Carol Josel wrote on February 19, 2008 03:59 AM: As I read your piece, my mind immediately ran to our 3 presidential nominees--and was thinking of responding to this article with them in mind. And then you took the words right out of my head. Why isn't everybody worried and asking for substantive answers, instead of nodding enthusiastically to the word "change." Change agents, my foot. Let the debates begin, on the national stage and in every classroom on matters that matter.

lou e wrote on January 24, 2008 03:21 PM: Hey "Father" Steven...this was an awesome column! I too re-read Orwell in the last couple years...what an eye opener!

Seems you are well and doing fine "smile"

I.Jean Pastula PhD wrote on January 21, 2008 06:58 PM: This time of great technology has created a Neoality; those born of the petri dish; the moment of conception, in a glass cradle, brings forth a human of no kinship, no known Ancestry, a person of no Country, no true origin other than that of the cold glass womb. How does one see oneself when grown to reason?
The President of the United States has
been considering a Nationality for such
a DNA donated person of this originality!Born in a borrowed women, It must be a true identity crisis.

DJ2 wrote on January 21, 2008 06:10 PM: One thing that was discouraging to me when it came to finding the information to support or nix a viewpoint in one of my classes, it didn't take long to see that there is plenty of data to back any view a person wants to promote. In fact, there were times when I felt like throwing up my hands in frustration because it seemed the only sure way to know which bit of opposing information was accurate was to have a phd in that particular field of knowledge!

A person's perspective is only as accurate as is his information or his interpretation of the meaning of his information. (And that's assuming the searcher for knowledge is valuing accuracy above all else and is not trying to manipulate the information at hand for other less than stellar reasons.)

Hmmm...perhaps communication is more efficient and pure when we regress to grunting, gesturing, grimacing, and pointing! Can't do that over e-mail...

Jon H. wrote on January 21, 2008 12:29 PM: DJ2

Law of a Logical Argument = Anything is possible if you do not know what you are talking about.

And I accept the possibility that I may not know what I was talking about!

I believe you are correct when you say that their has always been “a dearth in that area”. I would add that blogs such as this one have caused many persons to be heard with the ability of not being seen or known. The net effect is to allow people to speak, when they in the past would never of spoke, for fear of being ridiculed. So perhaps we simply are hearing more uncritical thinking today, than we had heard in the past.

And I do agree that in general people do exhibit a lack of critical thinking skills, during normal social verbal conversation. We can now add to this, the written form of “informal” conversation that we call blogs.

I am reminded at this point on how often people quote other “great thinkers” on the subject at hand. It is if the authors position is bolstered, when an Einstein or Jefferson agree with some point that they are making!

Lets face it, critical thinking takes work and time, and people are, in general, lazy. And, these blogs are more like verbal social conversation and not, examples of a well considered and studied debate. In certain subjects some of us have spent some time, and may even think that they have well developed arguments on a subject. But as Steve Kalas has pointed out, some of our thoughts may simply be, hogwash, regardless of how we personally think or feel about what we have said.

As Kalas has said, I am willing to listen too and always look forward to a well reasoned argument.

DJ2 wrote on January 21, 2008 09:43 AM: Jon H, APM, and Steven Kalas, fascinating comments, all. It's always fun to check out these pages and to shift one's thoughts to deeper realms of contemplation.

One question, though. Has the sum total of critical thinking actually decreased over the years, or has there always been a dearth in that area? I'm not certain that there has ever been a time in our country's history when critical thinking skills were the rule among the masses. (To avoid the possible false perception of my including myself among the intellectual elite, I was superficially introduced to the terminology and techniques of critical thinking in about three 101 college courses, so I am one of the many who lack the skills described.)

So, from my perspective, I wonder if lack of critical thinking skills is more the norm, and always has been, than the exception.

The lack of these skills by the majority is certainly a shame since their (my) ignorance leaves them so vulnerable to even the least sophisticated of logical manipulations.

Jon H. wrote on January 21, 2008 08:09 AM: Steven Kalas, You say hogwash, and I say tell us more.

I think that you may have been reading some of my posts where I had claimed that Naturalism was in fact a Religion, because the concrete foundations that Naturalism is based on “its axioms” were un-provable. Naturalism claims that all cause is random in nature. I think I used the word “humbled” a few times also. Perhaps the word humbled has different meanings to each of us.

The very important point in my mind is the paradigm that is rationalized from the concretes that we do believe in. If we believe that a conscious created existence, or created identity from chaos, we will then believe in one of many forms of theism. If we believe in an existence that was naturally ordered that then allowed conscious to develop, we then believe in atheism.
I say, that science has suggested from the evidence that there is a high probability that the latter is true, but I cannot say this with absolute certainty. I should point out that every scientific theory, assumes Naturalism as fact.

Lets just say, that when it comes time for me to get in an airplane, or car that I will put my trust in what science has shown us to be a reliable understanding of our existence. I don’t plan to put my life in the hands of wishful thinking, as in G-d will protect me as I jump off the cliff.

APM wrote on January 21, 2008 06:41 AM: In his excellent book "Amusing Ourselves to Death" the brilliant social observer/critic, Neil Postman wrote: "What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one....In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us."

http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/post_1.html

I tend to think he's write as serious discourse and critical thinking as Steven so aptly points out is a rarity. Time to repeal the "Every Child Left Behind Act"

Cheers!

DJ2 wrote on January 20, 2008 09:35 PM: After attending my first psychology course, I decided that I'd be very leery of marrying a psychologist because he'd have the skills to win every arguement, whether he was right or wrong! ;)