Re: [Phys-L] just for fun

[Philip Keller <pkeller@holmdelschools.org>]

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".

On 12/31/2013 6:53 AM, Sergey Sukhotinsky wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Bernard Cleyet <bernard@cleyet.org> wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
> >
> > bc what he thought by the term.
> But Google says:
> > > > critic
> 1. a person who expresses an unfavourable opinion of something.
> synonyms: detractor, censurer, attacker, fault-finder, carper, backbiter,
> caviller, reviler, vilifier, traducer, disparager, denigrator, deprecator,
> belittler; informalknocker, nitpicker; <<<
>
> In my opinion, "Critical thinking" must inherit from "critic",  otherwise
> it does not pass the self-check - "the foundation-stone of critical
> thinking "check the work"" :-)
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@phys-l.org
> http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l