Critical Thinking

[StarCat]

I haven't yet decided what I want to say about critical thinking. It's intrinsic to science though, and needs a spot here.

Cat

[LuisP]

My thoughts exactly.

That is why I reproduce here something I posted elsewhere.

"Science without humanity.
Knowledge without character"
A lawyer said that.
His name was Ghandi. As in Mahatma.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
A botanist said that.
His name was Darwin. As in Charles.

"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence"
A telephone company guy said that.
His name was Tesla. As in Nikola.

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
A lute player said that.
His name was Galileo. As in Galilei.

“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it? A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth”
A office clerk said that.
His name was Einstein. As in Albert.

“The greatest blessing granted to mankind come by way of madness, which is a divine gift.”
A master stonecutter said that.
His name was Socrates. As in Socrates

[LuisP]

How about these :

Paul Feyerabend, was an Austrian-born philosopher of science best known for his work as a professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, where he worked for three decades.
He said this : a distinction between science and nonscience is neither possible nor desirable. Among the issues which can make the distinction difficult is variable rates of evolution among the theories and methodologies of science in response to new data. In addition, specific standards applicable to one field of science may not be applicable in other fields.

Larry Laudan is a contemporary philosopher of science who is currently a researcher at the Institute for Philosophical Investigations of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
He said this : If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science' and 'unscientific' from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us".

Richard McNally is a Professor of Psychology and Director of Clinical Training, Doctoral Clinical Psychology Program, at Harvard University.
He said this : The term 'pseudoscience' has become little more than an inflammatory buzzword for quickly dismissing one's opponents in media sound-bites.

Thomas Kuhn, was an American physicist, historian, and philosopher of science deeply influential in both academic and popular circles, and was a professor at the universities of Harvard, Berkeley, Princeton and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
He said this : scientific fields undergo periodic "paradigm shifts" rather than solely progressing in a linear and continuous way. These paradigm shifts open up new approaches to understanding what scientists would never have considered valid before. The notion of scientific truth, at any given moment, cannot be established solely by objective criteria.

[LuisP]

Lastly, another "critical" thinker :

Professor John O’M.Bockris (1923-2013) was considered to be one of the top two or three electrochemists of the 20th century. Bockris authored/co-authored over 700 papers and 24 books in the areas of physical electrochemistry, environmental chemistry, photoelectrochemistry, bioelectrochemistry, quantum electrochemistry and condensed matter nuclear reactions ("cold fusion").

His last book, published in 2005, was titled (!?!) “The New Paradigm: A Confrontation Between Physics and the Paranormal Phenomena”. It is a very comprehensive collection of many phenomena which fall outside the domain of mainstream science.

Brockis said these very interesting things :

- “Historically, big discoveries have been made by following up experiments anomalous to the theory of the time”
- “At present, the attitude towards paradigm-inconsistent findings is automatically to reject them, with anger, insisting that they are due to sloppy experiments or fraud”
- “The decisions scientists make about what is acceptable to investigate and what is not will shape our destiny for centuries, and may even determine the fate of humankind and our planet.”

[Morecool]

Critical thinking is not taught in the public education system. At least not in any meaningful or revelent way. Instead one is taught to memorize facts that may or may not be true. Current science while able to take us so far is presented in such a manner as that it is the only recognised path that is valid. This is such a misleading avenue. To further reference what i am saying i present to you John Taylor Gatto

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxCuc-2tfgk