positive intereactions with plenty of people on this board, you arent on the list cuz I think you are a dishonest douchebag.

[mickthinks]

If that's right and those were intended to be examples of where official diagnoses were offered then I disagree because to me those are all statements of opinion.

No, they were intended as examples of clinical diagnoses posted here by people who were not qualified to make them. As in...

LS: ... that would be a clinical diagnosis based on IQ that Kael is not qualified to make ...
Mick: You make it sound like that kind of thing never happens here, LS?
LS: Nope, it doesn't.

Oh yes it does.


If I have missed something here, feel free to bring it up sporadically for the next few years. :lol: The validity of a rebuttal isn't dependent on its timing.

[Iacchus]

If you hear spirits talking to you, I suggest you bring it up with a mental health professional, if you want a diagnosis.Or, if I were a Native American, they would probably make me the medicine man, in which case I would be diagnosing everyone else. The point is, that if there is something there, then perhaps we can learn to work with it. This is typical of the shamanistic experience throughout the world. Of course it is not something to be taken lightly, for we are speaking of the process of going mad.

[naturalist.atheist]

If you are gonna change the rules of moderation then perhaps you should update the FAQ.
I'll give him this one, liv.

This here page
Freethought Forum - Powered by vBulletin (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/ffintro.php?do=ffother)
says article comments are not moderated. Just remove that sentence and voila, problem solved
True enough. It's high time we updated all those pages anyway.

Edit: vm reminds me that what we meant by that line was that comments do not go into a moderation queue like articles do, not that we don't reserve the right to move them as we see fit. The entire paragraph is about the submission procedure for articles, how they go into the moderation queue after submission until we approve them for posting.

So to clarify, we'll change that line to "Comments post automatically instead of going into a moderation queue, but we reserve the right to move/delete/whatever them as we see fit."

On a side note, it's pretty amusing that n.a, who is way too busy to actually read an article before commenting on it, has so thoroughly perused our FAQ. :lol:

You are easily amused.

[naturalist.atheist]

look, he knows how to use loaded questions, mostly starpuppy, the gf beats my meat after I beat her.


dont you know anything?

Since making and asking loaded statements and questions is the brunt of your posting style I thought I would respond with the same. But don't let me stop you from at least trying to make statements as if you actually wanted to learn anything about anybody or anything.

dude, i want to learn plenty from everyone.

Teach me how christians started slavery again.


That was a fucking riot.


If you had anything worth saying, I would listen.


See I have constructive positive intereactions with plenty of people on this board, you arent on the list cuz I think you are a dishonest douchebag.

Sure you do. I am so convinced by this post.

[LadyShea]

Okay Mick, you have a point. People (including myself) posit their opinions of possible diagnoses here at FF. They are still not making a clinical diagnosis, only a professional can do that.

That is not at all what happened between Kael and Sovereign, however. Kael never posited an opinion that Soeverign may actually be clinically mentally retarded.

[Adam]

Look if you are gonna hold me to reading the entire article then you should hold yourself to the same standard and read all my posts. Because if you did you would know that I read more than just the title.

You are still bitching.

I am well aware that you claim to have read the first page and skimmed the rest. Even if your claim is true, it's laughable that you thought it would be a more appropriate use of your time to criticize the article, and then defend your criticism at length, than to actually read it in its entirety and find out if your criticism had any merit. Having said that, I actually doubt that you've read even as much of it as you claim to have done, because it's difficult to see how you could have done so and still believed that the article makes the absurd claim you chose to criticize.

[Kael]

No, they were intended as examples of clinical diagnoses posted here by people who were not qualified to make them.
Then I disagree because those are all statements of opinion. If you describe symptoms to someone and they say "I think you have the flu, you should go see a doctor' it would be quite silly to call that a clinical diagnosis on any level. It is merely a statement of opinion based on what you've told them. The same is true when someone is acting strangely and someone else says 'I bet he's schizophrenic'. Even if they have a modicum of familiarity with the condition and signs of schizophrenia, it is still just a statement of opinion. Doesn't mean it's wrong, but that doesn't mean it's right either, and in no way makes it anything more than advice or opinion.

[Adam]

I dunno...suggesting that someone has the flu based on a list of symptoms seems like a sort of amateur clinical diagnosis. People do that sort of thing all the time, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it, provided the person making the diagnosis does not pretend to any actual medical qualification.

[erimir]

Or, if I were a Native American, they would probably make me the medicine man, in which case I would be diagnosing everyone else.Yes, and how many people here do you think would go to a medicine man shaman rather than a doctor for a diagnosis?

It's not like I consider Native American supernatural beliefs to have any more merit than yours as far as evidence for their truth.

[Leesifer]

I dunno...suggesting that someone has the flu based on a list of symptoms seems like a sort of amateur clinical diagnosis. People do that sort of thing all the time, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it, provided the person making the diagnosis does not pretend to any actual medical qualification.

You can tell me, I'm a Doctor.

[naturalist.atheist]

Look if you are gonna hold me to reading the entire article then you should hold yourself to the same standard and read all my posts. Because if you did you would know that I read more than just the title.

You are still bitching.

I am well aware that you claim to have read the first page and skimmed the rest. Even if your claim is true, it's laughable that you thought it would be a more appropriate use of your time to criticize the article, and then defend your criticism at length, than to actually read it in its entirety and find out if your criticism had any merit. Having said that, I actually doubt that you've read even as much of it as you claim to have done, because it's difficult to see how you could have done so and still believed that the article makes the absurd claim you chose to criticize.

It's right there on the first page. The rest is just a list of biases with commentary on the bias. If I read every word it will still be a list of biases.

You do certainly like to bitch.

[Adam]

OK, quote the part right there on the first page where Clutch makes the claim that critical thinking is synonymous with a list of biases.

[naturalist.atheist]

OK, quote the part right there on the first page where Clutch makes the claim that critical thinking is synonymous with a list of biases.

I tell you what. Let's see how much you care about this and how able you are to apply some "Critical Thinking" yourself. Why don't you read that page and try to find anything that implies that "Critical Thinking" can be reduced in some way to knowing about a list of biases. And then tell me if Munny was not very clear that is what he is claiming and what he says.

Because frankly by this time I do not give a rats ass what you think about whatever I say. You have poisoned the well. You along with a good number of other posters here are just playing some stupid childish game.

[Iacchus]

So, when does critical thinking not entail examining one's own biases? I read the title myself (without reading the article) and that's what it sounds like to me. So, where is the problem? Are folks saying this is not what the article is about? And no, I don't plan on reading the article. This is why I haven't bothered to post anything about it until now.

[naturalist.atheist]

So, when does critical thinking not entail examining one's own biases? I read the title myself (without reading the article) and that's what it sounds like to me. So, where is the problem? Are folks saying this is not what the article is about? And no, I don't plan on reading the article. This is why I haven't bothered to post anything about it until now.

Certainly you have to know about biases just like if you are gonna make a foundation you have to know were the pipe clay is, but knowing where the pipe clay is doesn't even begin to tell you how to make a good foundation. There is much more to "Critical Thinking" than knowing about biases. Because we learned about those biases by applying "Critical Thinking" in the first place. Munny is getting the cart before the horse.

[livius drusus]

And again, nowhere in the title or the article does Clutch say that critical thinking is only a knowledge of biases. naturalist.atheist read the title, misunderstood the grammatical construction of "as a knowledge of biases", then went off on his pre-packaged anti-philosophy rant.

He now claims to have read the first page -- a claim I see no reason to accept given his repeated refusal to actually refer to anything in it -- but even if he has, he can't provide a single quote from it to support his risibly false contention that the article says critical thinking is solely a knowledge of biases.

[naturalist.atheist]

And again, nowhere in the title or the article does Clutch say that critical thinking is only a knowledge of biases. naturalist.atheist read the title, misunderstood the grammatical construction of "as a knowledge of biases", then went off on his pre-packaged anti-philosophy rant.

He now claims to have read the first page -- a claim I see no reason to accept given his repeated refusal to cite from it -- but even if he has, he can't provide a single quote from it to support his risibly false contention that the article says critical thinking is solely a knowledge of biases.

Okay, so you are saying that you can't find anything on that first page at all that would imply in any way that "Critical Thinking" is accomplished by knowing about a list of biases? Nothing at all.

[livius drusus]

Nope. In fact, when I said an understanding of bias is "necessary" to critical thinking (a far less absolute phrasing than your claim that he says critical thinking is only a knowledge of bias) in the OP of this thread (which, of course, you also haven't read), Clutch corrected me.

Say "very important" instead, he told me in the first sentence of the second post in this thread (which, of course, you also haven't read), because not only is the knowledge of bias not the sum total of critical thinking, he wasn't even comfortable with saying that it was necessary to it.

[naturalist.atheist]

Boy you weren't kidding when you said you were a Munny worshiper. Look it says right there the the best way to master "Critical Thinking" is to understand a list of biases.

But because you have "TRUE" faith this is futile. You certainly do not have any command of "Critical Thinking" so that article didn't do you any good, not that I would expect it to, because it is just stupid.

[Adam]

OK, quote the part right there on the first page where Clutch makes the claim that critical thinking is synonymous with a list of biases.

I tell you what. Let's see how much you care about this and how able you are to apply some "Critical Thinking" yourself. Why don't you read that page and try to find anything that implies that "Critical Thinking" can be reduced in some way to knowing about a list of biases.

Ah, we've reached my favorite portion of any discussion with you: the part where you insist that it's your interlocutor's responsibility to find the evidence for your claims. If you think that claim is being made, quote the part of the article that makes it.

Edit: I see that you have sort of done so for liv:

Boy you weren't kidding when you said you were a Munny worshiper. Look it says right there the the best way to master "Critical Thinking" is to understand a list of biases.

But because you have "TRUE" faith this is futile. You certainly do not have any command of "Critical Thinking" so that article didn't do you any good, not that I would expect it to, because it is just stupid.

Clutch wrote: I contend that the best way to master X is, first, A; second, B; and third, C.

A is one step in one of many possible ways (albeit, in Clutch's opinion, the best way) to master X. A is not X. No one claims that A is X.

[Clutch Munny]

You are all very biased. Your biases which you have are sure screwing you up! You Munny worshippers sure do worship Munny! And here's the awful thing: it's that you guys make it about the person. That's you, all right! That's what your biases that you have that screw you up and make you worship philosophy do to you: they make you make things about the other person. Biased!

Also, moreover, none of you is as smart as Feynman. Not saying anything about you, though. It's just a fact about you. I'd be happy to give you evidence for that, if one of you would just stop being faith-based and philosophical long enough to go find me the evidence for what I said. Otherwise, I just wish you'd stop being so biased.

[seebs]

I'm torn.

If I take naturalist.atheist off ignore, the forum becomes painfully stupid -- but this thread becomes comedy gold.

Can we have a feature where we can unignore someone only in a specific thread?

[naturalist.atheist]

You are all very biased. Your biases which you have are sure screwing you up! You Munny worshippers sure do worship Munny! And here's the awful thing: it's that you guys make it about the person. That's you, all right! That's what your biases that you have that screw you up and make you worship philosophy do to you: they make you make things about the other person. Biased!

Also, moreover, none of you is as smart as Feynman. Not saying anything about you, though. It's just a fact about you. I'd be happy to give you evidence for that, if one of you would just stop being faith-based and philosophical long enough to go find me the evidence for what I said. Otherwise, I just wish you'd stop being so biased.

I can see that you identify yourself with philosophy, so what you think is an attack on you is an attack on philosophy. I don't think much about you and philosophy but you do flatter yourself.

[Watser?]

What is your childhood trauma? Did philosophy touch you in naughty places when you were a kid?

[naturalist.atheist]

What is your childhood trauma? Did philosophy touch you in naughty places when you were a kid?

No. What happened is that I applied critical thinking to what was being paraded around as philosophy. And the more I questioned it the more personal attacks I received. So it very much looked and smelled like bullshit. So I dug further and found more and more bullshit. When pretty much all the advocates of philosophy behave like advocates of something like astrology then something is very rotten about it.

[Clutch Munny]

You are all very biased. Your biases which you have are sure screwing you up! You Munny worshippers sure do worship Munny! And here's the awful thing: it's that you guys make it about the person. That's you, all right! That's what your biases that you have that screw you up and make you worship philosophy do to you: they make you make things about the other person. Biased!

Also, moreover, none of you is as smart as Feynman. Not saying anything about you, though. It's just a fact about you. I'd be happy to give you evidence for that, if one of you would just stop being faith-based and philosophical long enough to go find me the evidence for what I said. Otherwise, I just wish you'd stop being so biased.

I can see that you identify yourself with philosophy, so what you think is an attack on you is an attack on philosophy. I don't think much about you and philosophy but you do flatter yourself.

:laugh:

Seamless transition.

[Iacchus]

What is your childhood trauma? Did philosophy touch you in naughty places when you were a kid?

No. What happened is that I applied critical thinking to what was being paraded around as philosophy. And the more I questioned it the more personal attacks I received. So it very much looked and smelled like bullshit. So I dug further and found more and more bullshit. When pretty much all the advocates of philosophy behave like advocates of something like astrology then something is very rotten about it.What is truth?

[naturalist.atheist]

What is your childhood trauma? Did philosophy touch you in naughty places when you were a kid?

No. What happened is that I applied critical thinking to what was being paraded around as philosophy. And the more I questioned it the more personal attacks I received. So it very much looked and smelled like bullshit. So I dug further and found more and more bullshit. When pretty much all the advocates of philosophy behave like advocates of something like astrology then something is very rotten about it.What is truth?

Good question. I have still to figure that out but philosophers swear by it.

[naturalist.atheist]

You are all very biased. Your biases which you have are sure screwing you up! You Munny worshippers sure do worship Munny! And here's the awful thing: it's that you guys make it about the person. That's you, all right! That's what your biases that you have that screw you up and make you worship philosophy do to you: they make you make things about the other person. Biased!

Also, moreover, none of you is as smart as Feynman. Not saying anything about you, though. It's just a fact about you. I'd be happy to give you evidence for that, if one of you would just stop being faith-based and philosophical long enough to go find me the evidence for what I said. Otherwise, I just wish you'd stop being so biased.

I can see that you identify yourself with philosophy, so what you think is an attack on you is an attack on philosophy. I don't think much about you and philosophy but you do flatter yourself.

:laugh:

Seamless transition.

Thanks for making my point for me.

[ceptimus]

Feynman on philosophy:

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.

Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong.

We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on.

You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.

I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there.

There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made.

No problem is too small or too trivial if we can really do something about it.

The worthwhile problems are the ones you can really solve or help solve, the ones you can really contribute something to.

[livius drusus]

Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong.
They do? I've seen piles of absolutes about what is and what isn't science from scientists. In fact, the question of what is "pseudoscience" is a one that they go on about at length, especially in the atheist/skeptic communities, where there is much invested in identifying and dismissing non-science as a pernicious taint on "real" science.

Philosophers, in my experience, are far more likely to consider any demarcation attempt problematic.

[ceptimus]

Not my words but Feynman's. (all the paragraphs in my post above are quotes of Feynman - sorry if I didn't make that clear enough).

I happen to agree with Feynman (he's one of my heroes and I agree with most everything he said). But I don't feel qualified to defend his words.

[livius drusus]

No, I got that they're Feynman's words. I just think that bit in particular is pretty blatantly off-base. I mean, I know you've seen scientists and their upholders on these forums, especially the skeptical ones, go on at length about what is science and what isn't. If it's not testable, if it's not falsifiable, if it's not repeatable, it's not science. This is a major agenda point for the anti-creationist, anti-psychic brigade.

You won't find philosophers making absolute claims like that often. In fact, they're often the ones suggesting that the lines are not so easily drawn.

So I'm curious why you find it persuasive. You don't have to defend his phrasing or anything, but if you agree that philosophers and not scientists are the ones making absolute statements about science, can you provide some evidence for that claim?

[ceptimus]

The 'classical' philosophy of science was the observation / induction model. The "All Crows are Black (http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/2007/11/15/considering-%E2%80%9Call-crows-are-black%E2%80%9D/)" paradox casts considerable doubt on this model.

Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper) came up with a new 'falsification' philosophy of science and this is what the 'true skeptic believers' like to use to harangue their victims.

But Feynman, and other people who have some sense, pointed out that science isn't really done this way. Science is a much more practical and empirical undertaking. It's about following up hunches, arguing with colleagues, showing how others have screwed up and gradually groping through the dark towards a better theory than the one that went before. To corrupt a cliché, science is more of an art than a science.

[livius drusus]

Ah I see. I find these days it's scientists more than philosophers who draw absolutes from Popperian falsifactionism. Anyway, we are in agreement, sir. :shake: (Oh crap. Another deity to put in my avatar.)

[Clutch Munny]

The 'classical' philosophy of science was the observation / induction model. The "All Crows are Black (http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/2007/11/15/considering-%E2%80%9Call-crows-are-black%E2%80%9D/)" paradox casts considerable doubt on this model.

I'm not sure what you mean by the observation/induction model. The paradox of the ravens, as with other paradoxes of confirmation, generally casts doubt on the idea that a theory is evidentially supported by its instances -- is that what you have in mind? It's a problem for Nicod's criterion, as this idea is sometimes known. Nevertheless, many people (including Hempel, who popularized the paradox of the ravens) have argued that the examples only have the appearance of paradoxes owing to the background theories and background knowledge we possess.

Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper) came up with a new 'falsification' philosophy of science and this is what the 'true skeptic believers' like to use to harangue their victims.

But Feynman, and other people who have some sense, pointed out that science isn't really done this way. Science is a much more practical and empirical undertaking. It's about following up hunches, arguing with colleagues, showing how others have screwed up and gradually groping through the dark towards a better theory than the one that went before. To corrupt a cliché, science is more of an art than a science.

None of the views you attribute to Feynman were rejected by Popper, though. He knew that scientists do all those things, too. He just thought that amenability to falsificationist explanation was what made their gropings, hunch-followings, and criticisms of others scientific, whereas astrologists' gropings, hunch-followings, and criticisms of others were not.

All in all, I agree with liv about the ill-informed, or perhaps just careless, character of Feynman's particular claim that "[p]hilosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong." How many philosophers do you suppose he had in mind, and what range of views did they hold? How did he suppose this was distinguished from the many absolute pronouncements by scientists about the nature of science? RF was a very bright guy with catholic interests, but this was commentary material for him; there's certainly no reason to believe he made a study of the literature.

[naturalist.atheist]

All in all, I agree with liv about the ill-informed, or perhaps just careless, character of Feynman's particular claim that "[p]hilosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong." How many philosophers do you suppose he had in mind, and what range of views did they hold? How did he suppose this was distinguished from the many absolute pronouncements by scientists about the nature of science? RF was a very bright guy with catholic interests, but this was commentary material for him; there's certainly no reason to believe he made a study of the literature.

I would expect you to think that of Feynman, after all you advocate philosophy. As for the number of philosophers he had in mind, it was just about all of them. The flaps he had with philosophers in general was well known. He didn't see how philosophers had a leg to stand on because frankly the pronouncements of philosophers are generally not much better than opinion usually on subjects they only know about from a philosophical point of view. Not to say that many pronouncements of scientists are not much more than opinion. But scientists do have something that for the most part philosophers eschew, and that is experiment on nature. Philosophy is not exactly an experimental tradition. The idea of checking one's opinion against nature is for the most part what separates science from philosophy. It is not as if philosophy has much of anything to prefer one philosophy over another other than opinion. Although it does appear that some philosophers are figuring that out, but they better be careful because if they keep that up all they will be is scientists.

[Adam]

I take it we're now all in agreement that the original article never claimed that knowledge of biases is synonymous with critical thinking, then?

[Clutch Munny]

You're too kind. The charge, recall, was that critical thinking was "knowing about a list of biases".

Because you know how the article goes on about the importance of knowing about a list.

[seebs]

I take it we're now all in agreement that the original article never claimed that knowledge of biases is synonymous with critical thinking, then?

I don't know, I never read it. I'm a very careful critical thinker, and I once saw something by Clutch that was funny but not very accurate, so I assumed it was more comedic writing with no actual substance.

[mickthinks]

I revisited Clutch's essay to check its relevence to the Piaf pronunciation discussion here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=724712#post724712), and what Clutch says on the last page (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11584&garpg=8#content_start) about advertisers and political parties reminded me of the episode of Yes, Prime Minister where Sir Humphrey educates his under-secretary Bernard in public opinion polls. So I went looking for that clip and, whoopie—here it is!

YouTube - Opinion Polls: Getting the results you want

If you aren't a fan of these guys already, I think you soon will be.

[naturalist.atheist]

You're too kind. The charge, recall, was that critical thinking was "knowing about a list of biases".

Because you know how the article goes on about the importance of knowing about a list.

Except for the first page, it is a list.

[Adam]

:lol:

And where in the article does the author go on about how important it is to know about that list?

[mickthinks]

Nat, the premise of Clutch's article is "Information about cognitive biases is information about critical thinking".

You seem to think the premise is "Information about cognitive biases is all there is to know about critical thinking".

It isn't.

[naturalist.atheist]

:lol:

And where in the article does the author go on about how important it is to know about that list?

On the first page. He states that mastering critical thinking requires knowing the list.

[viscousmemories]

:halftroll:

[naturalist.atheist]

:halftroll:

Coming from you I am crushed.

[Kael]

:lol:

And where in the article does the author go on about how important it is to know about that list?

On the first page. He states that mastering critical thinking requires knowing the list.
You've got to be reading a different essay than everyone else. Certainly different than the one I read. Perhaps you'd care to quote where he says this and point out where most of us are making an error in comprehension but you are not?

[viscousmemories]

:halftroll:

Coming from you I am crushed.
Don't be crushed, you can earn a full troll with just a little more effort. For example try making a critical claim that couldn't be falsified by a 3rd grader.

[naturalist.atheist]

:halftroll:

Coming from you I am crushed.
Don't be crushed, you can earn a full troll with just a little more effort. For example try making a critical claim that couldn't be falsified by a 3rd grader.

You would give me a full troll? Apparently you really like crushing people.

[naturalist.atheist]

:lol:

And where in the article does the author go on about how important it is to know about that list?

On the first page. He states that mastering critical thinking requires knowing the list.
You've got to be reading a different essay than everyone else. Certainly different than the one I read. Perhaps you'd care to quote where he says this and point out where most of us are making an error in comprehension but you are not?

Perhaps we are looking at different essays. The one I am looking at with the title "Critical Thinking as Knowledge of Biases" says this at the start of the second paragraph.

I contend that the best way to master skeptical or critical thought is, first, by understanding the biases that affect human thinking; second, by attending to the behaviour of oneself and others, as a matter of sheer reflexive habit, in order to recognize these biases at work; and third, to leave open always the element of doubt introduced by the knowledge that many such biases are invisible.

The next seven pages are the biases that the author thinks are important to know about in order to master critical thinking.

[viscousmemories]

Good, now show that paragraph to a 7 yr. old and ask her to point to the word 'list'. Then have her explain why it's not there.

[naturalist.atheist]

Good, now show that paragraph to a 7 yr. old and ask her to point to the word 'list'. Then have her explain why it's not there.

SNAP! You got me there. How silly of me. That fact that he follows the first page with a list of biases has no connection at all to his claim about understanding biases in order to master critical thinking.

I can see you would make a good 7 year old.

[viscousmemories]

SNAP! You got me there. How silly of me.
Now you've got it.

[naturalist.atheist]

SNAP! You got me there. How silly of me.
Now you've got it.

You do not do yourself justice by comparing yourself to a seven year old. You have the guile an sensibilities of an eight year old. Kudos!

[Adam]

:lol:

And where in the article does the author go on about how important it is to know about that list?

On the first page. He states that mastering critical thinking requires knowing the list.

No, he never actually says that. First, he does not claim that anything is required to master critical thinking. He claims that knowledge of biases is one way (in his opinion, the best way) to master critical thinking. Second, he never claims that this particular list is definitive, rather than simply containing some examples of the sorts of biases he's talking about.

[naturalist.atheist]

:lol:

And where in the article does the author go on about how important it is to know about that list?

On the first page. He states that mastering critical thinking requires knowing the list.

No, he never actually says that. First, he does not claim that anything is required to master critical thinking. He claims that knowledge of biases is one way (in his opinion, the best way) to master critical thinking. Second, he never claims that this particular list is definitive, rather than simply containing some examples of the sorts of biases he's talking about.

I posted what he said, and the list of biases is there for all to see. You may say that you interpret him differently but you can't say that my interpretation is not possible or even reasonable.

Now that I have pointed this out there is nothing stopping the author from editing the article and making himself clear on this point but he has not. In fact my criticisms such as they were, were removed from the comments of the article.

And of course the reaction of the brilliant people that run this forum are here for all to see. Even if you think I am an idiot.

But this is philosophy after all so it must be the "TRUTH" so I can understand the reaction.

[Kael]

I posted what he said, and the list of biases is there for all to see. You may say that you interpret him differently but you can't say that my interpretation is not possible or even reasonable.
Yes I can. Watch this: Your interpretation is unreasonable. See, that was easy, wasn't it? It certainly is unreasonable to interpret this
understanding the biases that affect human thinking as advocating the memorization of a list, regardless of any lists that follow. Especially when it is followed immediately by
attending to the behaviour of oneself and others, as a matter of sheer reflexive habit, in order to recognize these biases at work
Quite clearly more than simple memorization or knowledge of lists is being advocated.

I really don't understand your reaction to this. You can disagree with what he writes, whether through reasonably constructed counter-arguments or simple denial. Why put so much effort and insistence into a deliberate and obvious misinterpretation of it, though? I know you abhor philosophy in all its forms (which is endlessly ironic for reasons you refuse to acknowledge) but this is quite ridiculous.

[naturalist.atheist]

I posted what he said, and the list of biases is there for all to see. You may say that you interpret him differently but you can't say that my interpretation is not possible or even reasonable.
Yes I can. Watch this: Your interpretation is unreasonable. See, that was easy, wasn't it? It certainly is unreasonable to interpret this
understanding the biases that affect human thinking as advocating the memorization of a list, regardless of any lists that follow. Especially when it is followed immediately by
attending to the behaviour of oneself and others, as a matter of sheer reflexive habit, in order to recognize these biases at work
Quite clearly more than simple memorization or knowledge of lists is being advocated.

I really don't understand your reaction to this. You can disagree with what he writes, whether through reasonably constructed counter-arguments or simple denial. Why put so much effort and insistence into a deliberate and obvious misinterpretation of it, though? I know you abhor philosophy in all its forms (which is endlessly ironic for reasons you refuse to acknowledge) but this is quite ridiculous.

All you've done is show your interpretation. Your interpretation is no more authoritative than mine.

It is very simple. The author can change the wording of the essay, he can respond to my observations in a way that attempts to clarify his thoughts instead of attacking the person.

But instead I get the crap so well illustrated in this thread. If advocates of philosophy are trying to support their "belief" in its rationality, this is not the way to do it. It has the opposite effect.

[Clutch Munny]

It is very simple. The author can... respond to my observations in a way that attempts to clarify his thoughts...

But instead I get the crap so well illustrated in this thread.

You seem to have not the faintest clue what you are talking about (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=699681#post699681).

[naturalist.atheist]

It is very simple. The author can... respond to my observations in a way that attempts to clarify his thoughts...

But instead I get the crap so well illustrated in this thread.

You seem to have not the faintest clue what you are talking about (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=699681#post699681).

Oh really? That is how you clarify your own statements? This is so typically philosophical it makes me want to puke.

[viscousmemories]

Sigh. If only there were an essay on why someone with a strong bias -- against philosophy, say -- might find it difficult to examine the subject critically.

[Clutch Munny]

:rainbowhurl:
:socrates: