What Does Critical Thinking Mean To You?

A few items to it, all equally important and all never-ending:

• be honest
• have a reason/method for your conclusion
• be okay with being wrong
• look for more information
• re-evaluate your conclusion upon learning new information
• when the information contradicts your reason for your original conclusion... accept that you were wrong and change your conclusion
• understand that "your current conclusion" is only based on the information you have... not some sort of accurate-representation-of-reality... no matter how much information you have

Maybe? I don't tend to keep a timeline Why?I mean, I understand trying to show others what your belief is and how you arrived there. That's one thing.
But trying to show others that your belief is not in vain? Why do you care if others think your belief is in vain or not?If you care because you want "everyone to have peace in their lives" or some other nice thing... then... yay!
If you care because you want the approval of other people... then I don't think you're doing it right. I think that's a counter-productive motivation for such an important belief.

I think the biggest indication of whether or not you're using Critical Thinking is if you accept the possibility that you may be wrong.Can Science be wrong?

• If your answer is yes: Then you are likely using some method of Critical Thinking.
• If your answer is no: Then you are definitely not using Critical Thinking and have moved into a zombie-like-non-thinking state.

Can the Bible be wrong?

• If your answer is yes: Then you are likely using some method of Critical Thinking.
• If your answer is no: Then you are definitely not using Critical Thinking and have moved into a zombie-like-non-thinking state.

Can you be wrong about experiencing the supernatural?

• If your answer is yes: Then you are likely using some method of Critical Thinking.
• If your answer is no: Then you are definitely not using Critical Thinking and have moved into a zombie-like-non-thinking state.

Can you be wrong about the evidence?

• If your answer is yes: Then you are likely using some method of Critical Thinking.
• If your answer is no: Then you are definitely not using Critical Thinking and have moved into a zombie-like-non-thinking state.

Or course, the best method we have to uncover being right or wrong about reality is to collect evidence and see what direction that points us in. Can it be wrong? For sure. Is it our best bet? As far we currently know, yes.If you ever find yourself clinging to any specific explanation without willing to accept that some sort of future evidence may sway you to no longer think it is correct... then you're firmly into Zombie mode and you've long since tossed any notions of Critical Thinking aside.

Actually, I would say that Faith is technically correct here (taking her out of context).The process of critical thinking would not dismiss the stories if there was no evidence.
The next step would be an attempt to verify the stories... test them in some way (any way).
If there is no way to test them... then critical thinking would lead you to dismiss them (because they would be synonymous with "imagination.")You certainly are correct when speaking in the context about what Faith is discussing, though... supernatural and/or biblical stories have been tested and failed all but the most mundane tests. (Some things like simple locations actually did/do exist... but, well, that's hardly evidence for the rest of the claims).
As far as the Bible stories go, there is lots and lots of evidence about them... this evidence all tells us that the stories are not true.Edited by Stile, : Nonsense... there's no edit here.

I don't think you understood the context I was attempting to get across. This isn't what I was talking about.
I meant "no evidence" in the sense of before anything is even attempted to be proven right or wrong.
As in "I've just heard some stories. Now what?"
...at this point, when there is "no evidence" (because you haven't tested anything yet...) it would not be following Critical Thinking to dismiss the stories. Critical Thinking would say you need to test the stories. But... you do have evidence that "whenever someone brings up poltergeists or spooks... then they're full of bullshit."
Because you've researched these things in the past (at least on some level) and identified that the stories are, indeed, bullshit.If you've never heard of a poltergeist or spook before... and have never had your remote gone missing before... and all of a sudden your remote is missing, and someone says a poltergeist took it... then simply dismissing the poltergeist story would not be following Critical Thinking. It would be time for some tests. Perhaps look for the remote. Perhaps look into what "poltergeists" actually are. But Critical Thinking does require you to do something... test something... before dismissing an idea. Those tests may have been done long ago, that's also fine... but if you just dismiss a story because you don't know anything about it (have "no evidence")... then that's not Critical Thinking either.

Whenever someone claims that a poltergeist "did this", and the situation is investigated and a non-poltergeist solution is found to explain "this" instead... is evidence that there is no invisible poltergeist there.
The fact that most the claims are directly refuted, and those not directly refuted are either unreliable in the first place, or untestable otherwise is also evidence that invisible poltergeists do not exist.There is plenty of evidence that people make things up when they don't understand a situation. This is more evidence that there's no such things as invisible poltergeists. I already answered this... in the part of my message that you quoted, even:As I said. If you already have evidence that your remote can go missing in mundane ways... then you already have evidence to dismiss the story and you are not dealing with a situation in which there is "no evidence." I've completely agreed with this statement in each and every message of mine you've replied to.
I've then told you that I'm not talking about a situation where you have prior evidence. I'm talking about a situation in which you have "no evidence."I really do not understand why you keep insisting I'm saying something I've told you I'm not talking about over and over again.
Sorry if I've upset you.My only point is if you do not have any evidence whatsoever then you should not dismiss a story based on the fact that you have no evidence. Critical Thinking requires you to get some evidence first.It's really just stating the basic concept of Critical Thinking in the first place... have a reason or method to make your decisions. If you have no evidence or information in order to develop a reason or method... then you have no basis to use Critical Thinking to make the decision in dismissing an idea.

I should probably also point out that I have never said anything about accepting the stories.
I have only been talking about not dismissing the stories.There's a difference between not dismissing a possibility vs. accepting it as "the solution."Your comments seem to imply that I'm pushing for accepting an idea without any evidence for it. I'm not.

Your reasons for dismissing the poltergeist story is because you have evidence that no "other story (whatever it is)" is required.
That is... the 562 times you found your remote in the cushions and other such examples.
Such evidence is, obviously, not "no evidence." And therefore is not what I'm talking about.
So... you're saying I'm wrong about something I've never made a claim on. My claim is that the dismissal is the critical thinking thing to do only when you have evidence to do so.
In every example you've provided... you've also provided evidence to do so. So I agree with you.Then I tell you that I would not agree with you if you did not have "evidence to do so"... if you had "no evidence."
Then you disagree with me.
Then, to prove your point you provide another example but you then also include "evidence to reject the claim." Therefore... it's not "no evidence," again.Think of it this way... if you have "no evidence" to dismiss a story about poltergeists... then it would not be the critical-thinking-thing to dismiss the story "just because you feel like it."The whole point of using critical thinking is to have a rational reason to make your decision.
If you have "no evidence"... then you cannot possibly have "a rational reason" to decide to dismiss the story. Therefore, you cannot be using Critical Thinking. If you dismiss a claim (any claim, even "mystical entity" claims) without any evidence to do so... then you're not using Critical Thinking. You're just doing what ever you want... which is the opposite of Critical Thinking.The fact that no claims of "mystical entities" have ever been shown to be valid, and we've investigated a lot of these claims very thoroughly... this is evidence to use Critical Thinking to dismiss such claims without needing to do more evidence every time you hear a claim.If you're using this evidence to make your dismissal... then you're using Critical Thinking.
If you're just dismissing the claims "because you feel like it"... then you're not using Critical Thinking.

I never there had to be.The fact that there is no positive evidence for anything supernatural does not mean the rest of the evidence that such things do not exist goes away.
Think of it as positive evidence that claims of anything supernatural are the same as other imagined claims of con-men (as Coyote talks about in his post).
There is plenty of "positive evidence" for such an idea. Therefore, there is not "no evidence" for any supernatural claim. Exactly. Based upon your evidence (your familiarity) with remotes and how they generally get lost.
With this... you're not dealing with "no evidence." It would work for a toddler, yes. But it works for anything "new."
I'm not claiming that it has to be about a poltergeist or the supernatural.
In fact, I have said many times that the supernatural is a topic (here at EvC, anyway) for which we have lots of evidence... all pointing to say that it doesn't exist. Therefore, there is not "no evidence."I'm talking about any new scenario.Maybe a story about sports history that is new to you.
I don't know what is "new to you" so an example is difficult. But I will attempt something like this:

quote:

---

The height of the net for the sport of Sepak Takraw is 5'1".

---

Now, I'm guessing that this is new information for you?
If so... then you likely have no idea what the sport of Sepak Takraw even is, if it should use a net in the first place or if so... what the height of that net should be.
If this is new to you (and you do not have to be a toddler) then you would have "no evidence" for this story.Therefore... for you to reject this claim simply because you have "no evidence" then you would not be using Critical Thinking.
Even if you accept this claim while it has "no evidence" you would also not be using Critical Thinking.That's what I'm talking about when I say "no evidence." It's new to you and if you're going to use Critical Thinking to make a decision... then you have to do some sort of test first. Research the subjects or anything similar to the subjects. Then you can use Critical Thinking to reject or accept the claim (or maybe even claim that there is not yet enough information to make a decision.)

And neither do I.There is not "no evidence" for God. Anyone telling you such a thing is selling something. (Thank you, Princess Bride...)In the simplest terms... as Coyote has said, there is lots of positive evidence showing how "God" is the same as any other imaginary claim made by con-men trying to get something (not necessarily money).This is lots of evidence that God does not exist.
There is lots of other evidence that God does not exist as well... like direct evidence of searching for God where people say He is and finding nothing (like finding your remote was not stolen by ghosts).This evidence allows us to base a decision about God's existence using Critical Thinking and it points towards the answer that "God does not exist."

This statement is absolutely correct.But atheists do not "not reject God."
They actually do "reject God." (Or, at least I do.. )I just don't reject God because there is no evidence to do such a thing.I reject God because there is lots of evidence about God and it points towards God not existing.As Coyote has explained... lots of positive evidence showing how claims about God are the same as other non-existing claims of con-men trying to get things (not necessarily money).
Lots of evidence of searching for God in places and finding that no God is there.
Lots of evidence of searching for the results of God's existence in places (prayer, love, happiness...) and finding that no God is there.
Lots of evidence of people claiming imaginary sources when they don't understand things.I certainly agree that it has not been absolutely proven. However, I would also agree that no other statement of reality including things like Gravity and Evolution have not been absolutely proven either.That's not what "evidence" does. Evidence and the process of Critical Thinking does not guarantee absolute truth. It's just our best known method for finding accurate results. If you're honestly after accurate results of reality, then you should follow the evidence and what Critical Thinking tells us. If you're after something else... then such conclusions are not required.

The way you seem to be using the term... yes, maybe I am just rejecting the claims made about God. That point is certainly nothing I can argue with. Yeah.. there's a huge difference to the internal mindset between "dogmatically following" and "confidently currently understanding due to the overwhelming evidence." The issue is that the effective external resulting actions... are pretty much identical.Describing the internal differing mindset and explaining the similar external results to someone who doesn't really want you to be able to make sense of it anyway... is taxing Agreed. I'm certainly assuming a normal-general-society definition of "God" as opposed to "any concept that anyone ever discusses and classifies as God." Which, when getting specific... can cause a lot of confusion. Eat two babies and call me in the morning.

I think you're both kind of right.You can have lots of information available about the bridge... but not look into that information (like Catholic Scientist over his many bridges each day not giving a passing thought).
This would not be Thinking Critically.You can have lots of information available about the bridge... and delve into it and understand everything you possibly can.
Then you would be Thinking Critically.ORYou an have hardly any information about the bridge... but delve into whatever information you do have as much as you possibly can (like Tangle is explaining about the fork in the road situation).
This would also be Thinking Critically.You can have hardly any information about the bridge... and not even look at what you do actually have.
Then you would not be Thinking Critically.I don't think the issue of Thinking Critically is about the quantity of information you have.
I think the issue relies on what you do with the information you have available.
Do you attempt to check that information? Do you attempt to question it and consider it? Do you retain a level of doubt about the information in general? Are you willing to alter your ideas if/when you gain more information?
If yes... then you are Thinking Critically.
If no... then you are not Thinking Critically.You can attempt to check things... and be unable to.
You can attempt to question things... and be unable to verify any answers.
You can be open to more information... and not be able to get any.
...and still be Thinking Critically.