The Need for Critical Thinking

[Guest guest]

It is refreshing to find others who have realized that our

educational system is not based on educating but more on limiting

ones ability to think. I think of all of those great thinkers of the

past, Abraham Lincoln, Edison, and even today's own Bill Gates

who never really obtained the highly touted degrees of today.

I have played the college game for over 11 years. Engineering, Physical

Therapy, Exercise Science and I am astounded at how people become

sheep when they begin to work for that " higher education " . I

personally prefer to teach myself - after taking all of my trig and

all of my Calculus classes and a few of my engineering classes as a

independent study, I realized that I could teach myself better with

just a little more effort. This frightened many of my professors

because how dare one person not play by the rules.

Greatness is achieved in ourselves, when we are willing to break through

what " society " tells us is " the way " . Our educational system is just

that, a system. Individuality is stamped out at a early age. Some

people are auditory learners while some are visual. Our elementary

education system does not care what you are as long as you learn to

do it the way that a group of overeducated, overweight directors

decided was the best way many decades ago. We are not going to

change the elementary education system and if you think you can I

think you are dreaming.

The problem is that the learning skills and thinking skills are established

then. Not in college. Now I look at

a college degree as a individuals ability to simply regurgitate

material and play by the rules. I had gotten so perceptive of my

professors that I could go into almost any class and, by the time the

next test had rolled around, I could tell you almost every question

on it. It is truly a shame.

I really have to think the soviets had the right idea. Find out what they might

be exceptional at when they

are young and steer them in that direction. Now we simply go into

something because we think we can make lots of money at. Never mind

whether we will be any good at it.

[You can go back even several thousand years before the soviets to the ancient

Grecian

" agora " or " open places " where some of the philosophers way back then tried to

make people

better thinkers. Of course, the authorities back then often compelled you to

poison yourself if you

made the young folk too questioning of the status quo. The old rabbinical

tradition was much the same,

where anyone could enter the temple and argue with the elders, just as Jesus did

when he was a

youngster. Think of it - having public fora scattered all over the place where

anyone could stand up

(like in Hyde Park, London) and try to prod people into a more thinking mode of

existence! Mel Siff]

Jerry Tedder

burnsville USA

[Guest guest]

Krieger wrote:

<I now turn the discussion over to the rest of the group. What other

comments do all of you have regarding the need for critical thinking in our

society? What other possible solutions are there? >

** I'm not sure that your society = my society, although they are probably

similar. Otherwise you are right. If we observe people, we can find that

most of them are very able to think critically in the areas where they are

experienced and challenged to think in that way. More exercises, less

theory. Unfortunately, the influence of the uncontrolled media is much bigger

than

the influence of institutions, so not much can be done for the state of general

critical thinking.

One anecdote: I wrote a high school textbook on Logic, and in the chapter

about logical mistakes I cited one done by Aristotle, who wrote that every

space object has the shape of a sphere, hence the Universe as a whole has the

same

shape. The editor suggested that I remove the example, because " we shouldn't

question authorities of people that invented the whole thing that we want to

teach. "

Authorities have no limits!

My best friend, Cogan Cogan (who did 1500 pushups every night.... another

story), literally picked up a piece of paper on the street, with this

problem written on it, but without a solution.

Persons A, B and C sleep in the desert. In the midnight, person A poisoned

the water of person C and left. Few hours later, person B effused

[poisoned] water of person C and left. In the morning, person C discovered he

had no water, and dies soon. Who murdered him, A or B? Not who tried, it is

simple, but who did it?

Whatever ones answer is, first contra arguments are: A cannot be killer,

because his action had no effect, B cannot be killer because his action had

not influence of survival chances of C, and even prolonged victims life.

Don't try to solve it on this list, it is to complicated for only few posts.

Cogan Cogan tested people he had to discuss with on his philosophy seminars

with that problem, and some were very interested in it, and others

abandoned the problem quickly because of *put something* usually trying to

substitute with humor, and never gave it serious thought. As the problem

challenged supposedly simple and obvious notions, humor was not a sign of

ability for critical thinking in this case.

-----------------------

Kazimir Majorinc, Zagreb, Croatia

http://public.srce.hr/~kmajor

M e r c y o f C h a o s

[Guest guest]

Krieger wrote:

>The success of worthless products

>sold on infomercials as well as ineffective supplements, the

>willingness of

>consumers to try quack and unproven alternative therapies, and

>the existence

>of self-proclaimed gurus in our industry indicate that there

>is a definite

>lack of critical thinking among laypeople and even among some

>professionals.

In order to make a long story short, I'll only suggest that this assumes

that people engage in in-depth thinking about their day-to-day goals,

expectations, and ongoing behavior and attend to and consciously process a

broader range of information than is likely the case. Conscious attention

to input and control of behavior are more rare than is typically assumed.

>I would contend that this lack of critical thinking not only

>comes from a

>lack of knowledge of physiology, nutrition, and other related

>fields, but

>also is a carryover effect of a general lack of critical

>thinking skills in our society.

I would contend, as someone who has knowledge in a specialized field, that

more knowledge is not always a cure-all. That is, sometimes it is those who

have such knowledge who fail to entertain alternatives. In-depth knowledge

often leads to the reification of one's own constructs of interest. Again,

I would assert that this is because, in the process of learning (or

over-learning) so much of what organisms do becomes automated - is that the

nature of expertise? That and, as noted above, the fact that the assumption

that we consciously incorporate much of what we experience, deliberate its

importance and relevance to every proximal decision, and use it to guide our

actions is not necessarily a valid one in most instances.

>The willingness of our public to believe everything that it

>hears, sees, and reads is all too apparent. This partly stems from, I

>think, the educational system in our country.

Which stems from the manner in which human information storage and

processing systems work. There are theories that suggest the complexity of

a system does not reside in the amount of information it holds, but the

amount it discards in doing its work. Human systems, being complex, tend

toward a tendency to learn relationships that a brief descriptions of

complex patterns (macrostates) and then discard the more detailed

information (microstates) for the sake of economical efficiency (and I admit

I do not do this idea justice with my brief description). In essence, the

role of consciousness is potentially vastly over-estimated.

>In the U.S. (I'm not sure

>what the situation is in other countries), students are taught

>to respect

>authority and uncritically accept what authority figures tell them.

Unfortunately this is true for the most part and is a pattern that is

carried on throughout life in many cases. What I have found interesting is

that fact that, when I have tried to deviate from that paradigm, students

typically do not know what to do and find it irritating. They want to be

told what to think. When you ask them what they think, why they think it,

and to make sense of it, fit it into some existing knowledge base, they

often become confused and frustrated. They want to know what they need to

know to pass the test.

>Questioning authority is not actively encouraged. Students

>are asked to

>memorize facts and figures, but are rarely taught how to think

>and reason.

As noted above, this can become a cyclic pattern...an interaction between

the instructional method, the motivation/desire of the students, and the

manner in which human information processing systems might function.

>On a side note, I am currently reading the excellent book,

> " How We Know What

>Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life, " by

>Gilovich. The author discusses the mistakes humans often make in their

>reasoning, which lead to erroneous beliefs. For example,

>Gilovich discusses

>how we often have a psychological need to impute order on

>random data (for

>example, gamblers who bet around an apparent " hot streak " or " cold

>streak. " ), which can lead to errors in the conclusions we make.

It is gratifying to get down to this point and see that my point above was

already made. It is our " nature " (what has helped us to survive as a

species) to seek patterns and form associations ( so that we do not have to

hold every individual instance in memory and access each of them every time

we act). We learn to expect certain events from certain events and to

behavior in a given manner as a result. It helps us deal with and prepare

for the uncertain future..to make it more certain than it is. We learn to

look for signals that help us anticipate requirements. Uncertainty is

uncomfortable. One need look no further than to the events of the last two

weeks to see how uncertainly and insecurity affect us.

Solutions? I think you allude to the few that seem most obvious and

tenable. Chase the nature of the learning experience. Create different

expectations. Perhaps we need to more fully understand the way human

information processing and behavior control works and use this information

to change our approach to teaching and thinking.

It is difficult because how we view ourselves and how we think the system

works is part and parcel of the system itself. we are within the system,

hence it is hard to really see how it operates.

And now this is long enough.

Jack Darkes, Ph.D.

Department of Psychology

University of South Florida

Tampa, FL

[Guest guest]

Gavin,

Your point is something I feel I have experienced through education. Often,

in the past, I felt that I could have been better off obtaining a personal

training certification and attending seminars because the practical

application ceased to exist in college. Yet today, I realize the foundations

given me are to my advantage. You realize this later on. The philosophy

behind physical education has enabled me to be a trainer unlike trainers

without this foundation.

However, I know of many outstanding coaches and trainers without exercise

science background. Personally, I am disappointed in professionals with

exercise science degrees who go out and market gimmicks/gadgets. Someone

once said that trainers without formal education 'cheapen the profession' by

providing programs that are not well-grounded in the exercise sciences.

However, in my opinion, it is those who should know better about going about

marketing gimmicks/gadgets who cheapen the profession. This was not

something I learned in college, especially in philosophy of physical

education.

Lately, I'm into is self-development through sports and fitness. I took a

great class as a graduate student at Temple University called

" Self-Development Through Sports. " I'm learning to let the personal

experiences others express in the weight room be their own, and encourage

this learning process of awareness and self-exploration. I learn more about

myself everyday.

Sincerely,

Debbie Kiefiuk, M.Ed.

Ann Arbor, MI

[Guest guest]

Many of the answers to this post have been sad reminders of my own

experiences with this problem. I spent two years " studying " Sports

Science at University here in Scotland, only to quit after coming to

the conclusion that I was being taught to simply memorise data.

I am sure that this is not universal throughout higher education, but I

think it is often the case that tutors approach subjects in two

ways. They either simply ensure that students memorise enough data

that they achieve a passing grade, or aim to encourage independant

critical thinking by the students.

Are these two approaches conflicting? I get the impression that to many of my

tutors they

were. Has anyone else on the list experienced similar things during

their education? Personally I think this devalues a higher education

and is the main reason why so many of my peers who completed various

degree courses last year are currently working at " McJobs " . They have

never had to think critically and potential employers can see it a

mile away.

Please don't misunderstand me, I am not decrying education

as a whole, merely pointing out that oftentimes it does not prepare

people for the challenges ahead in their fields. A crying shame.

Gavin Laird

Aberdeen, Scotland.

------------------

roymstat@a... wrote:

> Debbie Kiefiuk writes:-

> >

> > I do find it interesting how fitness industry consumers are so

> attracted to programs that promise quick results, gimmicks and the

> like. They don't appear to teach them to be independent and free

> after the program (e.g., a weight loss program) is finished. (Gain

> weight after weight loss programs, fads.)

> >

> > Interesting subject - thought I'd share my thoughts and learn some

> more from others.

> >

> ***How true! The fitness industry thrives on the promise of a 'quick

> result', yet as those of us on this list know, there is no such thing

> as a quick fix. An individual has got to want to change to bring

> about lasting and meaningful improvements.

>

> If consumers were better educated, or as says better equipped

> for critical thinking, we would not see all these fads come and go.

> However, this is not unique to the fitness industry as all marketing

> aims to divide and confuse the consumer.

>

> Stop press. In the UK I have just seen the next fad to replace

> Pilates - called gyrotonics. It is a set of exercises

> using 'specialist' equipment that works those muscles pilates can't

> reach, I think it was designed by a pilates guru. Anyone else heard

> of this? Didn't someone once say 'the more things change, the more

> they stay the same!

>

> Roy Palmer

[Guest guest]

> From: " Schuler, Lou " <Lou.Schuler@...>

>

> I confess: I hate conversations that begin with the idea that all people

who

> aren't as interested as we are in any particular subject are fools.

This is a strawman. I never stated, or meant, that people who are not

interested in a topic are fools.

> The first step to critical thinking, in my view, is to care about the

> subject. Students who don't care about a subject but have to take the

course

> anyway can't be expected to want any knowledge beyond what it takes to

pass

> the course with the grade they need.

Note that my discussion was not limited to students just taking a course.

I'm talking about the general tendencies of our entire society. One can

still apply critical thinking techniques to topics that may not necessarily

be of interest. One does not need to have a thorough knowledge of a subject

to at least apply some basic critical thinking techniques.

Also, my post was not about how much knowledge one needs to pass a course.

My point is how this knowledge is being taught. Our educational system is

based off of memorization and regurgitation of information. This type of

information processing is present from the grade school all the way through

the university level. This type of " learning " does not help guard us

against erroneous thinking. Actually, it makes us more susceptible to

erroneous thinking, because we only learn how to accept information at face

value and do not learn how to analyze it. This carries over into the

fitness field. For example, it leads to the existence of self-proclaimed

gurus in our industry, and the sheep who follow them. " Poliquin said so,

and he's an expert, so it must be true. "

> Only then, when he has knowledge and a continuing curiosity, will critical

> thinking come into play. And I believe that if he still cares enough at

that

> point, he'll start thinking critically about the topic.

We can encourage critical thinking from the get-go by changing the way

classes are taught. The focus of our educational system needs to change

from regurgitation to the application of knowledge and to problem-solving.

We need to teach people about the conceptual framework off of which we get

many of our " facts and figures " in society. We need to emphasize the

philosophy of science and general reasoning more. We need to foster

skepticism. A colleague of mine here at WSU made the following comment when

I presented this problem:

" Students are given far too many multiple choice tests and

quizzes rather than essay exams that require you to synthesize what you

have learned and frequently have an opinion about it. I see high school

students who are given questions as part of their homework that require a

one sentence answer they can write out of the book rather than a why do you

think type of question or a suppose instead of this...that happened

question. When I graduated from Gonzaga University in 1990 we were

required to not only take a class in logic, but one also in critical

reasoning. I think it has served me well.

I also think in general society is looking for quick and easy fixes to

solutions that have no easy fix. People want an answer without having to

search for it. For many people, memorizing is easier...it lets them get to

the next part quicker. It goes along with, I remember learning about

X(choose your subject), but don't remember what I learned. "

Of course, changing the way classes are taught isn't easy, and the current

structure of our educational system works against it. Another colleague of

mine had the following comment:

" I agree that critical thinking attitudes and

skills need to be nurtured throughout our educational system. However,

such teaching requires that the teacher/professor teach individuals, rather

than subject matter

per se. Hence it is very time consuming. It also goes against the

perceived needs of some professors in research universities to get on with

their research, and for some subject specialists to teach the content of

their disciplines in the limited time that they have with any given

student. Process-oriented teaching focused upon critical thinking

requires outlooks, talents, and a degree of risk taking that, it seems,

cannot be assumed to be the norm. In terms of your question about

elementary and secondary level teaching, one also must recognize the

pervasive influence of textbooks and related commercially distributed

materials in determining curricula. For many teachers, adopting the series

is perceived to be the central act of curriculum development...Not teaching

for critical thinking is the easier, more popular, mainstream,

and more profitable way to teach. "

> The men and women on this forum care enough about training to seek out new

> ways to practice and preach it. The poor soul who buys an Ab-Doer doesn't

> have that interest, and probably never will.

But we can at least give these " poor souls " the general tools to make better

decisions. Whether or not they choose to use those tools is beyond our

control. But that shouldn't stop us from giving them the tools in the first

place.

We teach children how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide numbers,

regardless of their interest. We teach them how to how to read and write,

regardless of their interest. We give them these tools which eventually

become important in handling the everyday problems of lives as adults. But

we don't teach people how to reason and think. We don't teach them what

" argumentum ad absurdum " means. We don't teach them what a strawman is. We

don't teach them inductive and deductive logic. We don't teach them to

recognize fallacies in reasoning. In essence, the " toolbox " that we give to

each member of our society is only partly full. It is missing vital tools

that would make people less susceptible (not immune, mind you) to erroneous

beliefs. My argument is that we need to fill the toolbox. Obviously, some

people aren't going to use the tools that we give them. But we should give

them the tools nevertheless.

> That said, I agree that a solid background in science and scientific

methods

> helps you understand the way the world works. But is there a person on

earth

> who wants to stop and think critically about every little aspect of his or

> her life?

Actually, there is a price to pay for the toleration of uncritical thinking.

I will quote Gilovich here since I think he puts it better than I

could. This is an excerpt from " How We Know What Isn't So. "

" WHY WORRY ABOUT ERRONEOUS BELIEFS?

It is a great discredit to humankind that a species as magnificent as the

rhinoceros can be so endangered. Their numbers thinned by the encroachment

of civilization in the first half of this century, they now face the menace

of deliberate slaughter. In the last 15 years, 90% of the rhinos in Africa

have been killed by poachers who sell their horns on the black market. The

horns fetch a high price in the Far East where they are used, in powdered

form, to reduce fevers, cure headaches, and (less commonly) increase sexual

potency. As a consequence of this senseless killing, there are now only a

few thousand black rhinos left in Africa, and even fewer in Asia and

Indonesia.

Unhappily, the rhinoceros is not alone in this plight. Six hundred black

bears were killed in the Great Smoky Mountains during the last three years,

their gall bladders exported to Korea where they are thought to be an

effective aid for indigestion (bears, the logic runs, are omnivores and are

rarely seen to be ill). To understand the severity of this slaughter, it

should be noted that the entire bear population in the Great Smoky Mountains

at any one time is estimated to be approximately six hundred. A recent raid

of a single black-market warehous in San Francisco uncovered 40,000 seal

penises that were to be sold, predictably, for use as aphrodisiacs. The

Chinese green-haired turtle has been trapped to near extinction, in part

because the Taiwanese believe that it can cure cancer. The list of species

that have been slaughtered in the service of human superstition could go on

and on.

I mention these depressing facts to provide an unconventional answer to the

familiar questions of " What's wrong with a few questionable beliefs? " or

" Why worry about a little superstition? " This senseless killing makes it

clear that the costs of our superstitions are real and severe, and that they

are paid for not only by ourselves but by others - including other species.

That our mistaken beliefs about aphrodisiacs and cancer cures have brought a

number of species to the brink of extinction should challenge our own

species to do better - to insist on clearer thinking and the effort required

to obtain more valid beliefs about the world. " A little superstition " is a

luxury we should not be allowed and can ill afford.

Of course, there are other, more conventional answers to this question of

what is wrong with having a few questionable beliefs, answers that focus

more on the costs to the believers themselves. The most striking are those

cases we all hear about from time to time in which someone dies because a

demonstrably effective medical treatment was ignored in favor of some quack

therapy. Consider the fate of 7 year-old Rhea Sullins. Her father was once

president of the American Natural Hygiene Society, which advocates " natural "

cures such as fasting and the consumption of fruit and vegetable juices in

lieu of drugs and other conventional treatments. When Rhea became ill, her

father put her on a water-only fast for 18 days and then on a diet of fruit

juice for 17 more. She died of malnutrition at the end of this regimen. I

trust the reader has read about a number of similar cases elsewhere. Is

there anything more pitiful than a life lost in the service of some unsound

belief? As the tragedies of people like Rhea Sullins make clear, there are

undeniable benefits in perceiving and understanding the world accurately,

and terrible costs in tolerating mistakes.

There is still another, less direct price we pay when we tolerate flawed

thinking and superstitious belief. It is the familiar problem of the

slippery slope: How do we prevent the occasional acceptance of faulty

reasoning and erroneous beliefs from influencing our habits of thought more

generally? Thinking straight about the world is a precious and difficult

process that must be carefully nurtured. By attempting to turn our critical

intelligence off and on at will, we risk losing it altogether, and thus

jeopardize our ability to see the world clearly. Furthermore, by failing to

fully develop our critical faculties, we become susceptible to the arguments

and exhortations of those with other than benign intentions. In the words

of Jay Gould, " When people learn no tools of judgement and merely

follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown. " As

individuals and as a society, we should be less accepting of superstition

and sloppy thinking, and should strive to develop those " habits of mind "

that promote a more accurate view of the world. "

Sloppy thinking carries over into our health care system. A nurse on this

list made the following comment to me:

" I can hardly speak to nursing colleagues and the general public in social

gatherings when they go on and on about herbal supplements that cure this or

that. It is disgusting when even nurses don't remember scientific process.

I remember in nursing school one of my teachers would say, " who can answer

the question without an " I know somebody who " answer. That made it clear

that opinions without double blind studies or critical thinking were not

welcome in her class. "

Sloppy thinking is not something that we should tolerate. Is it something

we can eliminate? No. Will there always be " lazy " minds that are not

willing to think critically? Yes. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't make

the effort to improve the minds of ourselves and those around us.

Krieger

Graduate Assistant, Exercise Science

Washington State University

Webmaster, WSU Strength and Conditioning

http://www.wsu.edu/~strength

Science Editor, Pure Power Magazine

http://www.purepowermag.com

[Guest guest]

> From: love1pitbull@...

>

> *** I'd argue that the opposite is true: except in the " hard

> sciences, " students are too often allowed to question not

> only " authority figures " (their teachers) but also authoritative

> sources of information, and their grades are not affected by their

> espousal of conclusions that are based upon facts that contradict the

> great weight of rigorously-researched facts and the logical

> inferences that can be drawn from those facts.

Note that I'm not saying that people should be encouraged to question

authority for the sake of questioning authority. I get annoyed, for

example, when I get students who question me because they're simply trying

to weasel a few more points on an exam but their reasoning is not solid.

However, at the same time, we should stress to students that, simply because

a teacher, a " guru " , or a book is held as authoritative does not mean the

object of authority is not to be critically examined. Otherwise, people

develop the tendency to apply the logical fallacy of appeal to authority

when they are making arguments. We should encourage students to avoid the

tendency to become sheep. We need to recognize and avoid the common " It's

true because Dr. So-and-so said so. " Even college texts should be examined

with a critical eye. I teach an Intro to Exercise Physiology class, and our

text is " Essentials of Exercise Physiology " by McArdle, Katch, and Katch.

However, this book has numerous errors. For example, here's a statement on

page 56:

" Dietary protein intake significantly above recommended values can prove

harmful because excessive protein breakdown strains liver and kidney

function through the production and elimination of urea and other solutes. "

No scientific reference is given for this statement. Anyone thoroughly

familiar with the scientific literature on high protein intakes can tell you

there is no solid evidence that high protein diets are harmful to kidney

and/or liver function.

Krieger

Graduate Assistant, Exercise Science

Washington State University

Webmaster, WSU Strength and Conditioning

http://www.wsu.edu/~strength

Science Editor, Pure Power Magazine

http://www.purepowermag.com

[Guest guest]

< " WHY WORRY ABOUT ERRONEOUS BELIEFS?

[....]

>There is still another, less direct price we pay when we tolerate flawed

>thinking and superstitious belief. It is the familiar problem of the

>slippery slope: How do we prevent the occasional acceptance of faulty

>reasoning and erroneous beliefs from influencing our habits of thought more

>generally?>>

There is no small irony in the use of a classically fallacious

argument form, the slippery slope argument, in an article trying so

very hard to convince us that we are poor reasoners and that it is

important to do better.

Shalkowski

Leeds, UK