Date: January 02, 2021 07:19PM
Okay, Henry. Here you go.
> First, I did not claim to be 'bright.' That is
> your mantle. Second, it is perfectly legitimate
> to appeal to one's own credentials when they have
> been questioned.
Saying that you have spent 40 years thinking about something and "engaging" with academics does not give you credibility. It merely indicates your emotional defensiveness. What matters is whether your arguments are coherent and accurate.
> Exactly, your point was to try to teach OP on how
> to acquire critical thinking skills. And, as
> pointed out clearly and succinctly, your
> suggestion was demonstrably misguided; and
> demonstrated a complete lack of understanding as
> to what critical thinking is all about.
You didn't show that at all. What you showed was that you think Socrates was a fool and the Socratic method a fraud.
> I do not have a problem with asking "smart" people
> to criticize your work.
Then why did you criticize my enlistment of "experts" above? You can't have it both ways: experts are good or they are bad. If their utility changes with your mood, the problem isn't theirs.
> That is a legitimate way
> for you to gain input as to what may be unclear,
> or factually mistaken, to even to point out
> logical problems that you may have overlooked and
> need to consider. However, it is not a method to
> acquire critical thinking skills,
Of course it is. Critical thinking is developed through the practice of criticism, through the engagement of skeptics. That's why it's called "critical thinking" instead of the "accumulation of knowledge." By confusing the two, you demonstrate the limits of your own analysis.
> for reasons I
> clearly explained. After all, even assuming such
> smart people point out what they deem to be a
> logical flaw; you need critical thinking skills to
> assess such criticism. You do not gain such skill
> by taking such criticisms at face value.
Where did I say "take criticism at face value?" That's your interpolation, a straw man. I said, consult many experts and learn from the crossfire.
Assail what I wrote, not what you wish I'd written.
> But, again, the bottom line is that you--yourself--must
> acquire such skills.
You think? Really?
> And, again, you do not gain
> such skills by taking arguments at face
> value--even from people with great critical
> thinking skills themselves.
Again, mischaracterizing what I said by inserting "taking arguments at face value." I said the opposite of that. Your attempts to poke a voodoo doll of me are both transparent and silly.
> I cited Suppes because you desperately need to
> study an introductory logic textbook in order to
> understand what critical thinking is about. READ
> THE BOOK!
Not credible. If you cared about the substance, you would have quoted substance. Instead, you simply lifted a paragraph from the book's preface outlining what the author hoped later to do. If you had well-developed critical thinking skills, you would see the problem with that.
Or you might conversely query your psychological need to include the name of a scholar--the substance of the quote was obviously not important--from six decades ago, when, you know, people punctuated their writing with what were, strictly speaking, too many commas.
This seems to underscore my suspicions about your self-confidence. "I have forty years of speaking to smart people--and here, look, I even own a book written by a smart person!"
> Is this an example of your humility; and
Nice, that Mormon definition of "humility" as "teachability."
But again, you missed the point. I am humble when I encounter people who know more than I or are more skillful than I. Sometimes I make an initial mistake and have to re-evaulate a person who's more substantial than I'd previously thought, but if I can learn I will get humble very fast. That (genuinely) self-serving humility, however, does not extend to suffering fools.
Life's too short for that.
> I have about 20 books on logic; this one is the
> simplest by far. So, at this point--thankfully--I
> don't need the book.
Again, the resume. . .
> What he recommends is that
> you gain an understanding of logic and language;
> and the book attempts to provide that in a basic,
> introductory way. Once you have that
> understanding, and much practice, you will be able
> to recognize bad arguments in an instant, just as
> I can with you. Otherwise, you are left "muddled"
> as your responses to me make clear.
Hahaha. Can you produce a quotation from Suppes where he says you should not learn from experts or engage in the practice of critical exchange with smart people? Because that was, and remains, my position--you know, the position you purport now to be attacking.
> Yes. If in fact no one does disagree who
> understands the issue being discussed. In other
> words, it is not controversial--except with those
> who clearly do not understand the issue.
I love this. "I can't explain my position logically but it's true. . . and people as smart as me know it's true. . . So it's true!"
> I quoted Suppes, as I said, for your and other
> readers' benefit, not as an appeal to authority.
> It was the simplest, most basic logic book I had
> on my shelf.
But you didn't summarize his point or even let him summarize it. You reproduced verbatim a preamble and then dropped him as if his name alone would impress.
I do think you own the book, Henry, and that you read it. But that was so very long ago . . .
> Again, you don't understand what contradiction,
> and inconsistency means (more logic). It doesn't
> matter if you rely upon someone who is an expert
> on critical thinking--even if they are right! The
> point is that this only gives you THEIR critical
> thinking, and not your own. You remain in the
> dark. They have not transferred to you THEIR
> critical thinking skills.
What a foolish thing to say. I never said that the student should take the teacher's words "at face value," as you have insisted more several times now. I said a person learns from exchanges with multiple experts and the crossfire between them.
And yes, if you learn from Socratic dialogue with Socrates, it is perfectly acceptable to claim that you obtained logical and thinking skills from the great man. Whether they are "yours" or "his" really misses the point, doesn't it?
> "YAWN!" (As you are so fond of saying when
> belittling the views of others, often
Excellent! "You make lots of mistakes, LW, but I won't name them." Well Henry, I think your socks smell--and not just from your feet.
I make lots of mistakes and learn from people who explain them to me. You, by contrast, lack the confidence to engage on substance and to admit error. To the contrary, you seem fixated on the need to assert your status. "I have thought about this for 40 years and I talk to smart people. . . Suppes! I have a book by Suppes! . . . My library's REALLY big. . . Lots of smart people agree with me!"
Is that really "logical" thinking?