Confirmation bias as observed in brain scans

by SweetBabyCheezits 36 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  james_woods

  The version of critical thinking I'm referring to is not just cold analysis of data. It's a deep subject rooted in ethics.

  And that is very much the same as equating critical thinking with morality, as I stated above.

  My point was that just critical thinking (without a positive ethical or moral guideline) does not necessarily improve a person, or society.

  It took some great critical thinking to create the V2 rocket - it took some great moral deviation to build it at the cost of thousands of lives in slave labor camps and then launch it against London for no valid tactical reason, killing hundreds of civilians.
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  Again, your view of CT appears to come from a single line in the dictionary, or perhaps the idea that you can define the words "critical" and "thinking" therefore you have a firm grasp on the subject.

  Critical thinking without a positive ethical guideline isn't critical thinking at all. A fundamental goal in CT is to reach a fair and unbiased conclusion. To say "critical thinking (without a positive ethical or moral guideline) does not necessarily improve a person, or society" is like me removing the tires on a Ferrari and complaining that it's too damn slow.

  Maybe read a book on it before you try to diminish it's value.
• 

  james_woods

  Well, where else are you going to go for the definition of a word (or words) like critical thinking other than the dictionary?

  The reason that I am stubbornly arguing the point is that the notion of morality springing from a persons critical thinking suggests that a person can successfully make up their own morality by thought processes.

  My point is that not everybody - (I would even go so far as to say practically very few people) - can come up with positive morals all on their own.
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  Would you rather be judged by a jury made up of those who have strong critical thinking skills or those who go with their gut instincts? -SweetBabyCheezits

  KnowsNothing: Critical thinking alone in a trial can put an innocent person in jail, based on the only available evidence, which may be faulty.

  We are comparing a trial in which the jury exercises CT vs a trial in which the jury DOES NOT. If you would rather have a jury that doesn't apply critical thinking, you either don't have a clue or you like taking risks.

  So we're going to diminish the value of CT because some PARTS of it can be used by psychopaths to achieve their means? -SweetBabyCheezits

  KnowsNothing: No, but perhaps a new label would be appropriate. Ethical Critical Thinking.

  Or, better yet, you and James could take a class on CT and learn what it really entails instead of asking everyone else to conform to your ignorance and give it a new name.
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  James: Well, where else are you going to go for the definition of a word (or words) like critical thinking other than the dictionary?

  Like the term scientific method, it is a subject, and cannot be contained by the clues in context or Merriam-Webster. But I've been guilty of oversimplifying it, too, before I read a book on the subject, so I understand why a lot of folks mistake CT for "sharp thinking" or something of that sort. That's why I included the links to the criticalthinking.org website, to give the subject a bit more depth.
• 

  SixofNine

  I second that second thing ;)
• 

  james_woods

  Look, SBC - I know what critical thinking is.

  What I am simply saying is that it does not automatically result in positive morality.

  I am further saying that current brain scan technology cannot possibly ascertain whether or not a person is doing critical thinking.
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  Look, SBC - I know what critical thinking is.

  Yes, of course, you read it in a dictionary.

  What I am simply saying is that it does not automatically result in positive morality.

  And I'm just saying that Ferraris are slow-ass sports cars if we take away the tires.

  I am further saying that current brain scan technology cannot possibly ascertain whether or not a person is doing critical thinking.

  I realize you were probably James Woods, neuroscientist, in another life - capable of debating the likes of Sam Harris - but back in this world, you are James Woods, fellow JWN poster and debater extraordinaire. I'm just amazed at how quickly my fellow armchair scientists feel qualified to shoot down PhDs who have lengthy experience in their fields. I'm much more impressed when two equally qualified scientists debate each other.

  Specifically, which parts of this study do you object to exactly? The methodology used to acquire the data, the results themselves (indicating which parts of the brain were active), the interpretation of those results, or the more colorful article that Shermer wrote to share his conclusions?
• 

  james_woods

  And I'm just saying that Ferraris are slow-ass sports cars if we take away the tires.

  It does not take much critical thinking to come to that conclusion. It does not require much critical thinking to realize that this statement is off-topic, either.

  I'm just amazed at how quickly my fellow armchair scientists feel qualified to shoot down PhDs who have lengthy experience in their fields.

  That is my critical thinking at work. Sorry, but nobody (and I do mean NOBODY - PhD or not) can tell what somebody is thinking from an MRI or other brain scan. We simply do not have that level of technology - it is akin to claiming that a gypsy lady can read your mind or tell your future.
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  James Woods: What I am simply saying is that [critical thinking] does not automatically result in positive morality.

  SBC: And I'm just saying that Ferraris are slow-ass sports cars if we take away the tires.

  James Woods: It does not take much critical thinking to come to that conclusion. It does not require much critical thinking to realize that this statement is off-topic, either.

  Ah but it illustrates my point, James. I see it went over your head so I'll spell it out again: To say "critical thinking (without a positive ethical or moral guideline) does not necessarily improve a person, or society" is like removing the tires on a Ferrari and complaining that it's too damn slow.

  Ferrari tires are to Ferrari as ethical practice is to critical thinking.

  In other words you are unfairly diminishing the value of critical thinking simply because you fail to see critical thinking as an ETHICAL PRACTICE IN ITS OWN RIGHT. But, no, a dictionary doesn't clarify that.

  Fowler, Martin, 1951-
  The ethical practice of critical thinking
  p. cm.
  Includes bibliographical references and index.
  ISBN 10: 1-59460-503-3
  ISBN 13: 978-1-59460-503-1 (alk. paper)
  1. Critical thinking. 2. Reasoning. 3. Ethics. I. Title.