Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] just for fun



On 12/31/2013 07:00 AM, Philip Keller wrote:
Not to be a wise guy, but it seems to me that when I read a
definition of "critical thinking" it always seems that you could omit
the word "critical" and be fine. Is it possible that those who
promote "critical thinking" have not done enough "critical thinking"
about the word "critical" in that context? Or is it to be a sort of
code-word or place-holder for "not just wool gathering or day
dreaming but focused, purposeful attempts to make sense of something
important"? Still, I'd call it "thinking".

Yes, but you're being logical. :-)

The problem is, a lot of people think they already know how
to think, just as they already know how to walk and how to
get dressed. If you're the ergonomics consultant or the
fashion consultant, you have to give it a fancy name (not
just "walking" or "dressing"). Otherwise people will devalue
what you do, and/or be offended that you would think they
need help with something so basic.

This has more to do with pedagogical psychology than with
logic.

If you wanted to be logical, according to the dictionary, you
could call it thinking or reasoning or logic or analysis or
cogitation or cognition or lucubration or contemplation or
even meditation ... but none of those is a particularly apt
description.

At some point we have to deal with the fact that names are
almost never descriptive. That's sorta why terminology was
invented: a short name stands in for a lengthy description.

================

Another problem is that some of the folks who are running
for school board like to talk-talk-talk about critical
thinking, even though they have demonstrated not the
slightest ability to do it, let alone teach other folks
to do it.