RandomPoster
Platinum Member
- May 22, 2017
- 2,584
- 1,794
I took a "Critical Thinking" test and a "Logical Reasoning" test because I was curious as to the difference between the two. Everywhere these days, it seems, people are ranting and raving about needing more "Critical Thinking” in education. The Analytical Reading in the SAT has been replaced with Critical Reading, focus more on rhetoric, tone, and “reading between the lines”. This supposed leads to a “deeper” understanding. It seems some are always on about the “deeper” meaning that typically doesn’t seem to actually be there.
Anyway, I agreed with everything on the logical reasoning test. However, I disagreed with quite a bit regarding the critical thinking test. In particular, the Arguments section was disturbing. First, there were some arguments that I agree with and could actually see myself making, except I still see as weak arguments, whereas the authors of the test see them as strong arguments. My agreement with the arguments doesn't make them strong arguments. Me thinking that the argument is correct means nothing. The supported arguments presented are weak because they lack verifiability and are more rough value based assertions.
However, here are a couple other arguments I completely disagreed with the author's assessment on. In many cases, I see their assessments as often promoting weak supporting arguments in favor of a political call to action and shifting the burden of proof onto those skeptical of such calls to action. In particular, many of the supposedly strong arguments are examples of individuals presenting reasons, except not evidence, to support a claim.
Should university-level education be free to all students?
Answer: Yes, having a highly qualified workforce ensures high levels of employee productivity.
That was stated to be a strong argument.
The argument could be written as “I think making university-level education free to all students WOULD result in having a highly qualified workforce and I think this WOULD ensure high levels of employee productivity.“
It’s fine if you want to think that, except that is not a strong argument. There is a pattern I saw throughout the text.
Hypothesis: Implementing policy A would result in B happening. That’s it, nothing except a hypothesis with no evidence.
It gets split up and presented as “Should we implement policy A?”
Stance: “Yes”
“Supporting Argument” The reason we should is because it would result in B happening.
This person hasn’t actually made a traditional proponent argument. What was presented is not a supporting argument. It is simply splitting your hypothesis into a claim and a reason and begging the question at any skeptics. It shifts the burden of proof onto anyone who is skeptical of a proposed political call to action.
Should banks and financial institutions be obligated to engage in socially-responsible investing?
Answer: Yes, engaging in socially responsible investing leads to a happier and more fulfilled workforce compared to banks which do not engage in socially-responsible investing.
That was listed as a strong argument. It completely ignores the difficulty in testing the accuracy of the assertion which is masquerading as a supporting argument. It merely declares the assertion to be "relevant". In principle, the assertion cannot by definition be relevant to any conversation unless it is actually true in the first place. Truth is assessed before relevance. Truth is an indispensable requirement of relevance. Additionally, who decrees to what extent and in what ways the goal of employees leading a "happier and more fulfilled" life is the bank's responsibility?
Here’s another.
Answer: No, over-regulation in the financial sector leads to decreased opportunities and therefore lower profits.
How is a bank being "obligated" to engage in "socially-responsible" investing not regulation of the financial sector? If there is no punishment from the government for the bank not doing so, they are not obligated. If the government is punishing the bank for not engaging in "socially-responsible" investment, that is regulation.
To be clear, it’s not that I have a problem with someone making those arguments I deem weak. Again, I even agreed with some of them and could see myself making them. I simply disagree with the “critical thinkers” on what constitutes a strong argument. I contend that STEM style analytical thinking is better at weeding out bullshit than liberal arts “critical thinking”.
Critical Thinking is more opinion based than STEM style Analytical Thinking. Don’t let anyone try to tell you differently. It is not deeper or more rigorous. It encourages throwing your opinions around like they're facts, verbal aggression, a childishly adversarial attitude, and an antagonistic mindset. It’s all about trying to dominate the narrative and simply trying to keep the other person forever on the defensive.
Here's another issue. Who’d want to say they’re against critical thinking? That must mean you are a gullible idiot, right? Don’t fall for their shit and don’t back down. What liberals call critical thinking is simply re-branding good old fashioned and legitimate analytical thinking as part of critical thinking and tacking argumentative, opinion-based bullshit onto it.
It’s not harder to be a critical thinker, it’s easier to criticize.
Anyway, I agreed with everything on the logical reasoning test. However, I disagreed with quite a bit regarding the critical thinking test. In particular, the Arguments section was disturbing. First, there were some arguments that I agree with and could actually see myself making, except I still see as weak arguments, whereas the authors of the test see them as strong arguments. My agreement with the arguments doesn't make them strong arguments. Me thinking that the argument is correct means nothing. The supported arguments presented are weak because they lack verifiability and are more rough value based assertions.
However, here are a couple other arguments I completely disagreed with the author's assessment on. In many cases, I see their assessments as often promoting weak supporting arguments in favor of a political call to action and shifting the burden of proof onto those skeptical of such calls to action. In particular, many of the supposedly strong arguments are examples of individuals presenting reasons, except not evidence, to support a claim.
Should university-level education be free to all students?
Answer: Yes, having a highly qualified workforce ensures high levels of employee productivity.
That was stated to be a strong argument.
The argument could be written as “I think making university-level education free to all students WOULD result in having a highly qualified workforce and I think this WOULD ensure high levels of employee productivity.“
It’s fine if you want to think that, except that is not a strong argument. There is a pattern I saw throughout the text.
Hypothesis: Implementing policy A would result in B happening. That’s it, nothing except a hypothesis with no evidence.
It gets split up and presented as “Should we implement policy A?”
Stance: “Yes”
“Supporting Argument” The reason we should is because it would result in B happening.
This person hasn’t actually made a traditional proponent argument. What was presented is not a supporting argument. It is simply splitting your hypothesis into a claim and a reason and begging the question at any skeptics. It shifts the burden of proof onto anyone who is skeptical of a proposed political call to action.
Should banks and financial institutions be obligated to engage in socially-responsible investing?
Answer: Yes, engaging in socially responsible investing leads to a happier and more fulfilled workforce compared to banks which do not engage in socially-responsible investing.
That was listed as a strong argument. It completely ignores the difficulty in testing the accuracy of the assertion which is masquerading as a supporting argument. It merely declares the assertion to be "relevant". In principle, the assertion cannot by definition be relevant to any conversation unless it is actually true in the first place. Truth is assessed before relevance. Truth is an indispensable requirement of relevance. Additionally, who decrees to what extent and in what ways the goal of employees leading a "happier and more fulfilled" life is the bank's responsibility?
Here’s another.
Answer: No, over-regulation in the financial sector leads to decreased opportunities and therefore lower profits.
How is a bank being "obligated" to engage in "socially-responsible" investing not regulation of the financial sector? If there is no punishment from the government for the bank not doing so, they are not obligated. If the government is punishing the bank for not engaging in "socially-responsible" investment, that is regulation.
To be clear, it’s not that I have a problem with someone making those arguments I deem weak. Again, I even agreed with some of them and could see myself making them. I simply disagree with the “critical thinkers” on what constitutes a strong argument. I contend that STEM style analytical thinking is better at weeding out bullshit than liberal arts “critical thinking”.
Critical Thinking is more opinion based than STEM style Analytical Thinking. Don’t let anyone try to tell you differently. It is not deeper or more rigorous. It encourages throwing your opinions around like they're facts, verbal aggression, a childishly adversarial attitude, and an antagonistic mindset. It’s all about trying to dominate the narrative and simply trying to keep the other person forever on the defensive.
Here's another issue. Who’d want to say they’re against critical thinking? That must mean you are a gullible idiot, right? Don’t fall for their shit and don’t back down. What liberals call critical thinking is simply re-branding good old fashioned and legitimate analytical thinking as part of critical thinking and tacking argumentative, opinion-based bullshit onto it.
It’s not harder to be a critical thinker, it’s easier to criticize.
