Critical Thinking and Public Discourse

[Fischkoepfin 1]

I don't think they meant that we should deny our social ties or influences, but that we make ourselves aware of them and how they influence our perceptions. It's easy to become fixed to a perception of something and callous about exploring a different perception. Same thing with egocentrism - everyone has their own perception of reality - a version of reality. The human tendency is to mistake that version of reality for being 'The Reality'.

in reference to becoming fixed to a perception and callous about exploring a different perception..you mean something like how you're so sure that the economy sucks, that even though almost all economic indicators are positive, even though the average poverty rate under pres bush is lower than the average poverty rate under pres clinton, still you're not able to entertain the thought that maybe the economy is not so bad after all, you are fixed to the perception that the economy sucks and callous about exploring a different perception.

Forming an opinion is not the problem....mmmmbop, it's when you adhere to that opinion rigidly. I'd love to debate the economy with you...in another thread.

"Loyalty to petrified opinion never broke a chain or freed a human soul." ~ Mark Twain

First, thanks for posting this article, Steve. Critical thinking rocks. Second, and this is in response to mmmbob, a good critical thinker will always consider both sides of a coin when forming his or her opinion and unless he or she discovers a logical flaw in an opposing argument, consider the claims of the other side valid. But oftentimes, particularly in political discussion the problem is an absence of any valid evidence, an assumption of ignorance in regard to the other side, or a general distrust of the supporting sources. It's complicated but first and foremost critical thinking has a lot to do with generosity and respect.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't think they meant that we should deny our social ties or influences, but that we make ourselves aware of them and how they influence our perceptions. It's easy to become fixed to a perception of something and callous about exploring a different perception. Same thing with egocentrism - everyone has their own perception of reality - a version of reality. The human tendency is to mistake that version of reality for being 'The Reality'.

in reference to becoming fixed to a perception and callous about exploring a different perception..you mean something like how you're so sure that the economy sucks, that even though almost all economic indicators are positive, even though the average poverty rate under pres bush is lower than the average poverty rate under pres clinton, still you're not able to entertain the thought that maybe the economy is not so bad after all, you are fixed to the perception that the economy sucks and callous about exploring a different perception.

Forming an opinion is not the problem....mmmmbop, it's when you adhere to that opinion rigidly. I'd love to debate the economy with you...in another thread.

"Loyalty to petrified opinion never broke a chain or freed a human soul." ~ Mark Twain

First, thanks for posting this article, Steve. Critical thinking rocks. Second, and this is in response to mmmbob, a good critical thinker will always consider both sides of a coin when forming his or her opinion and unless he or she discovers a logical flaw in an opposing argument, consider the claims of the other side valid. But oftentimes, particularly in political discussion the problem is an absence of any valid evidence, an assumption of ignorance in regard to the other side, or a general distrust of the supporting sources. It's complicated but first and foremost critical thinking has a lot to do with generosity and respect.

That reminds me of some good relationship advice I read regarding communication - that when actively listening to the other person, you should openly listen as if they are speaking truthfully. There seems to be this permeating style of debating where the opposing viewpoint must be totally off base and wrong - as if someone is completely right or absolutely wrong - like there's no middle ground. Without finding middle ground, every issue becomes polarized.

[homesick_american 1]

I dunno, I wouldn't call Jeremy Paxman a difficult interviewer. When he has a subject who is getting evasive, he simply asks the same question over and over because being rude and pushy is his schtick. I've seen starf*cker interviewers on TV in the UK too. Paxman is famous for being an #######.

Yes he is - but that's the point I think. What's the point of having someone on your show if they're not going to answer questions?

Even when they do answer questions, they don't really answer them. I used to like watching Jeremy Paxman's show but I just can't stomach it anymore.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I dunno, I wouldn't call Jeremy Paxman a difficult interviewer. When he has a subject who is getting evasive, he simply asks the same question over and over because being rude and pushy is his schtick. I've seen starf*cker interviewers on TV in the UK too. Paxman is famous for being an #######.

Yes he is - but that's the point I think. What's the point of having someone on your show if they're not going to answer questions?

Even when they do answer questions, they don't really answer them. I used to like watching Jeremy Paxman's show but I just can't stomach it anymore.

True, they don't. But when they don't its made quite clear that they're avoiding the issue. Here Bush can do something highly illegal and unconstitutional, but rather than deal with the questions put to him about that - he gets away with bleating off a whole bunch of rhetorical b/s about "supporting cultures of life". I'm talking about is the administrations handling of the Terri Schiavo case, which is for me, one of the most odious examples of political grandstanding I've ever seen.

[homesick_american 1]

I dunno, I wouldn't call Jeremy Paxman a difficult interviewer. When he has a subject who is getting evasive, he simply asks the same question over and over because being rude and pushy is his schtick. I've seen starf*cker interviewers on TV in the UK too. Paxman is famous for being an #######.

Yes he is - but that's the point I think. What's the point of having someone on your show if they're not going to answer questions?

Even when they do answer questions, they don't really answer them. I used to like watching Jeremy Paxman's show but I just can't stomach it anymore.

True, they don't. But when they don't its made quite clear that they're avoiding the issue. Here Bush can do something highly illegal and unconstitutional, but rather than deal with the questions put to him about that - he gets away with bleating off a whole bunch of rhetorical b/s about "supporting cultures of life". I'm talking about is the administrations handling of the Terri Schiavo case, which is for me, one of the most odious examples of political grandstanding I've ever seen.

The thing is...most people with an IQ higher than room temperature know he's full of sh!t, so I don't think it's necessary for the media to rudely badger him like Jeremy Paxman badgers anyone naive enough to come on his show.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I dunno, I wouldn't call Jeremy Paxman a difficult interviewer. When he has a subject who is getting evasive, he simply asks the same question over and over because being rude and pushy is his schtick. I've seen starf*cker interviewers on TV in the UK too. Paxman is famous for being an #######.

Yes he is - but that's the point I think. What's the point of having someone on your show if they're not going to answer questions?

Even when they do answer questions, they don't really answer them. I used to like watching Jeremy Paxman's show but I just can't stomach it anymore.

True, they don't. But when they don't its made quite clear that they're avoiding the issue. Here Bush can do something highly illegal and unconstitutional, but rather than deal with the questions put to him about that - he gets away with bleating off a whole bunch of rhetorical b/s about "supporting cultures of life". I'm talking about is the administrations handling of the Terri Schiavo case, which is for me, one of the most odious examples of political grandstanding I've ever seen.

The thing is...most people with an IQ higher than room temperature know he's full of sh!t, so I don't think it's necessary for the media to rudely badger him like Jeremy Paxman badgers anyone naive enough to come on his show.

Actually I thought Newsnight was going a little off the rails recently after that airline plot was foiled - and they were haranguing opponents of "torture tactics".

Point is the media in the UK is much more aggressive and demanding towards political officials. You don't often see that in the US media.

[homesick_american 1]

I dunno, I wouldn't call Jeremy Paxman a difficult interviewer. When he has a subject who is getting evasive, he simply asks the same question over and over because being rude and pushy is his schtick. I've seen starf*cker interviewers on TV in the UK too. Paxman is famous for being an #######.

Yes he is - but that's the point I think. What's the point of having someone on your show if they're not going to answer questions?

Even when they do answer questions, they don't really answer them. I used to like watching Jeremy Paxman's show but I just can't stomach it anymore.

True, they don't. But when they don't its made quite clear that they're avoiding the issue. Here Bush can do something highly illegal and unconstitutional, but rather than deal with the questions put to him about that - he gets away with bleating off a whole bunch of rhetorical b/s about "supporting cultures of life". I'm talking about is the administrations handling of the Terri Schiavo case, which is for me, one of the most odious examples of political grandstanding I've ever seen.

The thing is...most people with an IQ higher than room temperature know he's full of sh!t, so I don't think it's necessary for the media to rudely badger him like Jeremy Paxman badgers anyone naive enough to come on his show.

Actually I thought Newsnight was going a little off the rails recently after that airline plot was foiled - and they were haranguing opponents of "torture tactics".

Point is the media in the UK is much more aggressive and demanding towards political officials. You don't often see that in the US media.

I don't think they're all that demanding. They're definitely rude and aggressive, but that doesn't mean that they're uncovering anything big, or showing politicians who is boss. I don't think UK politicians have any genuine reason to fear the media, especially since Blair managed to spank the BBC badly and publicly over the David Kelly affair. The BBC hasn't recovered from that and probably won't for a long time. The papers are so partisan as to be useless in terms of political news, and other news outlets in the UK have either gone away (ITN) or are owned by corporations that can't be trusted (Sky News is owned by Fox, for example).

All in all, I wouldn't say the British media is any better than the US media. They definitely have a different approach to news gathering, but I wouldn't consider it to be in any way superior.