Re: [Phys-L] just for fun

[Sergey Sukhotinsky <s.sukhotinsky@gmail.com>]

> 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".

Sorry for the delayed reply. Thanks to all for the info on "critical
thinking". I was unaware of the "critical thinking" movement. I looked
through the links and found that the definition of "critical thinking"
looks to me like only paved with good intentions. I don't buy it. Rather
closely it resembles me the style of thinking of true communist builder, I
was taught in 197x-198x. That's not too bad. Just don't push too hard to
normalize the Human nature, diversity rules.

> From what I understand in the incredible talk by Dan Pink: "The puzzle of
motivation".
< http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html >, a free running
Human mind may be more capable against the mind bounded by restrictions in
the form of good incentives or (IMHO) in the form of "improvements" by this
or that concept of the better mind.

Thanks again.
Sergey Sukhotinsky,
Ukraine,
sukhotinsky@phystech.edu