Robert Hansen (RH) posted Mar 24, 2012 9:08 PM (regret delay in responding; was off Internet for a day or so): > This (web site) is a very poor representation of > critical thinking. Critical thinking is first and > foremost about thinking and being correct in that > thinking. > (RH): "..being correct in that thinking" Could you clarify as to just how one becomes "correct in one's thinking"? I agree that being correct in whatever thinking we do is important, but just how does one ensure that one is "correct in that thinking"? I have found a practical means that helps me, I believe, become correct in my thinking (often over time and iterations) - but without that practical means it would be difficult to ensure achieving any kind of 'systematic correctness'. I attach herewith a model that hopefully explains (to some extent, at least; if one is able to get over one's irrational [and I believe "incorrect"] hatred of boxes, and the like). > >Attention to detail, the ability to quickly > infer and a robust memory are the ingredients. > I agree that -- attention to detail; -- ability to quickly infer; -- robust memory are indeed useful and necessary ingredients ('elements', if I may term them) to help bring about "correctness in thinking" - but they are DEFINITELY not 'sufficient'. For instance:
-- one can very easily (and quickly) infer incorrectly. It happens all the time. I've seen it happen all too often right here at Math-teach - often enough by you. [The following remark is added for sake of clarity: Entirely in opposition to one of RH's statements triple-starred (***) below, it is not at all (REPEAT: NOT AT ALL!!!) my practice to point out incorrect opinions or inferences of others (except when these opinions or inferences may directly be in contradiction to some argument of mine or is something outrageously in opposition to what, in my opinion, is good common 'systems sense'. What is 'systems sense'? I shall soon be providing a PowerPoint presentation - at this or perhaps at another thread here at Math-Teach, which should help explain the term). I really have no interest/desire to step into that kind of school-masterish role].
-- "attention to detail" when carried to needless extremes can often lead to the phenomenon of "missing the forest for the trees" - this too happens, all too often, and it happens right here, at Math-teach.
-- "robust memory" is definitely useful (if and when accompanied by a practical means that can help with ensuring correctness in making inferences. If not, the most robust of memories would be useless - and it is all too often found just so in real life). > >Many > of the traits listed here are counterproductive to > thinking. > I would tend to agree with you if you were to claim that the traits listed (Intellectual Humility; Intellectual Courage; Intellectual Empathy; Intellectual Integrity; Intellectual Perseverance; Faith In Reason; Fairmindedness) are by no means "sufficient" to ensure "correctness in thinking", but I must most strongly disagree with your claim that they are "counterproductive to thinking". Just how have you been able to infer that? On what grounds? Please specify. (I have drawn the attention to the people at the "Critical Thinking" website to this opinion of mine). > > To a critical thinker this would be an > indication that this site is not about critical > thinking but something else altogether. > What then is it about? (I personally don't see it as being anywhere near what I would feel is even 'satisfactory' [view ensuring effective "critical thinking"] - and I have drawn the attention of the website to this opinion of mine). But just what is the site about other than "critical thinking"??!! I believe you are grossly wrong here. > > ***For example, when someone excels at critical thinking > they dispel other's opinions quickly when they are > wrong, not because they are not open minded but > because they are simply that fast and that > experienced in critical thinking. This is the indeed > the goal of critical thinking, to become good at it, > and this site doesn't even recognize that. > Please see and adequately understand the model attached (also an added remark above) and then do consider rethinking the above. > > To put it simply, the goal of critical thinking is to > be right. The goal of critical thinking is not to > mimic critical thinking as this site and its goofy > elements pretend to do. The same can be said for many > fraudulent curriculums. > See above. (Though I do agree with your thoughts about the many fraudulent curricula we see around).
GSC > On Mar 23, 2012, at 11:47 PM, GS Chandy > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > Further my post of Mar 24, 2012 8:07 AM: > >> Further my earlier posts on this very important > topic > >> of INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY (for raising which I > once > >> again render my heartfelt thanks to Haim), I > Googled > >> for the phrase "INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY IN > >> MATHEMATICS", as this is probably particularly > close > >> to all our hearts and minds. > >> > > <SNIP> > >> At another of the (Foundation's) pages > >> > (http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/valuable-intell > >> ectual-traits/528), they have identified the > >> following intellectual traits as being of > particular > >> relevance and value: > >> > >> - -- Intellectual Humility > >> - -- Intellectual Courage > >> - -- Intellectual Empathy > >> - -- Intellectual Integrity > >> - -- Intellectual Perseverance > >> - -- Faith In Reason > >> - -- Fairmindedness > >> > > I thought it would be a useful exercise to grade > myself on the Intellectual Traits the Foundation > believes to be of importance - the following are the > grades I gave myself: > > INTELLECTUAL TRAIT (GSC's SCORE) > > ============== > > - -- Intellectual Humility (4/10) > > - -- Intellectual Courage (6 or 7/10) > > - -- Intellectual Empathy (5 or 6/10) > > - -- Intellectual Integrity (8/10) > > - -- Intellectual Perseverance (9/10) > > - -- Faith In Reason (8/10) > > - -- Fairmindedness (9/10) > > > > Of course, the above is only my own assessment of > myself - and is therefore subject to my personal > bias. I would like to learn the assessments that > people who know me may give me on the above traits to > find out the reality: putting it all together may > provide some worthwhile insights. > > > > I claim that a sizable bit of the credit for the > high scores I give myself on some of the above traits > must go to my consistent, systematic and regular > practice of OPMS in all that I do. (Before I started > using OPMS, I believe I would have scored much lower > on all the above traits). > > > > I would be most happy to find out the > self-assessments for the above traits of others at > Math-Teach. > > > > As always, I expecially seek the valued opinions of > Haim, Wayne Bishop, Robert Hansen and other members > of the 'Math-Teach Family' on my above thoughts. > > > > GSC > > ("Still Shoveling Away!")
Message was edited by: GS Chandy
Message was edited by: GS Chandy (to enhance clarity of original - NO ALTERATION of "historical record)