I've no idea of what you are saying.

Oh, I am not at all dismissing the crucial importance of critical thought when it comes to becoming aware of conventional historical mistakes. It is a crucial element. Sometimes what was once thought to be true turns out to be mistaken in some way or other. We all know this.

We are fallible creatures. We form and/or hold false belief. When they are held across the spectrum of an entire population or society, and they are false, we could have a case of operative false belief with a tremendous amount of power. Such beliefs are considered to be common conventional wisdom by most if not all of those members.

Here...

"Thinking outside the box" has some weight so long as it's not so far outside that it becomes utterly irrelevant. The revolution of conventional wisdom always comes in amenable terms.

We have huge problems with Cosmology and maths relating to the assumption that actual infinity exists. — Devans99

I don't know about cosmology, but in mathematics I don't know where you get the "huge" from; most mathematicians sail along successfully oblivious to this issue. Those relatively few in foundations of mathematics might be disturbed. Keep in mind math developed over many thousands of years, becoming more and more effective in describing and predicting physical effects, but placing all that math on firm foundations is a recent effort and is rarely required to practice the Queen of the Sciences effectively. (math is not really a science)

As for critical thinking, I taught college courses for many years and I suppose I fall into the nature category vs the nurture. If someone isn't born with the skill, some aspects of that skill can be taught in specific areas but for a very general kind of CT I'm not convinced. But I certainly could be mistaken.

Questioning authority is not equivalent to critical thinking. Doubt without adequate ground is not the result of critical thinking. It's the result of something else much less worthy... much less admirable. — creativesoul

Indeed, and it's usually a form of crude belief, of credulousness. As @Banno mentioned, those who don't know math nevertheless believe that they can detect massive mistakes at the foundations, somehow overlooked by people who have given their lives to the discipline.

This 'less worth, much less admirable' thing you mention is even 'the' enemy that we as thinkers primarily contend with --our own intellectual vanity. What such rebels are overlooking is that they merely enact the spirit of our times (an accidental conformism that mistakes itself as revolutionary.)

Coming from one who has come to understand that my own past critiques have sometimes been based on a misunderstanding, I would readily concur with this. It's exactly right. — creativesoul

I like your humility here. I also look back on my petty resistance to certain thinkers and theories as based on a misunderstanding that was itself based on sloth and vanity. We are haunted by the fantasy of the short cut, and 'idle talk' that shallowly misunderstands various famous philosophers only supports this. In short, (as I currently see it), philosophy hurts. The conceptual difficult is secondary to emotional difficulty.

'Critical thinking' is self-sacrificing thinking, and this sacrificed self is the petty self.

Are we talking Dunning-Kruger...?

Know thyself. — Delphi temple inscription, allegedly

Are we talking Dunning-Kruger...? — jorndoe

I think we are. I think that knowing one's self also reveals the 'viscosity' of thought. Large changes in our networks of beliefs and desires are traumatic and rare, and this suggests/explains that intellectual growth is a kind of continuous drift, punctuated now and then by a leap one is ready for.

I connect this viscosity to identity, by which I mean how the subject is attached to seeing itself. Harold Bloom's notion of the anxiety of influence is useful here. If I am attached to understanding myself as a genius, then I do not want to discover myself to be merely repeating what has already been said. I must read a kind of 'swerve' into my own offering to rescue it from coming too late. But more usual threats to identity are the 'death of god' or the realization of 'my' complicity in that which I understand to be guilty and other.

I don't pretend in the least that these are new themes or realizations. For me 'knowing myself' has largely been about experiencing the force and aim of the words of others. In my view, philosophy is not just the isolated ego knowing itself but more like our self-knowledge. This 'our' as opposed to 'my' is IMV fundamental and constitutes a part of our self-knowledge.

This is what it boils down to in this thread: We're critically thinking about critical thinking.
Critical thinking all by itself, without a solid, tangible or conceptual topic, is not possible.
If critical thinking has no topic, or the critics have limited or no knowledge of the topic, critical thinking is a waste.
But we are criticising pure critical thinking.
And critical thinking has been shown to be useless without a topic.
So we are critically thinking about something that is critical thinking with no topic.
---------------
Let me explain.
F(x) only has meaning when x is not equal to zero.
F(F(x)) therefore only has meaning if X is not equal to zero.
We wish to examine F as a function.
But we do it with a conceptual approach, where we in effect examine F(F(0)).
Therefore this discussion is only worthwhile if we approach the topic with actual examples, and not with conceptual megadescriptions.
Yet the notion that F(0) is meaningless was postulated while talking about F(0) in terms of F(F(0)).

Go figure.

Completely. Perhaps many assume they are offering ‘critique’ when they’re doing little more than expressing an uninformed opinion.

Critical thinking is certainly dangerous without large doses of humility.

Was chatting about this sort of thing recently. The reason why ‘scientists’ are generally more capable of critical thought is likely because they are happy when their ideas/theories are proven wrong - that is exciting for them. When it comes to more dogmatic areas of interest (where ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ don’t fit so readily) the opposite is sought out: that is people look to be shown right in order to develop a sense fo ‘understanding’. At the extreme end the dogmatically religious types seek proof to rest on and do their upmost to deride any contradiction.

Reason and critical thought must go hand in hand right? If so, we’re starting at a disadvantage as we’re terrible at basic logic in abstracted forms. I don’t think this can be ‘taught’ and probably the best means of pedagogy would involve greater emphasis in the Arts rather than expecting people to make conceptual leaps from concrete examples to abstract rules.

Like all human trait, there are environmental factor that help to nurture them. Also, some traits will necessarily hinder other traits. Quite often what many see as detrimental to X actually boosts X in the long run.

Critical thinking is certainly dangerous without large doses of humility.

Was chatting about this sort of thing recently. The reason why ‘scientists’ are generally more capable of critical thought is likely because they are happy when their ideas/theories are proven wrong - that is exciting for them. When it comes to more dogmatic areas of interest (where ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ don’t fit so readily) the opposite is sought out: that is people look to be shown right in order to develop a sense fo ‘understanding’. At the extreme end the dogmatically religious types seek proof to rest on and do their upmost to deride any contradiction.

Critical thinking is largely absent from the cultural paradigm. If everyone was busy in such an act, it would be impossible to differentiate the creative people from the followers. Most Scientists also tend to be followers in a sense. Even though they can be more open minded to changing their opinion on certain matters than most religious people on religious matters. To give an example that will bring clarity to my claim. Consider Einstein, he was incredibly critical to come with a theory that fundamentally changed what had been accepted for perhaps 300 years. Yet all that critical thinking did not let him accept the parallel development that was taking place in the quantum physics. He obviously understood it better than most of us but he insisted that the theory was incorrect and it took quite sometime for him to get used to the viewpoint. Another important example is feynman, he did not like the field theory of Schwinger as it was more tedious. Even though it was far more rigorous than what Feynman had presented. The scientists are also human beings and will always end up being partial to one way of thinking over another in the field of science. Let's move away from science and focus on philosophy. The rift which existed between analytical philosophers and the continental philosophers or to put it more accurately, the complete indifference of each other to the others development is yet another example of a category of people,the academic philosophers being close minded, contrary to the opinion that philosophers are always open minded.

It is quite easy to target the religious people and take a jab at them. Dogma is comforting to the common man who doesn't really care about the technical details or whatever the fuss theologians have created. This is the way the social consciousness works and probably will in the future. The apologetics are really too close minded and do not represent the majority. I am sure most of them do notice the weakness of their arguments but for sake of defending their religion, still use them nonetheless. If you really want to understand some religions, you also need to look at them from a psychological point of view. A lot of philosophers who were deeply in touch with the human spirit were against apologetics and one of the best examples is Kierkegaard. He really understood what was the problem at hand.

I wonder,

Who is an expert in God to know what they are talking about?

Who is an expert on consciousness to know what it is they are talking about?

Who is an expert on knowledge and truth to know what it is they are talking about?

Who is an expert on morality to know what is good and bad for everyone?

If these fundamental questions can't be answered by experts, then is it safe to say that anyone is an expert on anything?

Dogma goes against ‘critical thinking’. Dogma basically means to accept as writ without criticism - ergo it is probably more likely to induce a lack of critical thought rather than broaden and refine critical thought.

Those open to shifting their world views are more open to taking criticism on board. I wasn’t saying for a moment that scientist, philosophers or pious people are automatically one more than the other, only stating inclinations instilled in them.

Critical thinking all by itself, without a solid, tangible or conceptual topic, is not possible. — god must be atheist

It kind of seems like you are saying, it is possible to think critically 'about' something specific, but it isn't possible to think critically about critical thinking?

Karl Popper has highly-regarded and expansive epistemology called "Critical Rationalism" that is entirely based on the concept of critical thinking.

Dogma basically means to accept as writ without criticism - ergo it is probably more likely to induce a lack of critical thought rather than broaden and refine critical thought.

In that case, a certain amount of dogma is absolutely necessary in order for a person to gain knowledge of the subject before applying critical thinking on it. The vastness of the knowledge in the world means that there will always be people who are experts in a certain field and other people will have no choice but take their words for it. Further more, the ability to think critically is totally different from the will to think critically. Consider a scientific theory which needs some refinement and despite the will and effort of many scientists to improve it, only a few will be able to think critically and succeed in improving it. I think we are confusing the will to think critically and the act itself.

Those open to shifting their world views are more open to taking criticism on board. I wasn’t saying for a moment that scientist, philosophers or pious people are automatically one more than the other, only stating inclinations instilled in them.

I think inclinations are due to human nature itself and not the subject beforehand. It manifests itself in different forms. In religious doctrine, you will find a relative freedom in the interpretation of their texts but within the fold of the belief system.For science it is opposite, you will be able to claim anything but the freedom will also require you to provide a more rigorous justification of your thesis on basis of mathematics and experimental evidence. Dogma exists in different forms in every activity human beings take part in.

It kind of seems like you are saying, it is possible to think critically 'about' something specific, but it isn't possible to think critically about critical thinking?

I don't speak for him but l think there is some truth to it. The tools we use can only be applied to something other than themselves. If we try to improve the way we think. We will only end up with a conclusion that was pre-supposesd in the beginning. It will be a circular task.

I don't speak for him but l think there is some truth to it. The tools we use can only be applied to something other than themselves. If we try to improve the way we think. We will only end up with a conclusion that was pre-supposesd in the beginning. It will be a circular task. — Wittgenstein

To this I can only suggest you check out Popper. His is a comprehensive survey and analysis of induction, probability, testability, demarcation, etc. etc. Naturally, he uses examples, but he does really examine what constitutes criticism. Moreover, he concludes that criticism produces an objectivity that is more fundamental even than perception (which is 'uncritically theory-laden').

I think it is possible, as meta-analysis.

That just doesn’t follow. ‘Dogma’ means belief without doubt. It is hardly possible to be critical if you cannot doubt. I would argue ‘critical thought’ requires the ‘will’ to be critical.

It doesn’t make sense to me to suggest an absence of skepticism falls in line with ‘critical thought’.

It can make sense, as l explained here.

In that case, a certain amount of dogma is absolutely necessary in order for a person to gain knowledge of the subject before applying critical thinking on it. The vastness of the knowledge in the world means that there will always be people who are experts in a certain field and other people will have no choice but take their words for it

There’s a lot of equivocating between critical thinking, criticism, and critique. Is this an example of critical thinking without context?

Sure, so far l have only checked his falsification principle in science and he does seem to engage in a meta epistemic study. Recently l had a discussion with a friend of mine on that topic and we could not reasonably draw a line between what constitutes scientific thesis and which doesn't. For example, a lot of modern psychology is in a midway between science and psuedo science.
But what's your take on it. Do you believe that we can think critically about critical thought itself. I think we can but it will always be a circular task. Even though all results may not be wrong, their reasoning can always be challenged.

Everyone else is always lacking 'critical thinking'. Never found it to be much other than an invective.

I don’t regard ‘dogma’ as incremental. It is not possible to gain knowledge if you’re closed off to it - that is what dogma is. I don’t see how using critical thought to decide who to believe in, can be called ‘dogma’. With dogma there is no decision to be made only rules to be adhered to.

Can dogma exist in an absolute form and encompass knowledge totally. I think that would be an exaggeration.
People can have fundamental dogmatic beliefs and based upon them exercise a limited critical thinking. Limited critical thinking can also happen when the person does not stand on dogmatic grounds, simply because of the limitation of the human mind. I understand why dogma doesn't change but it can provide a base for other thoughts to evolve. For example physicists dogmatically accepted that time is absolute, yet they still managed to think critically on a lot of their topics based on time. Only in the 20th century, this conception of time was again challenged.

I don’t see how using critical thought to decide who to believe in, can be called ‘dogma’

Any novice will have to select a certain viewpoint to follow or adopt and l believe critical thinking at that time is not possible, simply because of the absence of knowledge. Hence, it will be a lighter form of dogma

No. A dogma is nothing like an axiom. Scientific method is basically the antithesis of dogma.

‘Dogmatic’ can be used to suggest a degree of close mindedness.

Dogma means to disregard evidence for or against. There is no ‘premise’ in dogma only absolute truth (that is how the term is used). That is what the word means. For that reason I cannot see how anything that can be considered ‘critical thought’ when there is no weight of evidence in play.

How about the example l gave before and l will quote again.It was a matter which could not be decided on basis of evidence and a lot of other problems in religion, philosophy and even science cannot be decided on basis of evidence. Here is the example, it was treated as an axiom. You have to change your conception of dogma in order to include other forms of dogma.

physicists dogmatically accepted that time is absolute, yet they still managed to think critically on a lot of their topics based on time. Only in the 20th century, this conception of time was again challenged.

I’m not willing to change the definition of a word to suit your claims. Scientists literally don’t adhere to ‘dogma’ yet in colloquial speech we do call psychological fixedness, like you present, ‘dogmatic’ - that doesn’t make their position one based on dogma.

I’m not interested in this kind of word play tbh. Have at it with someone else please.

↪Pantagruel
Sure, so far l have only checked his falsification principle in science and he does seem to engage in a meta epistemic study. Recently l had a discussion with a friend of mine on that topic and we could not reasonably draw a line between what constitutes scientific thesis and which doesn't. For example, a lot of modern psychology is in a midway between science and psuedo science.
But what's your take on it. Do you believe that we can think critically about critical thought itself. I think we can but it will always be a circular task. Even though all results may not be wrong, their reasoning can always be challenged. — Wittgenstein

I think it is just another form of meta-cognition. Thinking about thinking. You can criticize the way something is done. You can criticize the way that you or someone else performs criticism. I.e. Do your criticisms tend to be substantive versus methodological? You have performed critical thinking about critical thinking. Are your criticisms effective? Why not? Are they couched in polemical versus interrogatory fashion? Critical thinking about critical thinking.

I’m not willing to change the definition of a word to suit your claims.

You don't have to but we were using the same word differently.

Btw, don't you sense the deep irony

I’m not interested in this kind of word play tbh.

yet in colloquial speech we do call psychological fixedness,

hmm :sad:

You should read Thomas Kuhn, a philosopher who argued for the presence of dogma in science. :smile:

Skimmed it. Yeah, ‘dogmatism’ exists in pedagogy. Dogma doesn’t care a jot for evidence the same cannot be said of science - although some scientists, and teachers, will undoubtedly hold faster to some opinion or another (generally you’ll find this to be based on evidence not on dogma. The Deepak Chopra guys are weeded out eventually).

Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment.[1] The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism[2][3] and sociocentrism. I don’t think he was suggesting scientists ignore all evidence.

Dogma:

An authoritative principle, belief or statement of opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true regardless of evidence, or without evidence to support it.

The point being - which I still don’t see an argument against - that ‘critical thought’ does not align with dogma. It is not possible to think rationally about something you hold as a dogma that necessarily (as a dogma) requires no evidence or explanation, other than ‘it just is’.

Furthermore, from wiki:

Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment. The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism and sociocentrism.

I think the bold makes my point more clearly here. Dogma is the antithesis of the above, being irrational, non-skeptical, biased and lacking analysis, and completely unconcerned with evidence of any kind.

The point being - which I still don’t see an argument against - that ‘critical thought’ does not align with dogma. It is not possible to think rationally about something you hold as a dogma that necessarily (as a dogma) requires no evidence or explanation, other than ‘it just is’. — I like sushi

I don't think that is what Wittgenstein is saying. I think he is saying it is possible to be dogmatic, in the sense of holding some traditionally held "primary theses" about the world (Relativity is correct) and yet still be capable of advancing your knowledge by way of critical thought. Perhaps critical thought doesn't target dogmatic core beliefs initially or directly, but it can eventually penetrate them.

Certainly, as W says, that is Thomas Kuhn's position, and the man did come up with the notion of the paradigm shift.