Viewing 40 posts - 3,841 through 3,880 (of 6,291 total)
  • 2019 General Election
  • Premier Icon sobriety
    Free Member

    It not necessarily media studies that should be core, but one of a selection of the subjects that involve source analysis and critical thinking, so Media Studies, History, Philosophy…etc

    Premier Icon raybanwomble
    Free Member

    Or evidence based thinking, eg the sciences.

    Notice how the post-modernist idiots who got us into this mess in the first place such as Cummings, Vladislav Surkov, Boris – they all had humanities degrees yes?

    Can you think of many scientists who have been swayed by or engaged in fake news and stupidity over the past few years?

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Free Member

    Or evidence based thinking, eg the sciences.

    No, because that’s too narrow, not the same thing at all. People who have irrational beliefs cite ‘evidence’ all the time, they just need to be able to asses the source of that evidence and the motives of the person delivering it. Plus they cherry pick.

    We are all taught science anyway, quite a bit, and it doesn’t help us deal with politics.

    Notice how the post-modernist idiots who got us into this mess in the first place such as Cummings, Vladislav Surkov, Boris – they all had humanities degrees yes?

    But also, many of the people arguing for rationality and understanding also have humanities educations. See what I mean? 🙂

    Premier Icon sobriety
    Free Member

    What evidence based thinking doesn’t give you is the ability to determine the value of sources and assess nuance, which is what you need with all the bullshit we have to wade through.

    And sciences are core subjects, so everyone learns a bit of that, just not how to separate evidence from lies, which is what something like history will give you.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Free Member

    School history does not go into that level of detail anyway. Also if you teach it in History people will only apply it to historical situations.

    History is also taught. And we still have a problem.

    Premier Icon mattyfez
    Free Member

    I suppose it depends how history is taught, if it’s just remembering names of monarchy and dates of wars etc.

    I remember my history lessons involving a lot of critical thinking, comparing different accounts of events etc. Rather than just learning that the battle of Hastings was in 1066.

    Premier Icon jam-bo
    Full Member

    Wasn’t in Hastings either…

    Premier Icon sobriety
    Free Member

    I remember my history lessons involving a lot of critical thinking, comparing different accounts of events etc.

    This was what my GCSE history was like too, along with looking at bias and the reliability of the source.

    Also if you teach it in History people will only apply it to historical situations.

    Really? One of the key things driven into us by our teachers was that “now” will be history in 20 years time, so the skills of assessing sources are as relevant for reading a newspaper over breakfast as they are in the History lesson.

    Premier Icon raybanwomble
    Free Member

    No, because that’s too narrow, not the same thing at all. People who have irrational beliefs cite ‘evidence’ all the time, they just need to be able to asses the source of that evidence and the motives of the person delivering it. Plus they cherry pick.

    That’s not evidenced based thinking and you and sobriety are completely ignorant of it. And scientists are perfectly suited to examining a sources credibility as well. Evidence based thinking is about the balance of evidence given qualitative and quantitative review.

    The actions of those with a strong humanities education speaks volumes, as I said – it is ex humanities students that manipulate the truth – rarely people with an actual strong science based education.

    What evidence based thinking doesn’t give you is the ability to determine the value of sources and assess nuance, which is what you need with all the bullshit we have to wade through

    It’s humanities students who take the nuance out of a science paper and declare that cancer has been cured in national newspapers.

    It’s the sciences that teach you how little we truly know about the world around us. It’s the sciences that taught us about the psychological underpinnings of cognitive biases.

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    So the polls continue to narrow as predicted.. I just hope Trump explodes the Tory campaign with his usual stupidity when he comes over on his visit and my guess is the emphasis on the NHS has hurt Johnson as has his reluctance to be interviewed

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-latest-poll-boris-johnson-jeremy-corbyn-bmg-hung-parliament-a9227476.html?fbclid=IwAR2wg7Cv7vI5GS2l4g-0eunBGRO3UvVdYdCvXuMX9d_3M8iM26Ux45o2Au4

    Premier Icon ctk
    Full Member

    Come on you reds! ;-0

    Premier Icon sobriety
    Free Member

    Evidence based thinking is about the balance of evidence given qualitative and quantitative review.

    So source assessment, bias and balance then? Congratulations, you’ve just described critical thinking. Unfortunately GCSE/A-Level science doesn’t involve peer reviewing journals as part of the curriculum.

    Premier Icon raybanwomble
    Free Member

    So source assessment, bias and balance then? Congratulations, you’ve just described critical thinking. Unfortunately GCSE/A-Level science doesn’t involve peer reviewing journals as part of the curriculum.

    Then maybe we need more sciencing then.

    Because all the cockwomble humanities, PPE and lawyer scumbags in the Commons and national newspapers are the ones that partly helped us get into this mess.

    The last thing we need is more of them.

    Premier Icon frankconway
    Full Member

    Polls? There will be another one along shortly which draws a different conclusion.

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    Or maybe we need more courses where critical thinking is taught. I was as a part of a nursing degree. Nothing sciency about that but we were taught how to analyse research, judge and weight stuff according to quality etc etc.

    Critical thinking is not a part of science. Its part of humanities and its applications are far wider as are the sources.

    Rayban – you claim to be a scientist. How come your critical thinking is so poor?

    Premier Icon raybanwomble
    Free Member

    Critical thinking is not a part of science. Its part of humanities and its applications are far wider as are the sources

    Yes it is, evidence based thinking – peer review, reviews and meta-analyses are all based on combining critical thinking with the best available quantitative evidence.

    You are right that we probably just need more courses in critical thinking, but critical thinking alone – without an appreciation for quantitative research doesn’t seem to insulate people from biases. Although having a sound quantitative attitude doesn’t totally either, however I stand by my assertion that it’s humanities students who are mostly the peddlers of post truth bullshit.

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    And that proves my point. You can never be wrong even when you are. You make baseless assertions based on your own biases.

    The skills you need are not science. they are used in hard science yes but also in many other areas and would appropriately be taught as part of humanities or soft science given that they are in that area.

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Full Member

    Surely critical thinking is the basis of all science

    As someone who spends a lot of time trying to make sense of results, it’s absolutely essential

    Back to GE I see Johnson has wormed his way out of a Neil inyerview

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    Anyway – back the the elction and the converging polls. Squeaky bum time for the right.

    I bet next week brings out another attack line on Corbyn. My guess is ” soft on Terrorists”

    Premier Icon raybanwomble
    Free Member

    And that proves my point. You can never be wrong even when you are.

    The skills you need are not science.

    LOL.

    Here’s a nice introductory text for you TJ.

    Critical thinking, that is the mind’s ability to analyze claims about the world, is the intellectual basis of the scientific method. The scientific method can be viewed as an extensive, structured mode of critical thinking that involves hypothesis, experimentation and conclusion.

    https://www.theclassroom.com/relationship-between-scientific-method-critical-thinking-19049.html

    Premier Icon cromolyolly
    Free Member

    however I stand by my assertion that it’s humanities students who are mostly the peddlers of post truth bullshit.

    The ‘scientific’ articles on sugar, tobacco, cholesterol, salt, thalidomide etc. I could go on forever, points to a need for a few more humanities graduates in scientific areas, to teach them the meaning of ethics, proper methodology and critical examination of whether the disclosure of where the money came from might change the result.

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    Still digging Rayban? So according to you critical thinking and analysis is only applicable in science? It may be the basis of scientific method but equally its a basis of philosophy, of social sciences, even of English literature!

    Of course its a major part of scientific method but it is not in its self science, it does not have to be only taught as in science classes

    as above – I was taught it as part of a nursing degree as a stand alone module. It also could be part of philosophy, social sciences.

    Because something is a foundation of one discipline it does not mean it can only be used in that discipline and only taught as a part of that discipline especially when its equally important in others.

    Critical thinking would be best taught as a part of a wider education then it would be taught to those you despise.

    Narrow rigid thinking like you clearly have is the opposite of crital thinking

    But of course – you could never admit you are wrong

    Premier Icon dannyh
    Full Member

    Thick politicians, thick voters, it’s a destructive cycle.

    Hi Daz.

    Any comment on that nugget you posted on page 96?

    Specifically with regards to how much you jumped up and down and frothed any time someone questioned the IQ and/or common sense of people who voted Leave, if you please.

    Also, I don’t think you ever attempted to justify your ‘The EU is basically a dictatorship’ comment from the ‘other thread’. Can you please deal with that too? Specifically with your stance as ‘reluctant Brexiteer’ in mind.

    Scrutiny is a bitch, is it not…..

    Premier Icon Shackleton
    Full Member

    tjagain

    But of course – you could never admit you are wrong

    Irony meter has exploded.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Free Member

    Because all the cockwomble humanities, PPE and lawyer scumbags in the Commons and national newspapers are the ones that partly helped us get into this mess.

    The last thing we need is more of them.

    Teaching council estates about PPE isn’t going to turn them into entitled Eton old boys is it? FFS. The fact that only rich Tory tossbags study it now is all the more reason to teach it to everyone.

    1) You need to teach politics because you need to understand how the system works. Plenty of people don’t even know the difference between left and right wing.

    2) You need to teach economics, because the average person on the street has no idea what a trade deficit is, or why a strong pound might not always be good etc etc – or even why a country needs trade deals and tariffs.

    3) You need philosophy because it’s not always obvious what a government should be doing or how it should be trying to do it. E.g. why was communism a nice idea but turned out not to be a good thing when it was tried, and so on.

    Just because private schools teach it, doesn’t mean these aren’t topics members of a functioning democracy need to understand.

    Premier Icon raybanwomble
    Free Member

    Still digging Rayban? So according to you critical thinking and analysis is only applicable in science? It may be the basis of scientific method but equally its a basis of philosophy, of social sciences, even of English literature!

    Of course its a major part of scientific method but it is not in its self science, it does not have to be only taught as in science classes

    I’m not saying it is – I’m just saying that science students come out with a lot stronger appreciation for evidence than humanities students do, it’s humanities students who kicked off the “science wars” and are thus partly responsible for the mess we are in now.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars

    They implicate a broad range of fields in this trend, including cultural studies, cultural anthropology, feminist studies, comparative literature, media studies, and science and technology studies.

    But of course – you could never admit you are wrong

    Says the guy who just straight up, stated that critical thinking was not part of the scientific method.

    Of course its a major part of scientific method but it is not in its self science

    Yes, it really is TJ – it’s critical thinking taken to it’s logical extreme. Critical thinking is a major element and the historical underpinning of the scientific method, and science without the scientific method is not science.

    You need to teach economics, because the average person on the street has no idea what a trade deficit is, or why a strong pound might not always be good etc etc – or even why a country needs trade deals and tariffs.

    I’m not one of those people who treats economics as a humanities topic, it should be treated like the hard sciences.

    why was communism a nice idea but turned out not to be a good thing when it was tried, and so on.

    Psychology and quantitative economic methods can answer that better than philosophy.

    Premier Icon boomerlives
    Free Member

    Critical thinking is not a part of science. Its part of humanities and its applications are far wider as are the sources.

    Rayban – you claim to be a scientist. How come your critical thinking is so poor?

    Obvious contradiction is obvious

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Full Member

    sobriety

    Member

    So source assessment, bias and balance then? Congratulations, you’ve just described critical thinking. Unfortunately GCSE/A-Level science doesn’t involve peer reviewing journals as part of the curriculum.

    Peer reviewing isn’t the only way to think critically about a source.

    Ironically given the conversation of the last page, one place where you definitely are encouraged to consider the source is history- because literally everything is open to question, so you learn about this almost immediately.

    In sciences at the lower levels everything you’re getting taught is uncontroversial, you don’t really need to apply critical thinking to ohm’s law or how to calculate molarity changes or whatever (though you can confirm it with observation, and that’s usually part of how you learn the subject- but you’re not doing that to challenge the idea, you’re doing it to demonstrate it)

    It’s not the job of sciences to teach critical thinking, at this level. Even if it were, it’s not something that could or should only be taught within the sciences, because everyone needs the skills not just people who’re interested in science.

    And that’s all fine tbh. The trouble is where things that aren’t so clearcut, get taught as if they were. Lookin at you here, Economics, the art that pretends it’s a science. And politics, which these days is basically the art of pretending that something that’s controversial or open to debate or absolutely known to be true, isn’t. (politicians need to understand critical thinking in order to deal with it as a problem)

    (you could say journalism there too… Except that at the point where journalism stops being about reporting fact or doubt and starts being about making the message, it’s politics too)

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Free Member

    I’m just saying that science students come out with a lot stronger appreciation for evidence than humanities students do

    With science, evidence is quantitative and specific to a particular experiment. So if your ammeter tells you the current is three amps, you don’t have to question it. If you do question it, there are experiments you can do to verify its accuracy. If a newspaper tell you something, it might not actually be true but more importantly, it might be true ish. It’s not what they are saying, it’s the way they are saying it; the extra messages they are adding by rhetoric and choice of language. It’s also about their motives for doing so, which derive from the people who write the articles and who own the paper, and what their interests are. I can verify that a scientific education (which I have) does not teach you any of these skills!

    It is, to quote one of my favourite sayings courtesy of @SaxonRider, a different epistemic category.

    Premier Icon raybanwomble
    Free Member

    It’s also about their motives for doing so, which derive from the people who write the articles and who own the paper, and what their interests are. I can verify that a scientific education (which I have) does not teach you any of these skills!

    Mine did, we had a couple of semesters worth of lessons dedicated to source appraisal, cognitive biases and statistical rigour in reviews.

    Lookin at you here, Economics, the art that pretends it’s a science

    The answer to a lack of scientific rigour in economics is not to give up and label it a humanities subject for the rest of eternity.

    y. If a newspaper tell you something, it might not actually be true but more importantly, it might be true ish. It’s not what they are saying, it’s the way they are saying it; the extra messages they are adding by rhetoric and choice of language.

    It wasn’t English or History that turned me off journalistic rhetoric – it was reading scientific journals and getting used to that language. Now if I find a claim, I go to a reputable journal and search until I find a review that covers that specific topic – whether it’s health, immigration, economics or war. I go looking for quantitative research to evidence the claims being made.

    Understanding the language of rhetoric but not the scientific method and hierarchy of evidence just allows people to deceive both themselves and others.

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    Critical thinking is not a part of science.

    apologies

    this should have read ” not just a part of”

    Premier Icon tjagain
    Full Member

    So Rayban – is nursing a science? ‘cos i was taught critical thinking as a part of my degree.

    Or is critical thinking the one of the building blocks of any learning?

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Full Member

    Polls narrowing or just noise?

    Still, squeaky bum time for Raab

    Premier Icon raybanwomble
    Free Member

    So Rayban – is nursing a science? ‘cos i was taught critical thinking as a part of my degree.

    Or is critical thinking the one of the building blocks of any learning?

    Non sequitur.

    Just because critical thinking is one of the major components of the scientific method, doesn’t make nursing a science. As I stated, the scientific method involves the marriage of critical thinking with quantitative evidence.

    Or is critical thinking the one of the building blocks of any learning?

    It is – but the implicit objection to evidence based thinking or the scientific method on the part of Sobriety, was that it didn’t involved critical thinking. This is something that you were keen to defend.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Full Member

    raybanwomble

    Member

    The answer to a lack of scientific rigour in economics is not to give up and label it a humanities subject for the rest of eternity.

    Positive economics is a science of sorts, albeit as you say one with a lack of scientific rigour, and also filled with subjective value decisions, and maybe most seriously hampered with a lack of truly knowable facts. (since it’s very hard to test anything complex, novel or powerful in economics, because modelling the real world is staggeringly difficult while comparative experimentation in the real world on any meaningful scale is basically impossible…). It’s not truly a science imo for these reasons, not as we understand science today- but at least it aspires to be, and that’s important.It’s got a lot in common with pre-enlightenment science tbh.

    But normative economics is absolutely art that pretends it’s a science. It doesn’t lack rigour; it actively avoids it. At some point, for too many people it stopped being “how to get the world to become how you want” and became “how to tell people the world is how you want it to be”. It stopped being “should be” and became “is”.

    And sadly the face of economics that gets the attention, the book deals and the unquestioning love of politicians, is the latter. And no wonder, facts are <boring>, and provable facts in economics tend to be small and mundane seeming. Big mad ideas are exciting, and the less boringly rooted in reality they are the more exciting they get, and the harder they are to prove or disprove the longer they’ll stay exciting.

    ’twas ever thus, but IMO it’s worse now than ever. And these 2 problems together mean that economics as a whole is not a science, nor even for the most part art that behaves scientifically- it’s just wearing a scienceskin coat. The fact that economic idealism is even a thing is incredibly telling- you shouldn’t need a name for “how to use positive economics to get you to the places described by normative economics”, that’s just how applied normative economics works. If you’re not referring to “how it is” and “why it is this way” when thinking about “how it should be” then you’re never going to get there.

    But now if you’re a normative economist that isn’t basically making it up, you need a special name.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Free Member

    Understanding the language of rhetoric but not the scientific method and hierarchy of evidence just allows people to deceive both themselves and others.

    The scientific method applies to science. Politics is not science. And as said, we already have science on the curriculum.

    Premier Icon raybanwomble
    Free Member

    . (since it’s very hard to test anything complex, novel or powerful in economics, because modelling the real world is staggeringly difficult while comparative experimentation in the real world on any meaningful scale is basically impossible…).

    Complexity science is improving all the time, we should be trying to approach economics with the same degree of rigor as other complex systems such as meteorology.

    Premier Icon raybanwomble
    Free Member

    The scientific method applies to science. Politics is not science.

    Policy can and should be rooted in science and evidence where it is available.

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Full Member

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Full Member

    raybanwomble

    Member

    Complexity science is improving all the time, we should be trying to approach economics with the same degree of rigor as other complex systems such as meteorology.

    The thing about meteorology, is that tomorrow’s weather doesn’t depend on human decision making. And it doesn’t have a whole wing dedicated to telling you that the weather ought to be sunny next sunday because you’re going on a bike ride.

Viewing 40 posts - 3,841 through 3,880 (of 6,291 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.