Good piece on critical thinking, very CR!

A nice piece! Seven Habits.

1. Judge judiciously

2. Question the questionable

3. Chase challenges

4. Ascertain alternatives

6. Take various viewpoints

7. Sideline the self

 

This entry was posted in epistemology. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Good piece on critical thinking, very CR!

  1. From the link:

    > … abstain altogether from making any judgement, where there are insufficient grounds to decide one way or another

    But we never have “sufficient grounds”. That’s justificationism.

    > Third, when they do make a judgement, they will treat it as a matter of degree, or assign a level of confidence to it, avoiding treating any non-trivial issue as totally certain.

    I think this is completely wrong. If you disagree with my position on the matter, please criticize it. See also BoI.

    > they treat their judgements as provisional, i.e., made on the basis of the evidence and arguments available at the time

    This is standard non-Popperian epistemology. In Popperian epistemology we do not make judgments on the basis of anything.

    I think this is a lot of mistakes in just the first habit. (I also don’t think these things, even if they were correct, should be thought of as habits.) I don’t see how this piece is very CR or very good.

  2. Andrew Crawshaw says:

    “I think this is completely wrong. If you disagree with my position on the matter, please criticize it. See also BoI.”

    You have not stated your position in a form that is conducive to criticism. Furthermore, what page of BoI?

    “This is standard non-Popperian epistemology. In Popperian epistemology we do not make judgments on the basis of anything.”

    We obviously do make judgements: judgements on whether something has been criticised succesfully or not, these judgements are not conclusive or unquestionable, but they are judgements nonetheless.

    I think your conception of the word “judgment” here is an unfair reading of what the blogger is trying to say.

  3. Andrew Crawshaw says:

    I re-read what you said here: ““This is standard non-Popperian epistemology. In Popperian epistemology we do not make judgments on the basis of anything.”

    And I guess what you might be trying to say is not that we don’t make judgements, but that we don’t make it on the basis of anything, but I am not sure what you mean by this, because we do have some kind bases, like logic, or (what amounts to the same) reason or insight etc.

  4. > You have not stated your position in a form that is conducive to criticism.

    Yes I have. http://curi.us/1595-rationally-resolving-conflicts-of-ideas

    And specifically on this blog I stated a position very carefully and did my best to expose it to criticism: http://curi.us/1585-critical-preferences (and the follow up: http://curi.us/1489-critical-preferences-and-strong-arguments )

    Regarding “basis”: what do you want? You’ve said what most people think without relating it to Popperian stuff. You haven’t used a question mark. What do you hope will happen now?

  5. Andrew Crawshaw says:

    “”Regarding “basis”: what do you want?”

    Can you be more explicit?

    “You’ve said what most people think without relating it to Popperian stuff. ”

    Okay.

    “You haven’t used a question mark. What do you hope will happen now?”

    I am not sure what your point is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


3 + seven =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>