What are they teaching kids at universities nowadays?

[Cardsfan2000]

My nephew visited us from Creighton University (also my alma matter) this Christmas... And he's going off about this weird "Loose Change," movie he watched in political science class that alleges that GW orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.
Though he refused to believe my assertion that no presidential administration would never do such a thing, he came around when I proposed that it was "delusional to suggest the goons that so badly botched the Iraq War could have pulled of such a hoax."

As you guys know, I'm a staunch liberal; and I love open discussion and questioning all authority. But proponents of such irresponsible and offensive conspiracies should not be teaching impressionable young minds.

[arizona_cards_11]

My nephew visited us from Creighton University (also my alma matter) this Christmas... And he's going off about this weird "Loose Change," movie he watched in political science class that alleges that GW orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.
Though he refused to believe my assertion that no presidential administration would never do such a thing, he came around when I proposed that it was "delusional to suggest the goons that so badly botched the Iraq War could have pulled of such a hoax."

As you guys know, I'm a staunch liberal; and I love open discussion and questioning all authority. But proponents of such irresponsible and offensive conspiracies should not be teaching impressionable young minds.

I'm glad you can distinguish between the liberal views about Bush's "ignorance" and his "evil-genius."

The people that amuse me are those who seem to believe he is an idiot because of his plan for Iraq, and at the same time believes he created this master plan to sabatoge the US.

But, it doesn't surprise me at all to hear these things. It's just sad that, not specifically at Creighton, but the general funding by our government and taxes are being wasted for professor's to teach such nonsense and wacky views. And if they choose to express these views, they need to teach both sides.

[NJCardFan]

My nephew visited us from Creighton University (also my alma matter) this Christmas... And he's going off about this weird "Loose Change," movie he watched in political science class that alleges that GW orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.
Though he refused to believe my assertion that no presidential administration would never do such a thing, he came around when I proposed that it was "delusional to suggest the goons that so badly botched the Iraq War could have pulled of such a hoax."

As you guys know, I'm a staunch liberal; and I love open discussion and questioning all authority. But proponents of such irresponsible and offensive conspiracies should not be teaching impressionable young minds.

You're just figuring this out? Books have been written on this subject.

[Saturn5]

If they are teaching them critical thinking skills, that is never a bad thing, even though the example used might be far fetched.

If they are teaching them to be corporate drones, then that does not bode well for the future of our youth and of this country.

[BodybuildingCardsFan]

If they are teaching them critical thinking skills, that is never a bad thing, even though the example used might be far fetched.

If they are teaching them to be corporate drones, then that does not bode well for the future of our youth and of this country.

You act like they're doing a service by teaching them such garbage.

#1) It doesn't mean squat for critical thinking abilities. Try more along the lines of conspiracy theories.

#2) There's better ways to test someone's critical thinking capacity.

[82CardsGrad]

Indeed... Ward Churchill and the other loon from Wisconsin (can't recall the name at the moment...), along with the hoards of other anti-establishment "professors" across our universities are all perfect purveyors of Critical Thinking, aren't they? :Huh:

[Saturn5]

You act like they're doing a service by teaching them such garbage.

#1) It doesn't mean squat for critical thinking abilities. Try more along the lines of conspiracy theories.

#2) There's better ways to test someone's critical thinking capacity.


Actually it's a very good method by which to teach critical thinking.

This particular conspiracy theory is fairly complex, therefore it requires a fair amount of research, analysis, conceptualtion etc. And not only that but it's topical. Because someone doesn't agree with the conclusion that the teacher arrived at, does not neccessarily make the exercise worthless.

[Saturn5]

You act like they're doing a service by teaching them such garbage.

#1) It doesn't mean squat for critical thinking abilities. Try more along the lines of conspiracy theories.

#2) There's better ways to test someone's critical thinking capacity.

Actually it's a very good method with which to teach critical thinking.

It's a fairly complex theory, which requires research, analysis, conceptualization etc. And it's topical and very controversial. Because someone doesn't agree with the conclusion that the teacher reached does not make the exercise worthless.

[BodybuildingCardsFan]

Actually it's a very good method by which to teach critical thinking.

This particular conspiracy theory is fairly complex, therefore it requires a fair amount of research, analysis, conceptualtion etc. And not only that but it's topical. Because someone doesn't agree with the conclusion that the teacher arrived at, does not neccessarily make the exercise worthless.

Topical doesn't mean it is good for critical thinking, it is not a requirement, and doesn't make one's thought processes better.

Almost every conspiracy theory is complex by nature, because they usually require extremely loose correlation between a multitude of events, and result in some logically untenable conclusion because too many assumptions are made.

It's worth mentioning that conspiracy theories often start with an answer, and try to reach that answer by any means necessary (read: leaps in logic). Critical thinking starts on the opposite side. Critical thinking forces a person to find an answer with step by step processes that are logically tenable, because they don't have to forcefully fit an answer. The answer is only reached at the conclusion. The 9/11 conspiracy theorists that came up with the idea that Bush was behind it, for example, started with the conclusion that Bush did it, instead of reaching that conclusion through a step by step process. This is exactly why the conspiracy theory has so many holes in it.

[kjbad]

1) Theories are just that...didn't the universities just find out that Pluto isn't even a planet? How many generations of kids were taught that it was?

2) The age of humanism is here and must run its course. Many universities were founded under the auspices of Christianity, but the state university system has taken on new meaning in a society where man dares to think he is the only source of right and wrong, the only being capable of ascribing meaning to everything else.

3) In recent years, the system has sold people a bill of goods. Do you really need a Master's degree to successfully run a business? Do you really need to graduate from an Ivy League school to be competent? And do you really need to pay outrageous tuition to a university to learn new skills in the Information Age? The lost arts of spelling and grammar have been totally lost on this generation, but that education sure didn't get any cheaper...

4) It's pretty hard to take any university seriously when the highest paid faculty memeber is either the football coach or the basketball coach.

[82CardsGrad]

1) Theories are just that...didn't the universities just find out that Pluto isn't even a planet? How many generations of kids were taught that it was?

2) The age of humanism is here and must run its course. Many universities were founded under the auspices of Christianity, but the state university system has taken on new meaning in a society where man dares to think he is the only source of right and wrong, the only being capable of ascribing meaning to everything else.

3) In recent years, the system has sold people a bill of goods. Do you really need a Master's degree to successfully run a business? Do you really need to graduate from an Ivy League school to be competent? And do you really need to pay outrageous tuition to a university to learn new skills in the Information Age? The lost arts of spelling and grammar have been totally lost on this generation, but that education sure didn't get any cheaper...

4) It's pretty hard to take any university seriously when the highest paid faculty memeber is either the football coach or the basketball coach.

Could be the best post I've ever see you make KJ... Nice way to start the new year! Keep it up buddy!! :rockon: :bowdown:

[Saturn5]

Topical doesn't mean it is good for critical thinking, it is not a requirement, and doesn't make one's thought processes better.

Almost every conspiracy theory is complex by nature, because they usually require extremely loose correlation between a multitude of events, and result in some logically untenable conclusion because too many assumptions are made.

It's worth mentioning that conspiracy theories often start with an answer, and try to reach that answer by any means necessary (read: leaps in logic). Critical thinking starts on the opposite side. Critical thinking forces a person to find an answer with step by step processes that are logically tenable, because they don't have to forcefully fit an answer. The answer is only reached at the conclusion. The 9/11 conspiracy theorists that came up with the idea that Bush was behind it, for example, started with the conclusion that Bush did it, instead of reaching that conclusion through a step by step process. This is exactly why the conspiracy theory has so many holes in it.

Topical makes it immediately of interest to students with short attention spans, thereby making it a good lesson vehicle. Putting the problem into a widely known current event has a better chance of engaging student involvement.

And most issues or concepts will bring along with it, preconceived notions of a conclusion. It's going through the process to either prove the theory or disprove it, that enlightens students to the value of the critical thinking process. The complexity of the issue generates more involvement in the research and analysis aspects.

And a controversial topic such as this will almost guarantee student debate.

[BodybuildingCardsFan]

Topical makes it immediately of interest to students with short attention spans, thereby making it a good lesson vehicle. Putting the problem into a widely known current event has a better chance of engaging student involvement.

If they have short attention spans it being topical isn't going to prevent the fact you can't think critically if you can't pay attention to detail.


And most issues or concepts will bring along with it, preconceived notions of a conclusion. It's going through the process to either prove the theory or disprove it, that enlightens students to the value of the critical thinking process. The complexity of the issue generates more involvement in the research and analysis aspects.

There is no critical thinking involved in debunking leaps in logic, period. It's as stupid as me asking a group of students to prove my skin is neon green. There is no critical thinking period.

The issue is not complex. It is a stupid theory based on extremely poor logic, as is typically the case when you have to commit leaps in logic to reach your final conclusion. That's the problem when people start with an idea, and create circumstances to make it force fit the answer.

To use chess as an example, since it's a subject some can relate to.

There's two chess boards. One contains the position they're currently in, the other contains a position with a king already in checkmate. A conspiracy theorist will try to work backwards from the checkmate position to reach the position they're currently in. Problem? There's less than a .000000000000001% chance they can reach that position (actually less than that, since any competent chessplayer can already tell if the position is even possible to turn into the original one). All it takes is one pair of doubled pawns to ruin the attempt.

In chess, critical thinking is being given a position, and told to find the quickest checkmate (or any other number of tactics, but let's stick with checkmate). There may be checkmates of 6,7,8, but the quickest checkmate ends up being in 5. The answer wasn't set in stone, and the person had to go through a step by step process to reach a conclusion that is, in fact, logically tenable. That's critical thinking.

Aside from the example, it is simply more pragmatic to not work from a conclusion, and to rather work the problem until a conclusion is formed. Bush conspiracy theorists did NOT work a problem until that was the conclusion found. They started with the conclusion that he was behind it, out of their hatred for him.


And a controversial topic such as this will almost guarantee student debate.

A more apt term would be discuss. A debate would require the conspiracy theory to be subject to the laws of logic, at which case it would be promptly thrown out.

Perhaps you're confusing discussion, with debate. It is fun to conjecture, and discuss conspiracy theories, I agree. However, debating them is an exercise in futility, considering they're easily proven untenable.

[Saturn5]

If they have short attention spans it being topical isn't going to prevent the fact you can't think critically if you can't pay attention to detail.


In chess, .

topical issues are able to keep a person's attention that may otherwise be bored with non topical issues. That's why they are used frequently in teaching.

Any issue will have preformulated conclusions in the minds of those analyzing it. So that isn't even worth debating. It's all in the PROCESS of analysis, conceptualization, application, synthesizing, evaluation etc, to reach ANY conclusion. of which there may be MANY that will fit.

The process is what would be the lesson and of course the students would have a conclusion in their mind, as they would about any subject. They can be abstract issues being analyzed or they can be real life issues, it doesn't really matter. The process is much the same.

the fact that it is a highly controversial conclusion might only heighten the interest in the process and allow more freedom of thought, which would be the exact goal.

[Saturn5]

Does it make it a bad subject matter because the instructor already has a conclusive theory of his own?
I don't really know.
Newt Gingrich as well as many other prominant politicians teach political science and indeed coming from a very partisan background, and histroy instructors write books on the very subject they teach many times drawing conclusions in those books of topical controversial topics such as the Vietnam war, the Kennedy assasination, the bombing of Pearl Harbour etc.
It is the methodology and the process that's important to learn the value of critical thinking and thereby come to your own conclusion about any number of topics.
But the process is the key. Having heard and read conclusions that have been made about a subject does hinder the critical thinking process unless the student allows it to prejudice their own objectivity. That is up to the student, not the teacher to make that distinction.

[BodybuildingCardsFan]

topical issues are able to keep a person's attention that may otherwise be bored with non topical issues. That's why they are used frequently in teaching.

Non-topical issues are used just as much, and there is no say the student is more interested in topical issues. While it can be assumed, it isn't a fact, and to present it as such is lying to yourself.


Any issue will have preformulated conclusions in the minds of those analyzing it. So that isn't even worth debating. It's all in the PROCESS of analysis, conceptualization, application, synthesizing, evaluation etc, to reach ANY conclusion. of which there may be MANY that will fit.

No Saturn, given the particular topic (conspiracy theories, or more particularly the one involving Bush and 9/11) that "preformulated conclusion" is totally without merit, because it is involved more in fantasy than factual evidence. Factual evidence clearly pointed out the ones that claimed responsibility - terrorists.

So, to be short, you're entirely off base. Conceptualization can be deemed "fantasizing" when it comes to conspiracy theories. They have no basis, no matter how much someone wants to toy with the idea, since in the world of conspiracy theories there is no logic. Critical thinking involves logic.


The process is what would be the lesson and of course the students would have a conclusion in their mind, as they would about any subject. They can be abstract issues being analyzed or they can be real life issues, it doesn't really matter. The process is much the same.

Unless the student has done study on the issue all they can do is blatantly accept the garbage as true, or a strong possibility. There is no critical thinking involved in this case, and abstract issues are best left in the realm of philosophy. A realm, I might add, that is predicated on logic, not fantasy, which you seem to think are equal.

The process is not the same, you seem to equate critical thinking (which uses logic) with fantasizing (which needs no logic), which surprises me.


the fact that it is a highly controversial conclusion might only heighten the interest in the process and allow more freedom of thought, which would be the exact goal.

It's a highly controversial fantasy. Please, learn the difference between valid conclusions, and invalid ones.

Freedom of thought, in what you're proposing here, amounts to fantasizing. Let me know when these professors are paid to fantasize, and then I'll stop calling it garbage.

[Saturn5]

It is the methodology and the process that's important to learn the value of critical thinking and thereby come to your own conclusion about any number of topics.
But the process is the key. Having heard and read conclusions that have been made about a subject does NOT hinder the critical thinking process unless the student allows it to prejudice their own objectivity. That is up to the student, not the teacher to make that distinction.

[BodybuildingCardsFan]

It is the methodology and the process that's important to learn the value of critical thinking and thereby come to your own conclusion about any number of topics.
But the process is the key. Having heard and read conclusions that have been made about a subject does NOT hinder the critical thinking process unless the student allows it to prejudice their own objectivity. That is up to the student, not the teacher to make that distinction.

There is no methodology to be found in fantasizing. Critical thinking, I agree, does follow a methodology to reach a conclusion. Critical thinking allows people to come to their own conclusions, provided it isn't just a fantasy they want to be true.

And for the student, unless they have done their own research they can't dismiss the person's case, all they can do is accept it as true, or accept it as a possibility. Therefore, what the professor is teaching is garbage, since what he is teaching abouts to fantasizing.

[Saturn5]

That is why it is so important to learn that skill.

To be able to reach your own conclusion, no matter what conclusion anyone else has reached, be it classmates, teachers. newspaper reporters, writers, relatives, etc.

The conclusion itself is not as important as the process used to reach that conclusion. There are many opinions regarding the causes of and effects of the Vietnam war, or the civil war, or what were the effects of the 2006 midterm elections. It doesn't matter what the subject matter is, nor what conclusion the teacher may have reached. It is interpretive and therefore subjective. Examine the data in an objective fashion and reach your own conclusions. But use the critical thinking skills to get there. Ignore the conclusion anyone else has reached including the teacher and follow the process yourself.

That is why it is so important to learn that skill. So you can determine for yourself whether what the teacher says is true, or fantasy. It is a great example to use and could teach students many different aspects of the value of critical thinking.

[BodybuildingCardsFan]

That is why it is so important to learn that skill.

To be able to reach your own conclusion, no matter what conclusion anyone else has reached, be it classmates, teachers. newspaper reporters, writers, relatives, etc.

The conclusion itself is not as important as the process used to reach that conclusion. There are many opinions regarding the causes of and effects of the Vietnam war, or the civil war, or what were the effects of the 2006 midterm elections. It doesn't matter what the subject matter is, nor what conclusion the teacher may have reached. It is interpretive and therefore subjective. Examine the data in an objective fashion and reach your own conclusions. But use the critical thinking skills to get there. Ignore the conclusion anyone else has reached including the teacher and follow the process yourself.

That is why it is so important to learn that skill. So you can determine for yourself whether what the teacher says is true, or fantasy. It is a great example to use and could teach students many different aspects of the value of critical thinking.

I've agreed that critical thinking is important. However, and here is your problem, teachers are paid to teach, they aren't paid to fantasize about their "theories" that the student doesn't know enough about to make an educated decision on. Unless the kid wants to go do the extraneous research, all it amounts to is professors misleading college kids into believing some garbage. Do you seriously believe the kid is going to go do research to find out of the professor is wrong in most cases? No. They have enough on their hands, and professors are supposed to teach relevant information that is proven true.

The teacher isn't harping about both sides of the story, all they're harping about is their fantasy. I know, because I've already ran into this exact scenario in a classroom.

[Saturn5]

I've agreed that critical thinking is important. However, and here is your problem, teachers are paid to teach, they aren't paid to fantasize about their "theories" that the student doesn't know enough about to make an educated decision on. Unless the kid wants to go do the extraneous research, all it amounts to is professors misleading college kids into believing some garbage. Do you seriously believe the kid is going to go do research to find out of the professor is wrong in most cases? No. They have enough on their hands, and professors are supposed to teach relevant information that is proven true.

The teacher isn't harping about both sides of the story, all they're harping about is their fantasy. I know, because I've already ran into this exact scenario in a classroom.

So it's against the rules for teachers to formulate conclusions to theories? And not publish them or even teach them? And actually they are paid to "fantasize" about theories. And formulate opinions, and yes, even teach opinion. And who's asking students or forcing them to make an "educated decision on" anything? They are hopefully taking poly sci because they are interested in the subject matter. College isn't simply being force-fed information for them to merely consume, it requires going through a process so that they hopefully have the ability to make an informed opinion on their own.

"Extraneous research"???? Once again, it is a class about politics. The very nature of the subject makes it open for debate. And requires research if they care at all about the subject matter. It happens daily in poly sci and will continue to happen. And in many other subjects as well. Teachers teach from ALL sides of the political spectrum. Not only is it human nature, but it is part of real life. More power to teachers that challenge the students in such a way.

That's what is so important about teaching critical thinking. Challenge yourself, challenge others opinions, challenge the norm. If students are not grasping those skills, then we are indeed teaching drones. Students will face these dilemmas throughout college life and throughout their lives in general. College teaches you to think for yourself. And yes, it is entirely the responsibility of the student to grab want they want and throw out the rest. they will be better students, better thinkers and better people as a result of it.

[BodybuildingCardsFan]

So it's against the rules for teachers to formulate conclusions to theories? And not publish them or even teach them? And actually they are paid to "fantasize" about theories. And formulate opinions, and yes, even teach opinion. And who's asking students or forcing them to make an "educated decision on" anything? They are hopefully taking poly sci because they are interested in the subject matter. College isn't simply being force-fed information for them to merely consume, it requires going through a process so that they hopefully have the ability to make an informed opinion on their own.

They can toy with their fantasies all they want, what they shouldn't be doing is presenting it as fact in a classroom where they're supposed to be teaching. Part of teaching requires teaching what is demonstrably true by peer review, or at the minimum is at least logically tenable.


"Extraneous research"???? Once again, it is a class about politics. The very nature of the subject makes it open for debate. And requires research if they care at all about the subject matter. It happens daily in poly sci and will continue to happen. And in many other subjects as well. Teachers teach from ALL sides of the political spectrum. Not only is it human nature, but it is part of real life. More power to teachers that challenge the students in such a way.

A class about politics doesn't include conspiracy theories. A class about politics is supposed to teach about POLITICS. You'd think this should be obvious.

And conspiracy theories aren't part of political SCIENCE.

A teacher can be a fascist for all it matters, it doesn't change the fact that what they teach should actually fit under the umbrella of "facts". The last time I checked, college was for teaching the facts.


That's what is so important about teaching critical thinking. Challenge yourself, challenge others opinions, challenge the norm. If students are not grasping those skills, then we are indeed teaching drones. Students will face these dilemmas throughout college life and throughout their lives in general. College teaches you to think for yourself. And yes, it is entirely the responsibility of the student to grab want they want and throw out the rest. they will be better students, better thinkers and better people as a result of it.

For the last time, this is not critical thinking in the slightest. It is fantasizing.

Challenging the norm happens when critical thinking results in a step-by-step process reaching a tenable conclusion. That is not, will not, and never will be a focal point of conspiracy theories. They are tantamount to fantasizing because of the utter lack of logic.

You entirely, entirely failed to make any quality point through this entire post. You need to go back and reevaluate how teaching a conspiracy theory actually amounts to teaching relevant information, and also think about why it is intellectually dishonest to even present it as a possible fact.

People that think creationism should be taught in schools foster the same type of mind-set that allows for conspiracy theories to be taught in schools. Not all information is the same, and not all information consitutes teaching. Trying to fit it under an umbrella of critical thinking clearly shows that you have no idea of what critical thinking actually is.

[NJCardFan]

BBCF, just stop it already. Like I told Debacle in another thread, you are trying to debate Saturn with logic and facts which, as I said in the other thread, is like trying to teach my cat calculus. It ain't gonna sink in so save your fingers my friend.

[Saturn5]

Theory is a part of nearly every curriculum. It is rampant throughout science, the humanities, cultural classes, History and yes political science. Critical thinking does not live or die by the subject matter being studied. The subject doesn't matter nearly as much as the process and learning the skills to be used in most if not all subject matters. By diminishing that skill based on subject matter only further illustrates how desperately critical thinking skills are needed in education.


It is so important for students to receive many views and many theories. Even the hard sciences are filled with theory. A student needs to collect them and formulate his own opinion, based on both factual evidence and theoretical conclusions. Many times when you speak of facts, you must also ask: who's facts? Political science is taught differently by every teacher and certainly will be vastly different from country to country. So who's facts are to be taught? Well, in all honesty, it's really up to the instructor. And yes peer reveiw is part of the process, but that also crosses across a wide spectrum especially for a theoretical subject such as political science. One year's facts are debunked and become next year's theories.
And once again it only highlights the need for students to learn and practice critical thinking skills. So that they can test their own theories and formulate their own conclusions. And being very topical, they can investigate and analyze the subject before the history books get too far along in the reporting of this subject. A subject should not have to wait years before it is taught. And a political science teacher knows there is wide latitude in the teaching of this subject. To many students that makes it that much more interesting. And additional interest in a given subject matter is never a bad thing.

[Saturn5]

logic and facts


Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2005, 55% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 14% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 11% with other weapons.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#weapon

[BodybuildingCardsFan]

Theory is a part of nearly every curriculum. It is rampant throughout science, the humanities, cultural classes, History and yes political science. Critical thinking does not live or die by the subject matter being studied. The subject doesn't matter nearly as much as the process and learning the skills to be used in most if not all subject matters. By diminishing that skill based on subject matter only further illustrates how desperately critical thinking skills are needed in education.

You're almost as bad as some religious people I know that misuse the word "theory".

And you're still misusing critical thinking by trying to apply it to conspiracy theories.

More on that later on...


It is so important for students to receive many views and many theories. Even the hard sciences are filled with theory. A student needs to collect them and formulate his own opinion, based on both factual evidence and theoretical conclusions. Many times when you speak of facts, you must also ask: who's facts? Political science is taught differently by every teacher and certainly will be vastly different from country to country. So who's facts are to be taught? Well, in all honesty, it's really up to the instructor. And yes peer reveiw is part of the process, but that also crosses across a wide spectrum especially for a theoretical subject such as political science. One year's facts are debunked and become next year's theories.

Don't confuse views, with theories. You're inappropriately trying to make it sound like they're one and the same.

Turning political science in a trip down relativism road isn't going to work for you. It doesn't change the fact that the case example (Bush and 9/11) is very clear, cut, and dry. The only people that don't think it is, are the ones that love to fantasize about mean ol' Bush terrorizing the country.


And once again it only highlights the need for students to learn and practice critical thinking skills. So that they can test their own theories and formulate their own conclusions. And being very topical, they can investigate and analyze the subject before the history books get too far along in the reporting of this subject. A subject should not have to wait years before it is taught. And a political science teacher knows there is wide latitude in the teaching of this subject. To many students that makes it that much more interesting. And additional interest in a given subject matter is never a bad thing.

Here's a couple of words I don't think you correctly understand.

#1) Critical thinking.

#2) Theories.

You seem to think that conspiracy "theories" are actually viable theories. Would you call the "theory" that Bush is behind 9/11 the same as the theory of evolution? Of course not, and therein lies your misuse of the word theory.

Anybody can concoct a conspiracy "theory", but they have zero validity. I can say I believe government cheese has microchips in it designed to track the people that eat it. You starting to get why it is so foolish yet, or do I need to go on?

I've explained what critical thinking is before, and there is ZERO critical thinking involved in conspiracy "theories". Conspiracy "theories" don't even qualify for the practical application of the word "theory".

Cliff-notes:

The "theory" that Bush is behind 9/11 doesn't even qualify as a theory in the practical sense. Since it doesn't quality as a theory in the practical sense, it is akin to fantasizing, or conjecturing. There is no critical thinking involved in conjecture/fantasizing. The two are mutually exclusive.

It's really that simple.

[Mibrilane #56]

BBCF, just stop it already. Like I told Debacle in another thread, you are trying to debate Saturn with logic and facts which, as I said in the other thread, is like trying to teach my cat calculus. It ain't gonna sink in so save your fingers my friend.
Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2005, 55% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 14% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 11% with other weapons.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#weapon
One of my New Year's Resolutions was to stop entering into "debates" with irrational people, especially on the Cardinals board - I think this thread is a good example as to why I made that resolution.

Saturn quoted only the bolded words in NJ's message, and responded with the above. Never mind that it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand - this is how Saturn's mind works. You can't have a "debate" with this kind of thought process - always looking to push the "progressive" agenda, context of the discussion be damned.

How especially ironic that this thread is about critical thinking, logic, and reasoning.

[Saturn5]

when you "don't have time" to log on, you miss quite a bit. NJ once argued his facts that included a homicide statistic that knives were the predominant weapon of choice and therefore should be banned along with handguns.

His "facts" supported "his logic."

Merely reprinted the refutation of his "facts"

you might add another resolution: Learn what Irony is, and learn to use it in it's proper context.

[Saturn5]

.

Hope this helps you understand better:

Theory - a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or
problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking
by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and
imposing intellectual standards upon them.

Fits nearly any issue or subject matter, including the 9/11 attack subject. Would be a good classroom exercise in testing and utilizing critical thinking skills.

[BodybuildingCardsFan]

Hope this helps you understand better:

Theory - a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

The dictionary doesn't help you when it comes to pragmatic application.

Simply put - do you consider the theory of evolution equal to conspiracy theories? If you do, then you don't understand what it takes for a theory to be viable.


Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or
problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking
by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and
imposing intellectual standards upon them.

And there is zero intellectual standards to be found in conspiracy theories. I'm surprised you actually miss this stuff.


Fits nearly any issue or subject matter, including the 9/11 attack subject. Would be a good classroom exercise in testing and utilizing critical thinking skills.

You'll quickly realize how wrong you are when you answer my question regarding the pragmatic application of the word theory.

I want to hear what the intellectual standards are for conspiracy theories.

This is definitely game, set, match.

[NJCardFan]

BBCF, I'm not gonna tell you again. You are pissing up a rope, dude.

[Saturn5]

do you consider the theory of evolution equal to conspiracy theories?




The closemindedness is quite remarkable, though not really surprising.
Especially considering the "game set match" remark. Some desire to be force fed "facts" without doing the work of actually dissecting those "facts" That's one of the foundations of learning.

"equality of issues" is not really the point. This is not about judging issues.
Nor is it about comparing issue or theories. That is really so far away from any critical thinking process it is sophmoric in the extreme.

a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.

Not really a difficult standard to attain. Which is the whole point.

Strange that, much like ww2 or vietnam, the attack on 9/11, it's causalities, it's effects and all the theories thereof have been and will undoubtedly continue to be studied and argued for many decades to come, making your entire argument moot. Whether you find it "worthy" of theorizing or not or of applying critical thought is of no consequence whatsoever.

[BodybuildingCardsFan]

The closemindedness is quite remarkable, though not really surprising.
Especially considering the "game set match" remark. Some desire to be force fed "facts" without doing the work of actually dissecting those "facts" That's one of the foundations of learning.

It's not closed-mindedness, it's actually understanding the pragmatic application of "theories", and what critical thinking actually entails. Logic is closed-minded, I'm sorry Saturn. I guess that means you can stay open-minded.

The facts concerning the case example have long been dissected, and dead. It's only an open subject to the delusional that are willing to eliminate logic from their little fantasy.


"equality of issues" is not really the point. This is not about judging issues.
Nor is it about comparing issue or theories. That is really so far away from any critical thinking process it is sophmoric in the extreme.

This isn't equality of issues, this is pragmatic application of the word theory. Since you can't answer a simple question, it leads me to believe you have zero idea as to what you're talking about.

Critical thinking isn't involved, in the slightest, when it comes to conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories don't even qualify as "theories", because there's holes not only in logic, but in the stories built around them. Unlike the theory of evolution which is a coherent theory with supporting evidence that isn't lacking, conspiracy theories are found extremely lacking.

Are you understanding yet, or do you still not understand what makes a theory valid?


a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.

Not really a difficult standard to attain. Which is the whole point.

Now take it a step further, as in connect the dots. What makes a theory valid? That's right, when there's no inconsistencies. Where are there glaring inconsistencies? Conspiracy theories.

Like I said in my previous post, anyone can concoct a "theory". Once it is scrutinized it is either accepted as valid, or not. The case example is not valid.


Strange that, much like ww2 or vietnam, the attack on 9/11, it's causalities, it's effects and all the theories thereof have been and will undoubtedly continue to be studied and argued for many decades to come, making your entire argument moot. Whether you find it "worthy" of theorizing or not or of applying critical thought is of no consequence whatsoever.

It is not actually argued, except by those that have deluded themselves into thinking it is a serious issue. It's actually quite dead all the way around, much like all conspiracy theories are.

[Saturn5]

Critical thinking can easily be applied to the 9/11 topic and would be a worthwhile classroom exercise. Because it does not fit your tiny constricted and unrealistic personal ideas about education does not mean it cannot work as a great learning model for the college poly sci class. Poly sci is rife with subjectivity which certainly can enhance the learning process. If you object to the lesson, that means, more than likely there's much to be learned from it.

As far as theories go, in principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in yet wider theories. That's the way it has been and will continue to be. As there will always be new information or new viewpoints which will correct the old information or theories.

You have obviously become part of the educational problem, not the educational solution by the almost fanatical desire to be spoon-fed information to only be expelled into the real world without a single clue of how life really works. Robot education is quite the popular cause these days, and is especially attractive in corporate America where they don't desire nor require you to think for yourself. They'll do all the thinking for you.

[BodybuildingCardsFan]

Critical thinking can easily be applied to the 9/11 topic and would be a worthwhile classroom exercise. Because it does not fit your tiny constricted and unrealistic personal ideas about education does not mean it cannot work as a great learning model for the college poly sci class. Poly sci is rife with subjectivity which certainly can enhance the learning process. If you object to the lesson, that means, more than likely there's much to be learned from it.

Irony.

Aside from this being the pot calling the kettle black, it doesn't change the fact you're yet to demonstrate any awareness on what critical thinking is, and what it isn't. Conjecturing, as is the case with conspiracy theories, is not critical thinking no matter how badly a delusional person may want it to be.

Subjectivity amounts to conjecturing, not critical thinking. Sorry, basic logic again.


As far as theories go, in principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in yet wider theories. That's the way it has been and will continue to be. As there will always be new information or new viewpoints which will correct the old information or theories.

Yes, and what makes them (theories) valid?

Answer the question, it is that simple.


You have obviously become part of the educational problem, not the educational solution by the almost fanatical desire to be spoon-fed information to only be expelled into the real world without a single clue of how life really works. Robot education is quite the popular cause these days, and is especially attractive in corporate America where they don't desire nor require you to think for yourself. They'll do all the thinking for you.

This coming from someone that doesn't know a valid theory from an invalid one, and can't discern why critical thinking doesn't apply to conspiracy theories (aka invalid theories).

I've been on my own in the "real world" since I was 15, don't harp on about how I have a fanatical desire to be spoon fed. I love critical thinking, hell I'm a National Master (2231 USCF rating) in chess. I sure as hell know what critical thinking is, and what it isn't. You have no idea either which way.

And calling me a robot when you sit around mechanically spitting out liberal garbage is hardly becoming of you. :biggrin:

[Saturn5]

There is plenty of latitude used in political science, as well there should be, and there are plenty of theories developed regarding this topic, as there will continue to be. Just like many other political issues.

This is just one of many and lends itself well to utilizing and encouraging critical thinking. Correctly investigate, analyze, understand and evaluate. Obviously the schools don't spend enough time teaching these skills (how to think) and spend too much time on what to know. As this particular instance illustrates, if the students have confidence in these skills at all, they could formulate their own conclusions about this topic, and either refute the teacher's claims or not. But quite honestly, the conclusion is not nearly so important as the process. learning the process and using it, instead of attempting to cram facts only to have to replace those facts with new facts. Best to be asking why and how instead of merely repeating never and always.

But regardless, it certainly lends itself to freely exercising those skills, or learning them, as the case may be. If you've never gained those skills, you need to.