> Robert Hansen 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. >> > "..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"?
One succeeds in what they set out to accomplish.
> -- 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.
Give me some examples.
> -- "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.
That is called obsessing over details, which is something else. Attention to detail has to do with the ability to recognize the significant details.
> 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).
> 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.
The web site is exactly how people lacking critical thinking skills view critical thinking. They think it is a formula. I was in a meeting at NASA awhile back and we were discussing a problem and I having had much experience with the problem threw out a solution. One of the (seriously not too bright) managers in the meeting said "Let's slow down, we are all smart people here, let's discuss the alternatives." There were no alternatives. He no longer works there. This site reminds me of him. Things people say when they lack the required ability.
>> >> 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 and then do consider rethinking the above.
I am quite successful with what I wrote above. Nothing you have offered here indicates that a rethinking is necessary. Your model is a formula and a formula can't model what isn't a formula.
>> >> 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).
Here is my thinking on this GS...
Math, music, critical thinking, and many other abilities are artful processes that require talent. Things that require talent are not rote, are not procedural and are not formulaic. Things that are not rote, procedural or formulaic cannot be reduced to a list. Q.E.D.
This proof does not require us to determine who has talent or not, only agreement that those things listed (i,e, Math, Music and Thinking) require it. This proof does not depend on whatever process you claim to be using, only that the result is a list (a graph counts).
Any site that claims to be teaching math, music or thinking by modeling is a FRAUD. You can't teach artful things that way. I don't think you can teach artful things at all, you can only coach them. But cheer up, education does not seem to have a definition for fraud. If you had a leaky roof and paid me to fix it and it continued to leak, that would be fraud. Either I return the money you paid me or we end up in small claims court. Go to college and fail to get a degree or get a degree of such poor quality that you cannot find gainful employment and that is not fraud. The biggest problem I see in education today is fraud. It is rampant.