Critical thinking according to Mightyboosh: "The earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so."

Edit: Also, grammar is the difference between...

I don't think there's really any good way to draw that line. That's why we generally have criminal responses to actions rather than words/thoughts/beliefs. Where do you draw the line with what is actually being learned and with senility etc? Perhaps a grandparent tries to teach a child that poisonous snakes are safe because they've gone senile and a parent corrects it. Or maybe a parent tries to teach a child that poisonous snakes are safe but the child recognizes that the parent is nuts and doesn't believe them. It's hard to have legal consequences before someone is actually hurt. When the child is actually hurt because of their belief in the safety of the snake, then yes, the parents should be held responsible.

Or should they? I mean, is there not something that all of us believe and teach our children that is harmful and stupid and wrong? Teaching our children that it's okay to watch television is commonplace, but we really have no idea what sort of damage it could be doing to a developing mind. Or diet? Is it harmful to teach a child that it's okay to eat sweets or carbs or meat or lima beans? (definitely harmful to actually feed a child lima beans) If we discover in the next few years that television is hugely damaging to the brain development of children and is the reason for the ADHD "epidemic" among other things, obviously we won't be tossing all of the parents in jail.

I have to say that I'm pretty much of the opinion that if the parent believes it, they're allowed to teach it. Now, if the parent is just teaching a child crazy **** that they don't actually believe, that's something that needs to be stopped.

First of all, I don't believe you when you try describe how you raise your children. I'm not even sure I believe you have children. So the conversation in that regard I happily ignore.

As for interpreting what you write... it would probably be easier if you actually write what you really meant, instead of something you hope will excuse what you really meant.

Unless you actually teach them actual critical thinking skills there is no hope of that happening in a meaningfully decent way.

As per usual, when you become frustrated because everyone is telling you that you are wrong, it probably means something about you being right.

It's a start just to point out that something may not be true or false and to actually think about it before deciding. Don't forget that this arose because this is exactly what some religious don't do with their kids on the subject of God.

It's not a case of being wrong, it's the weird and wonderful interpretations like 'justification' or 'avoiding pain'....

This is too weird for words. For the purposes of the conversation it doesn't even matter if I actually have kids so I just don't get why you would say this. It's illogical.

I have written exactly what I mean and maybe it would be easier if you explored my position instead of blurting yours about 'fear of choices' which is definitely not the issue....

Wrt to your claim 'that I don't engage in critical thinking'

P1) Critical thinking is thinking about a claim to decide whether or not it is true, partially true or false.
P2) I thought about whether or not your claim that I don't engage in critical thinking was true, partially true, or false.
C) I engaged in critical thinking.

Since I engaged in CT, that demonstrates that your initial claim is false.

Maybe the problem here is that you think I'm encouraging my kids to think critically so that they can then come to a correct conclusion about something and that's not the case. This isn't about right or wrong, it's about thinking and not necessarily limited to 'why' they've been told something (as you say above), I don't even care if they completely fail to come to a conclusion or if they come to one that I don't agree with. The point is that they didn't blindly accept what they were told without thought.

Since what I'm encouraging my kids to do is critical thinking at it's most simple and stripped down form, I'm actually fine with calling it something else all together. Critical thinking seemed like a good way to summarise it, but it seems to have caused more problems than it was intended to avoid.


I'm not saying that it's never ok to tell a child what to think, of course it is, they need to be guided as they grow or they simply won't survive to adulthood and that requires the passing on of knowledge and understanding. Is that the same thing as instilling a belief? I think that there are different types of belief and that there a certain subjects, or certain types of beliefs where the reliance on a child to blindly accept what they're being told is being abused.

Is it the exact same thing to tell a very young child (and cause a belief) 'don't run into the road because a car might hit you and maybe even kill you' or 'there is a God, this is the truth, everyone who doesn't agree is wrong'? I don't think that's the same thing. Do you?

It isn't personal. If someone tells me they have a cat, and it lives on on a diet of pure grain then I : A) Doubt their dietary expertise regarding cats B) Am not really certain they actually have a cat.

There are many things I can say, but I'll keep it short: Critical thinking is best accompanied by simple precise statements and an open mind. This would also remove the need for long discussions about "what one really meant".

Those premises are nonsense MB. It demonstrates that we aren't talking about the same stuff when you talk about CT so this conversation truly is pointless.

So I tell you that I encourage my kids to think about things and this leads you to the conclusion that I might not even have kids.... right.


Yes, you like to tell me things. I think you would have been best served in this instance by asking me questions though.

Those premises are not nonsense and I'm utterly baffled by this post. Throughout the whole conversation I've been consistent in how I've defined CT and how I'm using the concept so how are you only just realising that we're talking about different things when this has been apparent to me the whole time? (Hence my continued efforts to explain what I was saying to correct your misinterpretation)

Since I also just pointed out that I'm happy to call it something other than CT, if it's causing confusion, you're 'pointless' remarks just come across as being shear bloodymindedness. I tried to define terms so that we could actually progress, but you're simply saying, 'You're using a different definition, this conversation is pointless'... ??

Yet again you didn't answer a question I asked, the one that I thought actually mattered rather than this back and forth over exactly what CT means.

They are nonsense because my claim that you think you employ CT when in fact you don't is strengthened by your refutation. You're proving my point not disproving it, you've even claimed up above that you don't need to use CT to disprove the you use CT.

You brought up the wikipedia link to CT then deny the definition when it's apparent I'm being uncharitable in holding you to it.

I don't answer your questions when they either don't make sense or they are irrelevant.

MB, dereds isnt the only one who things your premises are nonsense.

(P1) is just, I think about X, therefore I am using CT. This is obvious rubbish. I think about stuff all the time, it doesnt mean I am using CT.

So, I have to agree, presumably without considering the truth or falsity of the claim, that I don't ever think critically because disagreeing proves that I don't? This makes no sense and the claim you make in the second sentence is just pure .

I can't figure out what perspective you might have that would lead you to make it, and this is just going backwards from where we'd got to, but I've lost the will to make the effort now. It appears that you won't listen to or consider anything that doesn't fit with your preconception. So you're right, this conversation is pointless.

Disagreeing in such a facile manner while claiming that you are disproving it does.

It's going backwards because I think you are claiming skills you don't understand and don't employ and rather than admit this you'll just alter the definition we're working to.

This is classic boosh btw argue about definitions then ask to have the latest one accepted so we can move on while the whole discussion is about your definition being wrong or worthless.

I consider Critical Thinking to include the elements on the site you posted and I quoted here.

No, it wasn't, it was specifically 'I think about the truth or falsity of X' which is significantly different.

Just 'thinking' about God, and wondering whether or not what you know (what, as a young child, you've been told to believe) about God is true or not, are two very different things.

Yeah no wonder we're having different conversations.

It's the definition of CT that I've been working off throughout this conversation. Does that make a difference?

With a 6 year old, you keep it simple, with a 14 or 15 year old perhaps you introduce some of the more complex CT skills on that Wiki list. (Arbitrarily chosen ages for 'young child' and 'older child' at clearly different stages of cognitive development)

In what way is "thinking about the truth or falsity of X" significantly different?

My thinking could go

"ok lets think about the truth or falsity of god"
"Ok I think its true"

Is that critical thinking? because it fits under your (P1)

There's a big difference between your "critical thinking is deciding whether a claim is true..." and the definition given "critical thinking is a way of deciding whether a claim is true..."

e.g.

"Swimming is a way of keeping fit"
"Swimming is [defined as] keeping fit"

Exactly, there's no reference to the tools necessary for critical thinking in deciding whether a claim is true but if its a way of deciding whether it's true, for those questions that are truth apt, then the way is the tools and methodology used.

I've never used the phrasing that you claim to be mine, but let's suppose that somewhere in the thread I said something that might have been interpreted as that, why does my explicit claim in #182 where I say 'I don't even care if they completely fail to come to a conclusion' & 'This isn't about right or wrong [for me, obv]', where I attempt to make it clear that I'm not trying to encourage my kids to use CT as a way to determine the truth of falsity of something, but that I'm instead simply trying to encourage them to think along those lines, i.e. 'maybe this thing isn't true, maybe this thing isn't false, I need to think about it some more', not enough to clear up that potential misunderstanding?

Why is this conversation still hung up on what CT is even though I've also made it clear that if that terminology, and my simplified form of CT (thinking about whether or not something is true, partially true or false even if you don't come to a conclusion), is confusing the issue the issue then I'm happy to call what I'm doing something else?

Yes it is but bear in mind that I'm using a very simplified form of CT because I'm talking about very young children, so unless you're 5 or 6 years old, I'd expect you to be able to use a more complex and more demanding form of CT, to be able to take it past 'is this true or false' and perhaps even arrive at a conclusion using one the skills that thinking about CT could help you acquire.

We can make it very easy.

"Robert decides to investigate if aliens have landed in Birmingham. He consults a book by David Icke. The book states that aliens have landed in Birmingham. Robert believes what the book says."

These questions are for you:
a) Has Robert engaged in critical thinking?
b) How would you describe Robert's ability for critical thinking?

No, because all that I'm trying to do, as I've said multiple times now, is get them thinking about whether or not things are true, partially true or false, not to necessarily arrive at a conclusion. If I ask my kids 'do you believe in god, I'd rather hear 'I don't know, I need to think about it some more', than yes or no.

I even said to you, not two posts back:

How are you still holding me to the more demanding definition? Quite clearly, the skills on that list would be too difficult for a young child to acquire but it's not a stretch to get a child at the very least asking themselves whether or not something they've been told is true, partially true or false.