Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
I claim that the educational institutions of all Western democratic nations are very conservative. They are designed to foster the status quo. As such they are focused upon graduating individuals with the means to maximize production and consumption.
Our technology has provided us with the capacity to easily slip into a condition that will end human life.
We must provide a means for our citizens to quickly recognize this fact and to develop a new path for human enlightenment following the end of school days. Only with a significant advance in our general intellectual sophistication can we hope to develop a basis for restructuring society and thereby save humanity from a quick extinction.
I see no other vehicle than the Internet discussion forums presently available to provide that catalyst for change.
If you find merit in this claim I would like to discuss it further.
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
I've thought about using internet more for educational purposes. Virtual universities that function at a higher level than the current courses offered online. It appealed to me as a way to keep education affordable. Students shouldn't graduate with the debt load they currently have to carry and the level/quality of instruction can be monitored so much easier. Another advantage is that students would have to learn more self discipline to complete the courses.
One of the problems I've always had with educational institutes is their adherence to rigid structure and the almost disdain for which they hold creative thinking in most classes. They have leaned too much towards regurgitation and not enough towards original thinking. Seemed they didn't know how to grade it if it didn't come straight from a textbook.
One of the problems I've always had with educational institutes is their adherence to rigid structure and the almost disdain for which they hold creative thinking in most classes. They have leaned too much towards regurgitation and not enough towards original thinking. Seemed they didn't know how to grade it if it didn't come straight from a textbook.
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
I think most educational institutions, like many other human endeavors, primarily exist to be self perpetuating. This is not necessarily by design but is a fact of human nature. At a certain point and level of inertia an organization begins to become more concerned with its status quo that the serving the folks it was originally created to serve..
So yes the Internet is an appropriate vehicle in spite of it's many foibles it is still unregulated, uncensored and alive with minds willing to try something different.
So yes the Internet is an appropriate vehicle in spite of it's many foibles it is still unregulated, uncensored and alive with minds willing to try something different.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
koan;595279 wrote: I've thought about using internet more for educational purposes. Virtual universities that function at a higher level than the current courses offered online. It appealed to me as a way to keep education affordable. Students shouldn't graduate with the debt load they currently have to carry and the level/quality of instruction can be monitored so much easier. Another advantage is that students would have to learn more self discipline to complete the courses.
One of the problems I've always had with educational institutes is their adherence to rigid structure and the almost disdain for which they hold creative thinking in most classes. They have leaned too much towards regurgitation and not enough towards original thinking. Seemed they didn't know how to grade it if it didn't come straight from a textbook.
I think that we should focus our attention upon self-learning after the school days are over. State sponsored education will always be focused upon the desires of the state which represent the desires of industry. I think that we need to recognize that education via a teacher/pupil format will not meet the learning needs for the restructuring of society.
One of the problems I've always had with educational institutes is their adherence to rigid structure and the almost disdain for which they hold creative thinking in most classes. They have leaned too much towards regurgitation and not enough towards original thinking. Seemed they didn't know how to grade it if it didn't come straight from a textbook.
I think that we should focus our attention upon self-learning after the school days are over. State sponsored education will always be focused upon the desires of the state which represent the desires of industry. I think that we need to recognize that education via a teacher/pupil format will not meet the learning needs for the restructuring of society.
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
If you truly believe that schools are not performing well then why wait until people are broke before fixing them? While you might be more interested in convincing people to continue their education once they leave school, I think you've raised a bigger issue.
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
koan;595356 wrote: If you truly believe that schools are not performing well then why wait until people are broke before fixing them? While you might be more interested in convincing people to continue their education once they leave school, I think you've raised a bigger issue.
What I claimed is that our educational institutions train us so we can get a good job. That is not bad if we recognize that job training is the purpose of these institutions.
When we recognize the learning deficience then we can make up for that deficience by becoming self-learners.
The process of change is a bottom up activity. If we are successful at change then we can change our schools and colleges to do more than train us to produce and consume.
What I claimed is that our educational institutions train us so we can get a good job. That is not bad if we recognize that job training is the purpose of these institutions.
When we recognize the learning deficience then we can make up for that deficience by becoming self-learners.
The process of change is a bottom up activity. If we are successful at change then we can change our schools and colleges to do more than train us to produce and consume.
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
How are you proposing to use Forums to accomplish your goal?
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
coberst;595273 wrote: Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
I claim that the educational institutions of all Western democratic nations are very conservative. They are designed to foster the status quo. As such they are focused upon graduating individuals with the means to maximize production and consumption.
How is this true with Liberal Arts?
Our technology has provided us with the capacity to easily slip into a condition that will end human life.
As well as preserve it.
We must provide a means for our citizens to quickly recognize this fact and to develop a new path for human enlightenment following the end of school days. Only with a significant advance in our general intellectual sophistication can we hope to develop a basis for restructuring society and thereby save humanity from a quick extinction.
I see no other vehicle than the Internet discussion forums presently available to provide that catalyst for change.
While the Internet is certainly a catalyst for change, there is a decided lack of interest in discussing, in depth, much of which you speak. Just look at the content of most posts.
If you find merit in this claim I would like to discuss it further.
I do find merit in this claim, but because such discussion forums would have appeal to but a few, the impact would be minimal.
I claim that the educational institutions of all Western democratic nations are very conservative. They are designed to foster the status quo. As such they are focused upon graduating individuals with the means to maximize production and consumption.
How is this true with Liberal Arts?
Our technology has provided us with the capacity to easily slip into a condition that will end human life.
As well as preserve it.
We must provide a means for our citizens to quickly recognize this fact and to develop a new path for human enlightenment following the end of school days. Only with a significant advance in our general intellectual sophistication can we hope to develop a basis for restructuring society and thereby save humanity from a quick extinction.
I see no other vehicle than the Internet discussion forums presently available to provide that catalyst for change.
While the Internet is certainly a catalyst for change, there is a decided lack of interest in discussing, in depth, much of which you speak. Just look at the content of most posts.
If you find merit in this claim I would like to discuss it further.
I do find merit in this claim, but because such discussion forums would have appeal to but a few, the impact would be minimal.
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
koan;595463 wrote: How are you proposing to use Forums to accomplish your goal?
I think that change can be engineered only by a population that becomes more intellectually sophisticated that it is now.
This means that when schooling has been completed the individual slowly, as time permits, develops an intellectual life. This is the beginning of a life time hobby of learning.
I am not talking about a walk in the park on a Sunday afternoon but a hobby that lasts a life time. I am talking about individuals becoming self-actualizing self-learning adults preparing them self to become responsible adults. Such an intellectual life is advantageous for the individual and for the community. I have been doing such a hobby for 25 years and can testify to its importance.
If you are interested you can read my essay "September Scholar" at www.septemberscholar.com
I think that change can be engineered only by a population that becomes more intellectually sophisticated that it is now.
This means that when schooling has been completed the individual slowly, as time permits, develops an intellectual life. This is the beginning of a life time hobby of learning.
I am not talking about a walk in the park on a Sunday afternoon but a hobby that lasts a life time. I am talking about individuals becoming self-actualizing self-learning adults preparing them self to become responsible adults. Such an intellectual life is advantageous for the individual and for the community. I have been doing such a hobby for 25 years and can testify to its importance.
If you are interested you can read my essay "September Scholar" at www.septemberscholar.com
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
Lon
Read my response to Koan.
It is only necessary that two individuals in one thousand become self-actualizing self-learning. This would develop slowly after schooling is over and as time permits. With such a group a nation like the US could be transformed. Look at how people stopped smoking. The impossible can happen if only a small group of people try to make it happen.
It is up to us to make such things happen. See my essay September Scholar at
www.septemberscholar.com
Read my response to Koan.
It is only necessary that two individuals in one thousand become self-actualizing self-learning. This would develop slowly after schooling is over and as time permits. With such a group a nation like the US could be transformed. Look at how people stopped smoking. The impossible can happen if only a small group of people try to make it happen.
It is up to us to make such things happen. See my essay September Scholar at
www.septemberscholar.com
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
It seems to me part of the problem begins at the ballot box. In Ontario they elected Mike Harris as premier and then in his cutbacks he put education back 40+ years. In BC we elected Gordon Campbell and he appointed a minister of education who was going to give us better education with less money. I emailed my MLA and asked he what planet she came from. He wasn't to happy about that one.
I get very angry when I think about the influence that major industries are having on education. Due to their financial input they can control the research that goes on.
Then you have the problem that results from the fact that discipline and behaviour are the result of home life and are usually set by the age of 5. I've heard hundreds of excuses by parents, justifying their child's misbehaviour and the constant desire to blame it on someone else rather than the child responsible-their's.
I can only speak for elementary teachers but they to wish to improve education but governments spend too much time listening to those who want to return to the "three Rs" rather than advancing into the 21st. Cent.
Teachers face a very difficult task themselves. They have to: be in loco parentis, deal with children who are not fed properly, deal with latch key kids, deal with disabled children, deal with misbehaving children, fill in the proper forms in triplicate, create lessons for which they must round up all the resources because there is no librarian, supervise during their lunch time and coffee break time, deal with parents who blame everything on someone else, look after bumped heads and cut hands etc, TEACH if they get around to it and God forbid take some time somewhere in the day to have a pee. Oh and I forgot supervising extra curricular activities.
They might actually get to spend a few, and I mean few, moments with their families when they get home.
I do agree with Lon's comments.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I get very angry when I think about the influence that major industries are having on education. Due to their financial input they can control the research that goes on.
Then you have the problem that results from the fact that discipline and behaviour are the result of home life and are usually set by the age of 5. I've heard hundreds of excuses by parents, justifying their child's misbehaviour and the constant desire to blame it on someone else rather than the child responsible-their's.
I can only speak for elementary teachers but they to wish to improve education but governments spend too much time listening to those who want to return to the "three Rs" rather than advancing into the 21st. Cent.
Teachers face a very difficult task themselves. They have to: be in loco parentis, deal with children who are not fed properly, deal with latch key kids, deal with disabled children, deal with misbehaving children, fill in the proper forms in triplicate, create lessons for which they must round up all the resources because there is no librarian, supervise during their lunch time and coffee break time, deal with parents who blame everything on someone else, look after bumped heads and cut hands etc, TEACH if they get around to it and God forbid take some time somewhere in the day to have a pee. Oh and I forgot supervising extra curricular activities.
They might actually get to spend a few, and I mean few, moments with their families when they get home.
I do agree with Lon's comments.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
Don't get me wrong. I loved my job but it did change over 30 years. Thank God I retired the year Mike Harris took over as premier. He was a disaster to education and the standardized test results clearly show it though I'm not to enthralled with such tests. They leave a lot to be desired. In fact they can become part of the problem.
Here in BC the Fraser Institute publishes a province wide school report card each year. Imaging comparing an inner city school with one in North Vancouver. What a joke.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Here in BC the Fraser Institute publishes a province wide school report card each year. Imaging comparing an inner city school with one in North Vancouver. What a joke.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
Modern humans have two imperatives; both must be met if we are to survive. The practical imperative is the necessity to produce and consume, the moral imperative is the necessity to live together in harmony.
Pre-bomb humans could ignore the moral imperative but modern humans cannot; we have created a technology that illuminates the need for the moral imperative.
Our educational system is designed to solve the practical imperative and ignore the moral imperative. The only way I see that we can solve the moral imperative is that we become self-actualizing self-learners after our schooling is complete. If we do this we can develop the understanding required to solve the moral imperative.
Solving the moral imperative is a long range goal; we cannot continue in our childish manner of indifference, ignorance, apathy, and skepticism.
Keep hope alive by awakening from your childish slumber. You are no longer a child; you are men and women with a big job to do. Are you up to that challenge?
Keep hope alive!
Pre-bomb humans could ignore the moral imperative but modern humans cannot; we have created a technology that illuminates the need for the moral imperative.
Our educational system is designed to solve the practical imperative and ignore the moral imperative. The only way I see that we can solve the moral imperative is that we become self-actualizing self-learners after our schooling is complete. If we do this we can develop the understanding required to solve the moral imperative.
Solving the moral imperative is a long range goal; we cannot continue in our childish manner of indifference, ignorance, apathy, and skepticism.
Keep hope alive by awakening from your childish slumber. You are no longer a child; you are men and women with a big job to do. Are you up to that challenge?
Keep hope alive!
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
coberst:-6
I agree with most if not all of what you say. The only thing that I would question is when we begin this transformation. As adults after our education is better than never. On the other hand behaviours and the sense of some moral obligation are fairly well set by the age of 5. It will ultimately be easier when the adults begin to teach their children.
Just reading a book, by Karen Armstrong, called "The Great Transformation". In it she examines the basic foundational stimulus that promoted the development of all of the great faiths. It is interesting to note that each of the great faiths began with the same call and unknown to each other they all began within a few hundred years. Their call was for compassion and justice (distributive).
It is interesting that the call for a more equitable distribution of the world's resources began back about 4500 BC. Here we are 6500 years later and still fighting the same injustice. Man never seems to learn.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I agree with most if not all of what you say. The only thing that I would question is when we begin this transformation. As adults after our education is better than never. On the other hand behaviours and the sense of some moral obligation are fairly well set by the age of 5. It will ultimately be easier when the adults begin to teach their children.
Just reading a book, by Karen Armstrong, called "The Great Transformation". In it she examines the basic foundational stimulus that promoted the development of all of the great faiths. It is interesting to note that each of the great faiths began with the same call and unknown to each other they all began within a few hundred years. Their call was for compassion and justice (distributive).
It is interesting that the call for a more equitable distribution of the world's resources began back about 4500 BC. Here we are 6500 years later and still fighting the same injustice. Man never seems to learn.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Jamesblonde
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 12:07 am
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
coberst;595273 wrote: Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
I claim that the educational institutions of all Western democratic nations are very conservative. They are designed to foster the status quo. As such they are focused upon graduating individuals with the means to maximize production and consumption.
Conservative yet but they are not afraid to break the status quo. There was a time once when they actually existed to serve the public and educate people. Unfortunately they have succumbed to the black-hole of today's economic paradigm and now exist only to make a profit.
I claim that the educational institutions of all Western democratic nations are very conservative. They are designed to foster the status quo. As such they are focused upon graduating individuals with the means to maximize production and consumption.
Conservative yet but they are not afraid to break the status quo. There was a time once when they actually existed to serve the public and educate people. Unfortunately they have succumbed to the black-hole of today's economic paradigm and now exist only to make a profit.
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
jamesblonde:-6
Do you have problem with teachers making a decent living?
Shalom
Ted:-6
Do you have problem with teachers making a decent living?
Shalom
Ted:-6
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
I feel that access to internet resources and the information that is available can provide the individual with greater understanding of other people and their culture. Sometimes this information is best obtained from the individual themselves as opposed to oft times slanted Blogs & Websights. How often have we heard someone say "Well, I read on the Web". The problem as I see it is bias. Seems that many have an agenda or the proverbial axe to grind. Who is it that speaketh the truth? Catalyst for change?? Do we change a liberal into a consevative, or vice versa? Do we change an atheist into a believer? Do we convert an illiterate into a scholar? Do we get people to buy into the different "Conspiracy Theories"? Hopefully, if any change were to come about, it would be to give people a greater awareness of the world in which we live and the people therein. I love the Web but find after reading different and opposing material, that I am still left to make up my own mind.
-
Jamesblonde
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 12:07 am
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
Ted;597915 wrote: jamesblonde:-6
Do you have problem with teachers making a decent living?
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted.
Did, I say anything about teachers wages? Do teachers get a payrise every time faculty cuts another class or its equipment?
No, they get the sack and all the gool ol' boys and gals on the board get another payrise at the expense of people who actually contribute for a living.
Do you have problem with teachers making a decent living?
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted.
Did, I say anything about teachers wages? Do teachers get a payrise every time faculty cuts another class or its equipment?
No, they get the sack and all the gool ol' boys and gals on the board get another payrise at the expense of people who actually contribute for a living.
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
Lon;597941 wrote: I feel that access to internet resources and the information that is available can provide the individual with greater understanding of other people and their culture. Sometimes this information is best obtained from the individual themselves as opposed to oft times slanted Blogs & Websights. How often have we heard someone say "Well, I read on the Web". The problem as I see it is bias. Seems that many have an agenda or the proverbial axe to grind. Who is it that speaketh the truth? Catalyst for change?? Do we change a liberal into a consevative, or vice versa? Do we change an atheist into a believer? Do we convert an illiterate into a scholar? Do we get people to buy into the different "Conspiracy Theories"? Hopefully, if any change were to come about, it would be to give people a greater awareness of the world in which we live and the people therein. I love the Web but find after reading different and opposing material, that I am still left to make up my own mind.
It is all about observation, thinking critically, and making good judgments.
In a liberal democracy like our own we cannot out-distance the general judgment capacity of the majority. If the US is going to make better judgments in the future then, by definition, our citizens must be able to make better decisions.
I consider CT (Critical Thinking) for all citizens as the only avenue for improving the judgment of our society in general.
Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.
Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers—trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic fundamentals of logic. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.
The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.
I think that any normal human can easily comprehend the message of CT. Very few adults have been taught CT but it can easily be learned by anyone who recognizes its importance.
Anyone who can watch TV for a few hours a week certainly has the time to learn. The problem is lack of motivation and that is due to the fact that within our society few individuals recognize that thinking can be improved by study. Because our schools and colleges have only recently began to teach the subject few people have ever heard of the subject. Everyone thinks they are critical thinkers because they know nothing about it and that is the purpose of my sounding the horn.
I think that those of us who understands the situation should beat the drums about this matter at every opportunity.
It is all about observation, thinking critically, and making good judgments.
In a liberal democracy like our own we cannot out-distance the general judgment capacity of the majority. If the US is going to make better judgments in the future then, by definition, our citizens must be able to make better decisions.
I consider CT (Critical Thinking) for all citizens as the only avenue for improving the judgment of our society in general.
Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.
Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers—trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic fundamentals of logic. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.
The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.
I think that any normal human can easily comprehend the message of CT. Very few adults have been taught CT but it can easily be learned by anyone who recognizes its importance.
Anyone who can watch TV for a few hours a week certainly has the time to learn. The problem is lack of motivation and that is due to the fact that within our society few individuals recognize that thinking can be improved by study. Because our schools and colleges have only recently began to teach the subject few people have ever heard of the subject. Everyone thinks they are critical thinkers because they know nothing about it and that is the purpose of my sounding the horn.
I think that those of us who understands the situation should beat the drums about this matter at every opportunity.
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
jamesblonde:-6
Sorry, that was not intended to be anything other than a query.
That has not been my experience in Ontario. I cannot comment on other countries as I know nothing of the details of how things work. It may be your experience where you live but I don't know that.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Sorry, that was not intended to be anything other than a query.
That has not been my experience in Ontario. I cannot comment on other countries as I know nothing of the details of how things work. It may be your experience where you live but I don't know that.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
coberst;598205 wrote: It is all about observation, thinking critically, and making good judgments.
In a liberal democracy like our own we cannot out-distance the general judgment capacity of the majority. If the US is going to make better judgments in the future then, by definition, our citizens must be able to make better decisions.
I consider CT (Critical Thinking) for all citizens as the only avenue for improving the judgment of our society in general.
Wouldn't you be assuming that all Critical Thinkers would reach the same conclusion? If everyone was a Master Critical Thinker, would they all agree on issues and ideas? I don't think so.
Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.
Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers—trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic fundamentals of logic. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.
The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.
I think that any normal human can easily comprehend the message of CT. Very few adults have been taught CT but it can easily be learned by anyone who recognizes its importance.
Anyone who can watch TV for a few hours a week certainly has the time to learn. The problem is lack of motivation and that is due to the fact that within our society few individuals recognize that thinking can be improved by study. Because our schools and colleges have only recently began to teach the subject few people have ever heard of the subject. Everyone thinks they are critical thinkers because they know nothing about it and that is the purpose of my sounding the horn.
I think that those of us who understands the situation should beat the drums about this matter at every opportunity.
While I certainly support thinking out important issues in depth, I think it's naive to think that if all people practice Critical Thinking it would create change for the good. It's very possible that their Critical Thinking would support their pre-conceived ideas on any particular issue.
While some are thinking, there are others that are doing, some right and some wrong, but doing none the less. It's those that do, that have impacted history, more than the thinkers. Those that do may be carrying out the plans of the Critical Thinkers or they just might possibly be acting on instinct.
In a liberal democracy like our own we cannot out-distance the general judgment capacity of the majority. If the US is going to make better judgments in the future then, by definition, our citizens must be able to make better decisions.
I consider CT (Critical Thinking) for all citizens as the only avenue for improving the judgment of our society in general.
Wouldn't you be assuming that all Critical Thinkers would reach the same conclusion? If everyone was a Master Critical Thinker, would they all agree on issues and ideas? I don't think so.
Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.
Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers—trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic fundamentals of logic. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.
The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.
I think that any normal human can easily comprehend the message of CT. Very few adults have been taught CT but it can easily be learned by anyone who recognizes its importance.
Anyone who can watch TV for a few hours a week certainly has the time to learn. The problem is lack of motivation and that is due to the fact that within our society few individuals recognize that thinking can be improved by study. Because our schools and colleges have only recently began to teach the subject few people have ever heard of the subject. Everyone thinks they are critical thinkers because they know nothing about it and that is the purpose of my sounding the horn.
I think that those of us who understands the situation should beat the drums about this matter at every opportunity.
While I certainly support thinking out important issues in depth, I think it's naive to think that if all people practice Critical Thinking it would create change for the good. It's very possible that their Critical Thinking would support their pre-conceived ideas on any particular issue.
While some are thinking, there are others that are doing, some right and some wrong, but doing none the less. It's those that do, that have impacted history, more than the thinkers. Those that do may be carrying out the plans of the Critical Thinkers or they just might possibly be acting on instinct.
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
Lon;598812 wrote: While I certainly support thinking out important issues in depth, I think it's naive to think that if all people practice Critical Thinking it would create change for the good. It's very possible that their Critical Thinking would support their pre-conceived ideas on any particular issue.
While some are thinking, there are others that are doing, some right and some wrong, but doing none the less. It's those that do, that have impacted history, more than the thinkers. Those that do may be carrying out the plans of the Critical Thinkers or they just might possibly be acting on instinct.
The do-without-thinking crowd has gotten us into this mess. Constant war did not endanger the existence of the species until we got the bomb. Now that we have the bomb we must learn how to think-before-do.
While some are thinking, there are others that are doing, some right and some wrong, but doing none the less. It's those that do, that have impacted history, more than the thinkers. Those that do may be carrying out the plans of the Critical Thinkers or they just might possibly be acting on instinct.
The do-without-thinking crowd has gotten us into this mess. Constant war did not endanger the existence of the species until we got the bomb. Now that we have the bomb we must learn how to think-before-do.
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
magenta flame;598835 wrote: disinterested knowledge ............that's interesting 
Disinterested knowledge is a means to defragment your brain.
Most everyone has played with jigsaw puzzles and recognize how we put such puzzles together. When we start a new puzzle the first thing we do is construct the frame. We gather all the pieces with one straight edge and slowly construct the outer perimeter of the puzzle.
Such is the case when we organize knowledge. When we begin to learn a new domain of knowledge in school our teachers help us set up the frame. They hold our hands while we construct the outside boundary and slowly fill in the image by adding new facts.
After we leave school if we want to become a self-learner and to become knowledgeable of new domains we will follow this same procedure but with a significant difference. We will have no teacher to supply us with the pieces of the puzzle. Especially difficult will be gathering the appropriate side pieces so that we can frame our domain. After this we might very well have to imagine the image of the puzzle because we will not have a teacher to help us ‘see’ what the domain ‘looks like’.
When we become a self-learner we will often find pieces of knowledge that do not fit our already constructed frames, when this happens we have two choices. We can throw away the new fragment of knowledge or we can start a journey of discovery in an effort to organize the construction of a new domain. The odd piece of knowledge is either trashed or we must begin a big effort to start construction on a new big puzzle.
I think that knowledge is easily acquired when that knowledge fits easily within one’s accepted ideologies. If we have a ready place to put a new fragment of knowledge we can easily find a place to fit it in. When the knowledge does not fit within our already functioning ideas that fact will be discarded unless a great deal of effort is made to find a home for that fragment of knowledge.
We are unable to move beyond our ideologies unless we exert great effort. No one can give us that type of knowledge; we must go out of our way to stalk it, wrestle it to the ground and then find other pieces that will complete a frame. That is why our schools do not try to take us beyond our narrow world because it is too costly in time and effort. Our schools prepare us to be good workers and strong consumers, anything beyond that we must capture on our own.
No one can give us that kind of knowledge. It can only be presented as an awakening of consciousness and then we can, if we have the energy and curiosity go and capture the knowledge of something totally new and start a new puzzle.
Disinterested knowledge is a means to defragment your brain.
Most everyone has played with jigsaw puzzles and recognize how we put such puzzles together. When we start a new puzzle the first thing we do is construct the frame. We gather all the pieces with one straight edge and slowly construct the outer perimeter of the puzzle.
Such is the case when we organize knowledge. When we begin to learn a new domain of knowledge in school our teachers help us set up the frame. They hold our hands while we construct the outside boundary and slowly fill in the image by adding new facts.
After we leave school if we want to become a self-learner and to become knowledgeable of new domains we will follow this same procedure but with a significant difference. We will have no teacher to supply us with the pieces of the puzzle. Especially difficult will be gathering the appropriate side pieces so that we can frame our domain. After this we might very well have to imagine the image of the puzzle because we will not have a teacher to help us ‘see’ what the domain ‘looks like’.
When we become a self-learner we will often find pieces of knowledge that do not fit our already constructed frames, when this happens we have two choices. We can throw away the new fragment of knowledge or we can start a journey of discovery in an effort to organize the construction of a new domain. The odd piece of knowledge is either trashed or we must begin a big effort to start construction on a new big puzzle.
I think that knowledge is easily acquired when that knowledge fits easily within one’s accepted ideologies. If we have a ready place to put a new fragment of knowledge we can easily find a place to fit it in. When the knowledge does not fit within our already functioning ideas that fact will be discarded unless a great deal of effort is made to find a home for that fragment of knowledge.
We are unable to move beyond our ideologies unless we exert great effort. No one can give us that type of knowledge; we must go out of our way to stalk it, wrestle it to the ground and then find other pieces that will complete a frame. That is why our schools do not try to take us beyond our narrow world because it is too costly in time and effort. Our schools prepare us to be good workers and strong consumers, anything beyond that we must capture on our own.
No one can give us that kind of knowledge. It can only be presented as an awakening of consciousness and then we can, if we have the energy and curiosity go and capture the knowledge of something totally new and start a new puzzle.
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
coberst:-6
I have no idea where you went to school.
My experiences were obviously different. I had teachers who insisted we think critically.
In the schools of which I was a principal and in my own classrooms I always included lessons that stimulated critical thinking and problem solving. I know that those skills are part of the Ontario curriculum.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I have no idea where you went to school.
My experiences were obviously different. I had teachers who insisted we think critically.
In the schools of which I was a principal and in my own classrooms I always included lessons that stimulated critical thinking and problem solving. I know that those skills are part of the Ontario curriculum.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
Ted;599290 wrote: coberst:-6
I have no idea where you went to school.
My experiences were obviously different. I had teachers who insisted we think critically.
In the schools of which I was a principal and in my own classrooms I always included lessons that stimulated critical thinking and problem solving. I know that those skills are part of the Ontario curriculum.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I often fail to remember that this membership is international. I am an American, and, like most Americans, I assume everyone else is also. My remarks are about American educational institutions.
American educational institutions began two or three decades ago to try to introduce CT (Critical Thinking) into our schools and colleges. We have always taught our children what to think and not how to think; thus this change will be very difficult.
It appears to me that the effort is a valiant one but it is only slowly begining to take place. Our teachers, as well as our citizens, have all been left with the opinion that thinking just comes naturally and that no one needs to study about how best to do it. The art and science of critical thinking is a new thing here in the US and it will be a long time before it becomes standard.
I have no idea where you went to school.
My experiences were obviously different. I had teachers who insisted we think critically.
In the schools of which I was a principal and in my own classrooms I always included lessons that stimulated critical thinking and problem solving. I know that those skills are part of the Ontario curriculum.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I often fail to remember that this membership is international. I am an American, and, like most Americans, I assume everyone else is also. My remarks are about American educational institutions.
American educational institutions began two or three decades ago to try to introduce CT (Critical Thinking) into our schools and colleges. We have always taught our children what to think and not how to think; thus this change will be very difficult.
It appears to me that the effort is a valiant one but it is only slowly begining to take place. Our teachers, as well as our citizens, have all been left with the opinion that thinking just comes naturally and that no one needs to study about how best to do it. The art and science of critical thinking is a new thing here in the US and it will be a long time before it becomes standard.
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
coberst;599398 wrote: I often fail to remember that this membership is international. I am an American, and, like most Americans, I assume everyone else is also. My remarks are about American educational institutions.
American educational institutions began two or three decades ago to try to introduce CT (Critical Thinking) into our schools and colleges. We have always taught our children what to think and not how to think; thus this change will be very difficult.
It appears to me that the effort is a valiant one but it is only slowly begining to take place. Our teachers, as well as our citizens, have all been left with the opinion that thinking just comes naturally and that no one needs to study about how best to do it. The art and science of critical thinking is a new thing here in the US and it will be a long time before it becomes standard.
Then I would suggest before you come out with things like this
I claim that the educational institutions of all Western democratic nations are very conservative. They are designed to foster the status quo. As such they are focused upon graduating individuals with the means to maximize production and consumption.
You should perhaps change the wording somewhat. The phrase "all western democratic nations" word all does rather imply you don't just mean America. Methinks your critical thinking needs revision in the area of semantics:sneaky:
How people are educated and how it is accessed varies widely from country to country. My knowledge of the American system is almost non existent-for instance the terms fifth grade, sixth grade and so on are literally meaningless since I don't know the context and never actually been interested enough to find out. Same with terms like freshman and sophomore.
I would have thought that the education system varied immensely from state to state. The debate about whether creationism should be taught or not is one for instance that is peculiarly American.
You do seem to attach a great deal of importance to what happens at school-judging from films etc. Whereas here school is something you go to and then leave to get on with your life.
Liberal Western democracy is not an American invention they have merely put their own interpretation on it. Indeed i don't think any one nation can claim to be the sole progenitor.
I'm curious. I presume American schools cover writers like Thomas Paine. Do they include the Age of Reason or does freethinking cause apoplexy in the education system.
Actually i have difficulty understanding how anyone studying the lead up to the Declaration of Independence doesn't acquire at least a working knowledge of critical thinking by the simple act of reading over some of the arguments that went on at the time. A lot of which are still relevant today. Any comment or am I spouting a load of cobblers.
American educational institutions began two or three decades ago to try to introduce CT (Critical Thinking) into our schools and colleges. We have always taught our children what to think and not how to think; thus this change will be very difficult.
It appears to me that the effort is a valiant one but it is only slowly begining to take place. Our teachers, as well as our citizens, have all been left with the opinion that thinking just comes naturally and that no one needs to study about how best to do it. The art and science of critical thinking is a new thing here in the US and it will be a long time before it becomes standard.
Then I would suggest before you come out with things like this
I claim that the educational institutions of all Western democratic nations are very conservative. They are designed to foster the status quo. As such they are focused upon graduating individuals with the means to maximize production and consumption.
You should perhaps change the wording somewhat. The phrase "all western democratic nations" word all does rather imply you don't just mean America. Methinks your critical thinking needs revision in the area of semantics:sneaky:
How people are educated and how it is accessed varies widely from country to country. My knowledge of the American system is almost non existent-for instance the terms fifth grade, sixth grade and so on are literally meaningless since I don't know the context and never actually been interested enough to find out. Same with terms like freshman and sophomore.
I would have thought that the education system varied immensely from state to state. The debate about whether creationism should be taught or not is one for instance that is peculiarly American.
You do seem to attach a great deal of importance to what happens at school-judging from films etc. Whereas here school is something you go to and then leave to get on with your life.
Liberal Western democracy is not an American invention they have merely put their own interpretation on it. Indeed i don't think any one nation can claim to be the sole progenitor.
I'm curious. I presume American schools cover writers like Thomas Paine. Do they include the Age of Reason or does freethinking cause apoplexy in the education system.
Actually i have difficulty understanding how anyone studying the lead up to the Declaration of Independence doesn't acquire at least a working knowledge of critical thinking by the simple act of reading over some of the arguments that went on at the time. A lot of which are still relevant today. Any comment or am I spouting a load of cobblers.
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
gmc
Most colleges have a numbering system identifying the courses being taught. In the college catalogue you are apt to find that your freshman courses are Physics 101, Chemistry 101, Literature 101, Geography 101, etc. The introductory course to a particular domain of knowledge is likely to be numbered 101. This has led to the common usage of 101 as meaning an introductory course.
If elementary schools followed this format, which they do not, you would see first graders taking Reading 101, Writing 101, and Arithmetic 101.
Only recently have our (US) educational institutions come to the realization that teaching youngsters what to think is necessary but not sufficient. The educational community has decided that our schools and colleges must begin to teach young people HOW to think. Our schools and colleges must begin teaching Reasoning 101.
Twelve years after graduating with an engineering degree I took a night course, Logic 101 (i.e. Reasoning 101), from the physics department of a local college. I was amazed to discover that I had no knowledge about this fundamental human capacity of reasoning before I took this course. I pondered the unbelievable fact that after 16 years of education I had no comprehension of the science of reasoning. I recognized at that moment that my educational system had seriously short-changed me.
That this serious omission is still universal was once again brought to my attention recently when I posted this response to a fellow forum member: “Reading is fundamental. Writing is fundamental. CT (Critical Thinking) is fundamental. These fundamental elements of human knowledge appear constantly and in all matters because of their fundamental nature.†With the following reply: “…sleeping is even more fundamental than all of those... I don't think everyone needs to study sleeping - practice seems good enough.â€
Most colleges have a numbering system identifying the courses being taught. In the college catalogue you are apt to find that your freshman courses are Physics 101, Chemistry 101, Literature 101, Geography 101, etc. The introductory course to a particular domain of knowledge is likely to be numbered 101. This has led to the common usage of 101 as meaning an introductory course.
If elementary schools followed this format, which they do not, you would see first graders taking Reading 101, Writing 101, and Arithmetic 101.
Only recently have our (US) educational institutions come to the realization that teaching youngsters what to think is necessary but not sufficient. The educational community has decided that our schools and colleges must begin to teach young people HOW to think. Our schools and colleges must begin teaching Reasoning 101.
Twelve years after graduating with an engineering degree I took a night course, Logic 101 (i.e. Reasoning 101), from the physics department of a local college. I was amazed to discover that I had no knowledge about this fundamental human capacity of reasoning before I took this course. I pondered the unbelievable fact that after 16 years of education I had no comprehension of the science of reasoning. I recognized at that moment that my educational system had seriously short-changed me.
That this serious omission is still universal was once again brought to my attention recently when I posted this response to a fellow forum member: “Reading is fundamental. Writing is fundamental. CT (Critical Thinking) is fundamental. These fundamental elements of human knowledge appear constantly and in all matters because of their fundamental nature.†With the following reply: “…sleeping is even more fundamental than all of those... I don't think everyone needs to study sleeping - practice seems good enough.â€
-
Jamesblonde
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 12:07 am
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
You love that sun thing don't you ted.
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
posted by coberst
Only recently have our (US) educational institutions come to the realization that teaching youngsters what to think is necessary but not sufficient. The educational community has decided that our schools and colleges must begin to teach young people HOW to think. Our schools and colleges must begin teaching Reasoning 101.
American educational institutions began two or three decades ago to try to introduce CT (Critical Thinking) into our schools and colleges. We have always taught our children what to think and not how to think; thus this change will be very difficult.
This puzzles me. How can you study history-and I presume you are taught about the American war of independence and the American Civil War etc, without going over all that led up to it and the arguments that are every bit as relevant to-day without becoming at least semi politically-aware or learning it is OK to be critical or at least vaguely wonder what it was all about that so many were ready to die.
What is the status quo that you refer to? Who is trying to keep it and what are they hanging on to.
posted by coberst
I think that we should focus our attention upon self-learning after the school days are over. State sponsored education will always be focused upon the desires of the state which represent the desires of industry. I think that we need to recognize that education via a teacher/pupil format will not meet the learning needs for the restructuring of society.
Curious term. Everybody has a right to a free education in our case paid for out of taxes. If that is what you mean by state sponsored well and good. But you seem to imply a "state" using education to brainwash everybody in to supporting the status quo. Which given the diversity of the US does not seem likely.
Society is not a mechanical construct. You strike me as being a typical scientist looking to create a logical structure and explanation of the way things work so that if you alter one bit this is what will happen but people are not that simple.
Societal engineering does not work and never will. Too rigid a structure and things fall apart, usually violently. Unless there is scope for things to evolve and adapt as society and attitudes change and the rate of change is speeding up
Only recently have our (US) educational institutions come to the realization that teaching youngsters what to think is necessary but not sufficient. The educational community has decided that our schools and colleges must begin to teach young people HOW to think. Our schools and colleges must begin teaching Reasoning 101.
American educational institutions began two or three decades ago to try to introduce CT (Critical Thinking) into our schools and colleges. We have always taught our children what to think and not how to think; thus this change will be very difficult.
This puzzles me. How can you study history-and I presume you are taught about the American war of independence and the American Civil War etc, without going over all that led up to it and the arguments that are every bit as relevant to-day without becoming at least semi politically-aware or learning it is OK to be critical or at least vaguely wonder what it was all about that so many were ready to die.
What is the status quo that you refer to? Who is trying to keep it and what are they hanging on to.
posted by coberst
I think that we should focus our attention upon self-learning after the school days are over. State sponsored education will always be focused upon the desires of the state which represent the desires of industry. I think that we need to recognize that education via a teacher/pupil format will not meet the learning needs for the restructuring of society.
Curious term. Everybody has a right to a free education in our case paid for out of taxes. If that is what you mean by state sponsored well and good. But you seem to imply a "state" using education to brainwash everybody in to supporting the status quo. Which given the diversity of the US does not seem likely.
Society is not a mechanical construct. You strike me as being a typical scientist looking to create a logical structure and explanation of the way things work so that if you alter one bit this is what will happen but people are not that simple.
Societal engineering does not work and never will. Too rigid a structure and things fall apart, usually violently. Unless there is scope for things to evolve and adapt as society and attitudes change and the rate of change is speeding up
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
gmc
I think that I have not been clear about what I mean by Critical Thinking.
In a liberal democracy like our own we cannot out-distance the general judgment capacity of the majority. If the US is going to make better judgments in the future then, by definition, our citizens must be able to make better decisions.
I consider CT for all citizens as the only avenue for improving the judgment of our society in general.
Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.
Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers—trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic fundamentals of logic. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.
The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.
I think that any normal human can easily comprehend the message of CT. Very few adults have been taught CT but it can easily be learned by anyone who recognizes its importance. The problem is lack of motivation and that is due to the fact that within our society few individuals recognize that thinking can be improved by study. Because our schools and colleges have only recently began to teach the subject few people have ever heard of the subject.
The manner in which our institutions function is determined by public policy. The question becomes, who sets public policy and what is that policy?
CA (Corporate America) has developed a well-honed expertise in motivating the population to behave in a desired manner. Citizens as consumers are ample manifestation of that expertise. CA has accomplished this ability by careful study and implementation of the knowledge of the ways of human behavior. I suspect this same structure applies to most Western democracies.
A democratic form of government is one wherein the citizens have some voice in some policy decisions. The greater the voice of the citizens the better the democracy.
In America we have policy makers, decision makers, and citizens. The decision makers are our elected representatives and are, thus, under some control by the voting citizen. The policy makers are the leaders of CA; less than ten thousand individuals, according to those who study such matters. Policy makers exercise significant control of decision makers by controlling the financing of elections.
Policy makers customize and maintain the dominant ideology in order to control the political behavior of the citizens. This dominant ideology exercises the political control of the citizens in the same fashion as the consuming citizen is controlled by the same dominant ideology.
An enlightened citizen is the only means to gain more voice in more policy decisions. An enlightened citizen is much more than an informed citizen. Critical thinking is the only practical means to develop a more enlightened citizen. If, however, we wait until our CT trained grade-schoolers become adults I suspect all will be lost. This is why I think a massive effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they must train themselves in CT.
“Thomas R. Dye, Professor of Political Science at Florida State University, has published a series of books examining who and what institutions actually control and run America. to understand who is making the decisions that affect our lives, we also have to understand how societies structure themselves in general. Why the few always tend to share more power than the many and what this means in terms of both a society's evolution and our daily lives. they examined the other 11 institutions that exert just as powerful a shaping influence, although somewhat more subtle: The Industrial, Corporations, Utilities and Communications, Banking, Insurance Investment, Mass Media, Law, Education Foundation, Civic and Cultural Organizations, Government, and the Military.â€
http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/12-dye.html
I think that I have not been clear about what I mean by Critical Thinking.
In a liberal democracy like our own we cannot out-distance the general judgment capacity of the majority. If the US is going to make better judgments in the future then, by definition, our citizens must be able to make better decisions.
I consider CT for all citizens as the only avenue for improving the judgment of our society in general.
Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.
Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers—trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic fundamentals of logic. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.
The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.
I think that any normal human can easily comprehend the message of CT. Very few adults have been taught CT but it can easily be learned by anyone who recognizes its importance. The problem is lack of motivation and that is due to the fact that within our society few individuals recognize that thinking can be improved by study. Because our schools and colleges have only recently began to teach the subject few people have ever heard of the subject.
The manner in which our institutions function is determined by public policy. The question becomes, who sets public policy and what is that policy?
CA (Corporate America) has developed a well-honed expertise in motivating the population to behave in a desired manner. Citizens as consumers are ample manifestation of that expertise. CA has accomplished this ability by careful study and implementation of the knowledge of the ways of human behavior. I suspect this same structure applies to most Western democracies.
A democratic form of government is one wherein the citizens have some voice in some policy decisions. The greater the voice of the citizens the better the democracy.
In America we have policy makers, decision makers, and citizens. The decision makers are our elected representatives and are, thus, under some control by the voting citizen. The policy makers are the leaders of CA; less than ten thousand individuals, according to those who study such matters. Policy makers exercise significant control of decision makers by controlling the financing of elections.
Policy makers customize and maintain the dominant ideology in order to control the political behavior of the citizens. This dominant ideology exercises the political control of the citizens in the same fashion as the consuming citizen is controlled by the same dominant ideology.
An enlightened citizen is the only means to gain more voice in more policy decisions. An enlightened citizen is much more than an informed citizen. Critical thinking is the only practical means to develop a more enlightened citizen. If, however, we wait until our CT trained grade-schoolers become adults I suspect all will be lost. This is why I think a massive effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they must train themselves in CT.
“Thomas R. Dye, Professor of Political Science at Florida State University, has published a series of books examining who and what institutions actually control and run America. to understand who is making the decisions that affect our lives, we also have to understand how societies structure themselves in general. Why the few always tend to share more power than the many and what this means in terms of both a society's evolution and our daily lives. they examined the other 11 institutions that exert just as powerful a shaping influence, although somewhat more subtle: The Industrial, Corporations, Utilities and Communications, Banking, Insurance Investment, Mass Media, Law, Education Foundation, Civic and Cultural Organizations, Government, and the Military.â€
http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/12-dye.html
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
posted by coberst
In a liberal democracy like our own we cannot out-distance the general judgment capacity of the majority. If the US is going to make better judgments in the future then, by definition, our citizens must be able to make better decisions
A democratic form of government is one wherein the citizens have some voice in some policy decisions. The greater the voice of the citizens the better the democracy.
In America we have policy makers, decision makers, and citizens. The decision makers are our elected representatives and are, thus, under some control by the voting citizen. The policy makers are the leaders of CA; less than ten thousand individuals, according to those who study such matters. Policy makers exercise significant control of decision makers by controlling the financing of elections.
One of the problems many have with liberal democracy is that the opinions of the great unwashed, when it comes right down to it really do matter. In general they are apathetic and not disposed to bother until something motivates them enough to take action.
If the US is going to make better judgments in the future then, by definition, our citizens must be able to make better decisions
Better is a relative term. Most political commentators, both left and right, use it when they think the wrong decision is being made. i.e. the policies they would like are not being pursued.
Policy makers exercise significant control of decision makers by controlling the financing of elections
very true in the US and to a lesser extent here in the UK. but they can only keep control when allowed to get away with it by the electorate. There are signs that many in the US are fed up being ignored and becoming more politicised.
Who knows you may see some electoral reform on the horizon. Exactly what I would not like to say since I am not familiar enough with the American system. (Nor to be honest that interested as my own is of more immediate concern) My understanding is that the constitution was set up with checks and balances in place primarily to stop a populist agenda coming to the fore. Perhaps it's gone too much the other way.
As an aside, who actually has the final power? The senate congress or the president? That is whose say-of the institutions is final. Ultimately who decides the make up of that institution? Freedom comes not from institutions or elites but from the readiness of the ordinary person to stand up and say Fkkj YOu I'm not putting up with this.
At the heart of your advocacy of CT is the elitist assumption that most of your fellows are deluded and need to be led towards enlightenment and taught to think for themselves. Learning is not something that happens in school and then stops but happens all life long. School helps but is only a start.
Taking a philosophy course does not make you a better thinker although it might help. Not studying philosophy does not mean you are incapable of thought.
An enlightened citizen is the only means to gain more voice in more policy decisions. An enlightened citizen is much more than an informed citizen. Critical thinking is the only practical means to develop a more enlightened citizen. If, however, we wait until our CT trained grade-schoolers become adults I suspect all will be lost. [QUOTE]This is why I think a massive effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they must train themselves in CT.
If you start teaching people to think for themselves will that not upset the religious right in America? After all freethinking is anathema to most religious organisations.
In a liberal democracy like our own we cannot out-distance the general judgment capacity of the majority. If the US is going to make better judgments in the future then, by definition, our citizens must be able to make better decisions
A democratic form of government is one wherein the citizens have some voice in some policy decisions. The greater the voice of the citizens the better the democracy.
In America we have policy makers, decision makers, and citizens. The decision makers are our elected representatives and are, thus, under some control by the voting citizen. The policy makers are the leaders of CA; less than ten thousand individuals, according to those who study such matters. Policy makers exercise significant control of decision makers by controlling the financing of elections.
One of the problems many have with liberal democracy is that the opinions of the great unwashed, when it comes right down to it really do matter. In general they are apathetic and not disposed to bother until something motivates them enough to take action.
If the US is going to make better judgments in the future then, by definition, our citizens must be able to make better decisions
Better is a relative term. Most political commentators, both left and right, use it when they think the wrong decision is being made. i.e. the policies they would like are not being pursued.
Policy makers exercise significant control of decision makers by controlling the financing of elections
very true in the US and to a lesser extent here in the UK. but they can only keep control when allowed to get away with it by the electorate. There are signs that many in the US are fed up being ignored and becoming more politicised.
Who knows you may see some electoral reform on the horizon. Exactly what I would not like to say since I am not familiar enough with the American system. (Nor to be honest that interested as my own is of more immediate concern) My understanding is that the constitution was set up with checks and balances in place primarily to stop a populist agenda coming to the fore. Perhaps it's gone too much the other way.
As an aside, who actually has the final power? The senate congress or the president? That is whose say-of the institutions is final. Ultimately who decides the make up of that institution? Freedom comes not from institutions or elites but from the readiness of the ordinary person to stand up and say Fkkj YOu I'm not putting up with this.
At the heart of your advocacy of CT is the elitist assumption that most of your fellows are deluded and need to be led towards enlightenment and taught to think for themselves. Learning is not something that happens in school and then stops but happens all life long. School helps but is only a start.
Taking a philosophy course does not make you a better thinker although it might help. Not studying philosophy does not mean you are incapable of thought.
An enlightened citizen is the only means to gain more voice in more policy decisions. An enlightened citizen is much more than an informed citizen. Critical thinking is the only practical means to develop a more enlightened citizen. If, however, we wait until our CT trained grade-schoolers become adults I suspect all will be lost. [QUOTE]This is why I think a massive effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they must train themselves in CT.
If you start teaching people to think for themselves will that not upset the religious right in America? After all freethinking is anathema to most religious organisations.
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
gmc
Good judgment is esential to the survival of our species. There is bad judgment, good judgment, and better judgment. If we take to effort to learn the art and science of good judgment, i.e. Critical Thinking, our chances for survival will be notably improved.
Good judgment is esential to the survival of our species. There is bad judgment, good judgment, and better judgment. If we take to effort to learn the art and science of good judgment, i.e. Critical Thinking, our chances for survival will be notably improved.
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
coberst;602498 wrote: gmc
Good judgment is esential to the survival of our species. There is bad judgment, good judgment, and better judgment. If we take to effort to learn the art and science of good judgment, i.e. Critical Thinking, our chances for survival will be notably improved.
Good or bad judgement is subjective.
Take religious belief for example. One man's wisdom and truth is another's superstition and nonsense. Which one shows good judgement?
Do you teach science or creationism in the schools? If creationism is rejected in favour of science and the theory of evolution how objective can you be about which is right?
Left wing or right wing on the political spectrum? Socialist or capitalist which one shows the best judgement? Liberal democracy or rule by kings or dictators?
Global warming? Is it good or bad judgement not to take it seriously?
Critical thinking can be used by two different people and they will come up with different answers to the same problem. As a panacea for all societies ills it's (IMO) just another pseudo scientific attempt to come up with a way of social engineering, elitist and not terribly practical.
Teach people to think for themselves is something I am all for. Expecting them to come to the same conclusions as you is not going to happen.
If you want to study philosophy-especially political philosophy go read the original rather than someone's critique and interpretation of it. Then find out about the times they were living in. You can find the same kind of debate going on in the past as there is now, Who rules? how do we educate our people to think for themselves? Should those who own nothing have any say at all? only the clothes and spelling have changed.
I often fail to remember that this membership is international. I am an American, and, like most Americans, I assume everyone else is also. My remarks are about American educational institutions.
Like many Americans you also tend to assume that everywhere else is like America except with different cars and languages. Educational systems vary widely as to attitudes to important social issues. Most European nations espouse at least some socialist values and expect certain things to be provided by govt. Not because we are brainwashed but because we elect govts to do certain things for us and if they don't we kick them out.
Good judgment is esential to the survival of our species. There is bad judgment, good judgment, and better judgment. If we take to effort to learn the art and science of good judgment, i.e. Critical Thinking, our chances for survival will be notably improved.
Good or bad judgement is subjective.
Take religious belief for example. One man's wisdom and truth is another's superstition and nonsense. Which one shows good judgement?
Do you teach science or creationism in the schools? If creationism is rejected in favour of science and the theory of evolution how objective can you be about which is right?
Left wing or right wing on the political spectrum? Socialist or capitalist which one shows the best judgement? Liberal democracy or rule by kings or dictators?
Global warming? Is it good or bad judgement not to take it seriously?
Critical thinking can be used by two different people and they will come up with different answers to the same problem. As a panacea for all societies ills it's (IMO) just another pseudo scientific attempt to come up with a way of social engineering, elitist and not terribly practical.
Teach people to think for themselves is something I am all for. Expecting them to come to the same conclusions as you is not going to happen.
If you want to study philosophy-especially political philosophy go read the original rather than someone's critique and interpretation of it. Then find out about the times they were living in. You can find the same kind of debate going on in the past as there is now, Who rules? how do we educate our people to think for themselves? Should those who own nothing have any say at all? only the clothes and spelling have changed.
I often fail to remember that this membership is international. I am an American, and, like most Americans, I assume everyone else is also. My remarks are about American educational institutions.
Like many Americans you also tend to assume that everywhere else is like America except with different cars and languages. Educational systems vary widely as to attitudes to important social issues. Most European nations espouse at least some socialist values and expect certain things to be provided by govt. Not because we are brainwashed but because we elect govts to do certain things for us and if they don't we kick them out.
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
Good or bad judgment is as objective as falling off a cliff because of making bad judgments. It is as objective as a traffic accident because of poor judgment. Good judgments are those which are more closely attuned with reality. All opinions are not of the same value. The science of reasoning helps one make judgments that are based upon the logic of reasoning well.
It is correct that two people will evaluate the same set of facts and draw different conclusions. One of these conclusions is better than the other based upon the nature of the reality being considered, one is objectively better than the other. Religious belief is just that, it is belief, it is not judgment based upon fact.
It is correct that two people will evaluate the same set of facts and draw different conclusions. One of these conclusions is better than the other based upon the nature of the reality being considered, one is objectively better than the other. Religious belief is just that, it is belief, it is not judgment based upon fact.
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
There are limitations to self learning. The resources one receives dictate self learning in many ways and only then those self learners have to verify those resources are correct. Anything else is blind worship.
To me it's not a matter of "a catalyst for change" but so long as we all separate ourselves into "groups" the only hope is "a catalyst for a lack of change" ending with as minimal perversion as innately possible.
To me it's not a matter of "a catalyst for change" but so long as we all separate ourselves into "groups" the only hope is "a catalyst for a lack of change" ending with as minimal perversion as innately possible.
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
coberst;602608 wrote: Good or bad judgment is as objective as falling off a cliff because of making bad judgments. It is as objective as a traffic accident because of poor judgment. Good judgments are those which are more closely attuned with reality. All opinions are not of the same value. The science of reasoning helps one make judgments that are based upon the logic of reasoning well.
It is correct that two people will evaluate the same set of facts and draw different conclusions. One of these conclusions is better than the other based upon the nature of the reality being considered, one is objectively better than the other. Religious belief is just that, it is belief, it is not judgment based upon fact.
Not when it comes to politics and how things should be ordered. All opinions are subjective and those who claim to have the best judgement and a better more informed opinion than their fellows are invariably arrogant and usually wrong.
All opinions are not of the same value.
Who gets to decide which opinions are of lessor value? Hitler and stalin, for instance, would probably wholeheartedly agree with you that all opinions are not of the same value, indeed in their eyes some were of no consequence at all. Objective reasoning is all very well but the reality is those who hold to have a better capacity for objective reasoning and should therefore be the ones to order society for the better of all invariably get it wrong. If you want an example closer to home have a look at the objective reasoning behind the eugenics movement.
Religious belief is just that, it is belief, it is not judgment based upon fact
While I would actually agree with you about religion there are many who would not. They would hold your opinion in error and not of equal value to theirs as your grasp of reality is flawed since you lack a belief in god.
It is correct that two people will evaluate the same set of facts and draw different conclusions. One of these conclusions is better than the other based upon the nature of the reality being considered, one is objectively better than the other. Religious belief is just that, it is belief, it is not judgment based upon fact.
Not when it comes to politics and how things should be ordered. All opinions are subjective and those who claim to have the best judgement and a better more informed opinion than their fellows are invariably arrogant and usually wrong.
All opinions are not of the same value.
Who gets to decide which opinions are of lessor value? Hitler and stalin, for instance, would probably wholeheartedly agree with you that all opinions are not of the same value, indeed in their eyes some were of no consequence at all. Objective reasoning is all very well but the reality is those who hold to have a better capacity for objective reasoning and should therefore be the ones to order society for the better of all invariably get it wrong. If you want an example closer to home have a look at the objective reasoning behind the eugenics movement.
Religious belief is just that, it is belief, it is not judgment based upon fact
While I would actually agree with you about religion there are many who would not. They would hold your opinion in error and not of equal value to theirs as your grasp of reality is flawed since you lack a belief in god.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
I think internet forums ARE a catalyst for change. We talk to people who speak radically different dialects and that forces us to consider our words. Increasingly, there is a language of discovery which is both international and American English.
The world can talk to itself - we can talk to eachother - and this is the hope we have against the horror that threatens.
The world can talk to itself - we can talk to eachother - and this is the hope we have against the horror that threatens.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
gmc;1314352 wrote: Objective reasoning is all very well but the reality is those who hold to have a better capacity for objective reasoning and should therefore be the ones to order society for the better of all invariably get it wrong. If you want an example closer to home have a look at the objective reasoning behind the eugenics movement.
While I would actually agree with you about religion there are many who would not. They would hold your opinion in error and not of equal value to theirs as your grasp of reality is flawed since you lack a belief in god.
"Objective reasoning" cannot exist in the context of evolution. Objectivity is defined by a lack of emotion which asserts a lack of care. A lack of care cannot fit within any sentence that uses the word "evolution" if one's to claim "moral certainty". The answer is easy. Subjective reasoning should be applied by the virtues of those more morally educated. Divine morality is what people trip over for some odd reason. Without "religion" we have "religion" just in a different context. Religion by default will forever exist in the minds that wish for peace because a common morality is what drives it. Just that everyone claims to be morally superior is why we have so many names for religion like , "christian, "muslim" etc...etc...
I've tried to convince people that religion when contemplated on the forethought of reason is a very admirable trait. When used to influence the subconsciousness of individuals it's very rude, patronizing, condescending, and invariably ignorant brainwash tactics.
It's why I hold no credibility of what children say in reference to the questioning of their religion. It's stupid.
People dismiss the human brain as being synonymous of "one thought at a time" nonsense. People's decisions dictate their next morally aligned stance which ultimately provides a framework for their competence in making correct decisions associated with society that demands "Objective reasoning". The correct answer isn't "Objective reasoning" but divinely moral "subjective reasoning" that is equally as close as "objective reasoning" as their ability to care for both clauses on a subconscious level. Only one clause is the moral answer, the other has to be immoral. "Amoral" doesn't exist
While I would actually agree with you about religion there are many who would not. They would hold your opinion in error and not of equal value to theirs as your grasp of reality is flawed since you lack a belief in god.
"Objective reasoning" cannot exist in the context of evolution. Objectivity is defined by a lack of emotion which asserts a lack of care. A lack of care cannot fit within any sentence that uses the word "evolution" if one's to claim "moral certainty". The answer is easy. Subjective reasoning should be applied by the virtues of those more morally educated. Divine morality is what people trip over for some odd reason. Without "religion" we have "religion" just in a different context. Religion by default will forever exist in the minds that wish for peace because a common morality is what drives it. Just that everyone claims to be morally superior is why we have so many names for religion like , "christian, "muslim" etc...etc...
I've tried to convince people that religion when contemplated on the forethought of reason is a very admirable trait. When used to influence the subconsciousness of individuals it's very rude, patronizing, condescending, and invariably ignorant brainwash tactics.
It's why I hold no credibility of what children say in reference to the questioning of their religion. It's stupid.
People dismiss the human brain as being synonymous of "one thought at a time" nonsense. People's decisions dictate their next morally aligned stance which ultimately provides a framework for their competence in making correct decisions associated with society that demands "Objective reasoning". The correct answer isn't "Objective reasoning" but divinely moral "subjective reasoning" that is equally as close as "objective reasoning" as their ability to care for both clauses on a subconscious level. Only one clause is the moral answer, the other has to be immoral. "Amoral" doesn't exist
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Internet Forum: a catalyst for change
Bloody adverts.
Just so you know, you are now on my "never use" list.
Just so you know, you are now on my "never use" list.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."