Improve your critical thinking

Comments

jdt73's picture

The Socratic Method is no longer an approved use of your brain.

We require obedience not questions.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob's picture

Ok. But until you convince me.. while I'm not advocating anarchy, obedience to who?.. And why?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
jdt73's picture

You dont see bees trying to convince flys that honey is better than shit.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob's picture

Agree totally

Bzzzzzzzzzz

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Now follow your own advice.....

 

Also this only works with people that are open minded enough to accept that their point of view may be wrong and are to a certain extent competent in what they are talking about.

 

What happens in discussions here and on facebook is quite different, as:

  • people are "happy" with explanations that favours their bias or intuition and most are definitely not competent enough to have an informed opinion.
  • established research is frequently approach with skepticism, however, those that "querstion" it  are not

Also The more people decide "but I understand" when they don't the less fruitful a discussion becomes.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob's picture

You talk the talk but you do realize that critical thinking involves turning the process inward and challenging one's own biasess as well, right?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Yep, that's what I try to do.

 

There are two ways you can achieve that.

 

1. You educate yourself to a level that you become expert enough on a topic so you can have educated conversations with experts in the field. I did that when I struggled with dog training to an extent that I became a dog trainer and now am rather successful with it professionally. I must stress that I had the time to spend on it as I came to Mallorca some 16  years ago to retire, not to do any serious kind of work.

 

2. You decide which sources you want to trust on a topic based on how the information they use has been obtained and processed. This is the path I took when I was looking into global warming and saw that I actually was out of my depth rather quickly despite being a university trained engineer, i.e. Although I understand the concept and general gist of the current theories but I don't consider myself competent enough to do anything but quote what I call experts.

 

On both of the above mentioned examples (and probably a few more) you would find comments of mine reflecting the exact opposite position to what I have now. 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob's picture

Confirmation bias is indeed a thing and whether it's global warming or dog training I imagine we can easily find ourselves gravitating towards one particular community / approach / orthodoxy. With Google's algorithm it's even easier to get siloed nowadays so it's important to go out of one's way, really make an effort to hear what the other folks/camp are saying; just to stay informed.

 

Respect to your credentials and while my university and professional background the last 2+ decades is more in line with health sciences and medical / clinical research, where you have to market yourself as 'certified in learning' and be able to pick up management of a new disease indication on the fly, I'd argue that while it's important to be respectful in discussion with key opinion leaders, it is very possible to brush up on the required knowledge and bring new insights and experience to the team. Meaning, no need to lock yourself out of the discussion; again while doing your part, staying humble, and of course asking the right questions.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

"...make an effort to hear what the other folks/camp are saying..."

Only if we can agree on a common "language". As far as dog training is concerned I don't have to as I came from "the other camp" and thus fully understand their position.

 

 

"..... asking the right questions." is often misunderstood and used in the sense of asking "loaded" questions, which appear to have a simple answer but don't. The jewish conservative guy is king of those. 

 

If you believe you are on par with "opinion leaders" then by all means educate us here, but please by (fully and correctly) quoting research that actually has been (or is intended to be) published for peer review. Otherwise an educated conversation is impossible.

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob's picture

"If you believe you are on par with "opinion leaders" then by all means educate us here, but please by (fully and correctly) quoting research that actually has been (or is intended to be) published for peer review. Otherwise an educated conversation is impossible"

..

You're deliberately misquoting / misrepresenting what I said again. I said it's possible to educate oneself on a particular topic and have informed discussion and debate. And that we all learn by listening and asking the right questions. As for deferring to the practical authority on a subject, always and forever (didn't they un-exommunicate Galileo only 350+ yrs later?), that doesn't always work out. I suppose it depends on context, the stakes as well as timelines (eg. of a particular threat).  Global warming for instance has become highly politicized, so solutions from left field as opposed to the conventional wisdom may hold the key and certainly warrant a look at.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

"Global warming for instance has become highly politicized..."

 

The "discussion", not the science.

NOBODY "wants" the science to be correct, it would be way more convenient for EVERYBODY if it weren't. Politically biased people like crowder (oh look who cropped up again but he is of course not the only one) and others like to misquote genuine research (and he has the nerve to link where they misquoted from as he knows fanboys won't look it up). 

So you are right that we have to be skeptical, however, we have to be in cases where we like what we hear, NOT where we don't! 

 

Galileao is a very good example of exactly that actually, however, in his day and age he stood alone and did not have peers and a peer review system to aid him convince clergy of the  -hmmmmm let's say- inconvenient truth. 

Nowadays, although we have what Galileo had not, there are still the same problems that  the deniers' views are more convenient to many so who cares what the science actually says, many  prefer to put their fngers in their ears and shout "WAAAWAAAWAAWAAAAAH".

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

"The "discussion", not the science."

 

That is the golden standard we strive for but politics and science are intertwined, whether you like it or not. 

That doesn't mean there are "paid bad scientists" constantly trying to deceive us, but where the research money is funneled is mainly chosen by politicians. It's possible that this introduces unintended biases (or even intended) where certain kind of research is supported and some possibly valid ones are dismissed. When you look at this from the perspective of money and how sciene has to fight for grants, it becomes more obvious. Science doesn't happen in a vacuum but it's always affected but the current trends in society and politics. 

 

 

   

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

You probably have a point but especially in climate science we have consent to a level that it is unlikely (based on current findings) that they are deliberately wrong, i.e. too many independant research came to the same conclusion.

 

This is supported by the fact that those "being skeptical" voice their concerns in blogs and maybe in books rather than publish scientific papers. 

 

The exaggerating and fear mongering (as well as the denying) is done on a political level but some of the lingo may have crept into publications.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

Don't know if there are such statistics anywhere available or if it's even possible to differentiate between the two, but it would be interesting to know how much climate research is going towards in research for anthropomorphic climate change vs. naturally occurring. 

 

Just an example where we could be focusing heavily on some research due to political pressure instead of the other alternative.

   

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

The effects of added CO2 in the atmosphere by pollution (i.e. the "human effect") has been studied and anticipated since the late 19th century. In contrary to whgat some believe the effects of the sun on warming and cooling have also been incorporated into the theories as they were developing.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

True.

The point being if there are other unknown variables that contribute to climate change, then the chances of finding them are lower if we are mainly focused on CO2.  

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Well, there are other contributors to global warming included in the climate models, the main ones we can influence are CO2 and methane. 

The prediction of the models is fairly (surprisingly) accurate. 

 

So even if there are "complete" unknowns the focus for us would have to remain on what we can influence.

 

Even the "skeptics" literally only have the sun as an  "excuse".....

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

"Even the "skeptics" literally only have the sun as an  "excuse"....."

 

I'd say my excuse would be the general acceptance that we don't know what we don't know, especially when talking about highly complex systems. Kind of what the OP suggests.

 

That doesn't mean I deny global warming, it just means I take the blame humans get for it with a grain of salt.

I'm guessing that my attitude is just a gut reaction to the politicization, the medias alarmism and the religious-like push by some individuals. I still try to remain as objective as possible. 

Just the other day I Googled "anthropomorphic climate change" to spell check it and the top 3 result was about "Scientific consensus". 

Right or wrong there certainly is a push for it which always causes me to be skeptical and I'm all for "green energy" so I don't have an agenda behind it.  Well, it's kinda of similar with the UFO stories popping up all of a sudden.  

 

  

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

I would agree with "grain (or shovel) of salt" when anyone else but real science is involved (as this is the only thing we should be able to trust, if you don't you put yourself on skeptoid level). We have to look at the "deniers'" arguments and check where they published their findings, i.e. take them with a "grain (or shovel) of salt" too!

 

And just now I saw the clown's  comment below about china, which is a beautiful example of finding someone or somethng to blame first and focus on the solution maybe later. And of course it is a nice diversion used by people that don't have any arguments for their "position".

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

Here's a quote from you from a few days back:  "We always have to add in our heads "according to current knowledge" when talking about scientific "facts". "

 

That's what I'm doing, hence the grain of salt.

 

Let's say hypothetically that natural warming is happening at a higher rate than we think due to some unknown mechanism / incorrect models. It's quite natural it would be contributed to CO2, because that's the main cause we know of and therefor the main focus is on that. 

 

Do I have any evidence of this? No. 

It's just me questioning things with basic logic. As I said earlier, the huge push we see in politics and in the media isn't helping either. It makes me question more.

  

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

You said it yourself:
"Do I have any evidence of this? No."

 

However, nobody else has neither and there is plenty of current research that does not indicate "natural factors" are the main cause.

The problem with a lot of scientific research is that results are not intuitive, quite the contrary very often. This is why we needed thousands of years to understand that the carrot works way better than the stick in education and upbringing of our kids (or of any mammal for that matter)!

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

"However, nobody else has neither and there is plenty of current research that does not indicate "natural factors" are the main cause."

 

Yes. Thats why I keep saying "possible unknowns". 

  

We have discovered a lot about the climates mechanisms in the past 40 years and I have no doubt it will continue. 

And I know what your thinking, we will most likely see small refinements in the models and it's unlikely that we will find a "game changer". 

 

Don't think we really disagree, just a difference in perspective.

Your position is "stick with what is known" and mine is "Let's see what what we will find next, there's always more". 

 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

"Your position is "stick with what is known" and mine is "Let's see what what we will find next, there's always more". "

 

If you mean in the sense "Something needs to be started now based on the knowledge we have because otherwise it may be too late." then both would be correct for me. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

If you say so. Then we actually agree.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob's picture

But can we deny that there's a cultural element (in terms of mismanagement) as well? In a recent study, they showed 23 of the world's top 25 CO2/greenhouse gas emitting 'megacities' are in:

Donald Trump China GIF - DonaldTrump Trump China - Discover & Share GIFs

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob's picture

Too subtle. Go on..use your words.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

And just now I saw the clown's  comment below about china, which is a beautiful example of finding someone or somethng to blame first and focus on the solution maybe later. And of course it is a nice diversion used by people that don't have any arguments for their "position".

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob's picture

Lols, and here come the insults again. That 1 Viagra the doctor lets you have each year on your birthday really doesn't take you far does it. How can you be so daft as to think that some nations, through improper planning and policy don't deserve more share of the blame. And with  acceptance of blame / responsibility (along with others) should hopefully come contrition, preferably in the form of corrective action. Too much to handle in dogs are smarter than humans land, pooch?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Probably there are unknown variables but as the change can be explained by current theories the only way to prove them wrong is to actually reduce the output of CO2 and methane.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob's picture

I can agree with the sentiment, however, where you say: 'So you are right that we have to be skeptical, however, we have to be in cases where we like what we hear, NOT where we don't!'.. I'd go one step further and say the most responsible thing would be to be skeptical in both instances. Note that initial skepticism does not preclude accepting something as true/correct when the facts are in. This does not mean you are bound to a position and that you cannot change your stance if new facts come to your attention. I guess I'm saying don't let your attachment override your power of observation.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Yes, correct, well spotted, it should have read: "....NOT only where we don't!"

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob's picture

(sorry, replied to the wrong comment. please ignore)

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down