Republicans in Texas What to Ban Critical Thinking in Classrooms

Yeah, but it makes them wonderful ballot-fodder for Wall Streeters, who's personal objectives couldn't be more different from the Christian objectives of their Fox-mesmerized supporters.

 

Eye of the beholder...

 

I live in a county where critical thinking, free thought and the expressing of opinions has been suppressed. I can see the problems this generates. Not only in politics and academia, but in everyday life. Basically what is happening is, hardly anyone wants to stick their head above the crowd.

In one case, the Australian Development Scholarships screening test comes in three parts. Critical thinking which is done in Lao language, a reading section in English language and a writing section in English language. 800-900 applicants sit for the test each year. The format is the same each year but the questions are always different from year to year. What the screening tests indicates is their grasp of English language and the ability just to think.

Many many applicants bomb out on the critical thinking section because they've never been taught or use critical thinking since day one. Many also bomb out on the writing section, where they need to express opinions, form ideas and put this all down on paper.

Why they do so badly is, these applicants have a set of beliefs and have always had the same set of beliefs. They just can't step outside the box because they've never been able to think critically and are reserved in expressing there own opinions because they have ingrained set of beliefs.

Most of the applicants who do well are the ones who have studied abroad in western countries or are (or have) working for a western organisation.

 

Because they addressed the vernacular the way it is currently being used for terms of simplicity and to identify the case being made that they disagreed with. Its really quite common.

No, they use EXACTLY the same process that you are calling 'critical thinking' - of which you blindly plowed in because your critical thinking stopped at the literal meaning of the words and not the literal meaning of what is happening. Your critical analysis simply failed to allow you to conceive that anyone might have a reason to disagree, so you made a series of faulty assumptions ... and continue to do so now.

'critical thinking' to get people to question their preconceptions in a teacher student relationship is rarely, if indeed ever, about critical thinking.

Deny it all you wish. But here you are supporting what the Taliban does.

Only when confronted with the reality of it, you now, for emotive reasons, want to avoid looking like you are wrong.

Which is of course what critical thinking is all about.

See why some of us don;t want atheists teaching critical thinking? Follow the Taliban's model only claim you are not emotionally? Need more of that kind of critical thinking.


Before hitting the rest.

Well, I am going to let you catch up with the reality of what you are saying and allow you to determine whether or not 'undermining' preconceptions in a student teacher relationship is even a sound , method of teaching critical thinking before you blindly disagree some more.

Please, spell out your thesis statement regarding the Texas Republican Party's statement, and then see if we can use a little critical thinking skills to push aside the partisan BS, the ideological disdane for those who apparently eschew reason and logic itself, and actually have a discussion?

I am anything but a Texas Republican, but on this one ... they have it right. Why do I know that? Because I know my own biases, and rather than let them drive me, when I see something I don't like reflexively, I attempt to actually research it and arrive at an informed position allowing reason, rather than bias, to determine the position.

Why? Because many years ago a school system taught me actual critical thinking skills ... when I was an atheist. They did it WITHOUT questioning my pre-conceptions, and eventually I did challenge them with the objective basis I was given. That gift, coupled with what I saw first hand from the Taliban, have me starkly against teaching with the goal of challenging preconceptions.

Now, see if you can handle that one by actually addressing the point.

 

Australia sounds terrible.

Forgive me for having worked closely with many, many Australians and thinking that your analysis is heavily biased and little more than confirmation bias.

Its little more than a recollected story offered as 'evidence' to support your belief that challenging people's beliefs is educational - when the reality is, you don't want critical thinking skills applied .. you are claiming that its the belief system that traps people.

Guess what kiddo? That would include yours!

 

Watching Neutral post about critical thinking amuses me greatly.

 

Excuse.

 

ADS costs the Australian government around 9 million per year in Laos alone. Why shouldn't the Australian government choose the best candidates to study at college and university levels?

It is not a "recollected" story for a couple of reasons. One, I've been invigilating at the screen tests for four years. Secondly, I know the process applicants go through from the time they apply to the time they are selected. From what I know about ADS in Laos, I would rather message you privately than make my evidence known here in public in these forums. Put it this way, it's very close to home.

Many applicants are impeded because of their personal beliefs, idealologies (call it what you will) which by the way has nothing to do with religion, it's political. Especially those applicants from ministries who toe the government line. These are the ones who fair the worst.

 

Watching D make a claim like that is even more amusing. Such a salient demonstration of scintillating logic ... which results in petulant sore loser syndrome. I wonder what intellectual biases a wounded ego might inject into a thought process? I wonder if, applying logic and analysis, that might be detectable as acerbic, pointless one liners that convey emotion rather than analytic ability?

Apparently being a prick is the atheist ideal of critical thinking? Nice.

At least attempt to participate, D.

 

Thank you for the story telling about Australia, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue raised by Texas.

 

Is that the best you can do? Or are you calling it quits before the hole you've dug yourself gets deeper?

 

Why does Texas have the #1 ranked hospital for cancer in the entire US then?

http://health.usnews.com/best-hospi...-of-texas-m.d.-anderson-cancer-center-6741945

 

Oh yes, the rambling about Australia has been quite intimidating in regard to education and Texas ... clearly its intimidation at play here

Apparently critical thinking is not the strong suit of those who are blindly in support of anything that is termed critical thinking ... because how can you be against something CALLED critical thinking, even if it clearly is not ACTUALLY critical thinking?

Its tough for you isn't it?

 

Tell us Neutral, do you use critical thinking in the course of your employment? What about in private life? Were you taught critical thinking during your education process (at any level), or did you develop critical thinking as life experiences were attained (I'm thinking both)? How has critical thinking impacted on your personal beliefs and not just religious beliefs? Do you believe you are inteligent enough to decipher all points of view and weed out the ones you believe as humbug?

These questions aren't posed to be confrontational.

 

Wrong.

The current-vernacular definition of "critical-thinking" is *not* "brain-washing"... it is this (from Dictionary.com):


"Main Entry: critical thinking
Part of Speech: n
Definition: the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion"


When you twist language like you are doing, it makes you sound like one of those paid, astroturfing drones of the Powell Memo crowd.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/ca...d-energy/polluterwatch/The-Lewis-Powell-Memo/

 

Atheism is solely the lack of belief in deities. It makes no claims, it holds no beliefs, it has no ideology. It's simply the lack of belief in deities.

All children are atheists until they are taught theism or personally make up the idea of a deity. An atheist who denies the existence of a deity is no different than a person who was never taught any gods to deny in the first place. In that they both lack belief in deities. An active claim of non-existence relates only to that persons belief system they have personally come about and relates in no way to atheism outside of the default position that they lack belief. This has never changed and will continue to never change until someone finds an atheist that doesn't lack belief in deities but believes no deities exist and redefines atheism from solely the lack of belief in deities.

 

You're mucking things up by injecting religion or the lack thereof into the process by which we gain a better understanding of and learn to differentiate fact from fiction.

religon, comparative or not, has no place in public schools.

The above boggles the mind. LOL

What means "simple critical thinking?"

Yes, this is correct. the process fo thinking analytically entails recognizing assumptions, evaluating the evidence for and against them, drawing a conclusion.

 

Okay, so there's atheists who never had the idea of deities, and atheists who've rejected the idea of (invisible, supernatural) deities.

Perhaps there should be a qualifying prefix to distinguish the two, because in my experience they have very different attitudes/states-of-mind.

Maybe something like: pre-atheist vs post-atheist?

 

That is your assertion.

Only that children be encouraged to think outside the box.

proving questions are not universal. Common sense tells you it depends on the topic of discussion.

 

Uhm... Because Texas has enough money to pay good doctors to live there? Because laws against teaching critical-thinking to Texan-kids haven't passed yet?

 

I suggest you refer to the document in the OP like I suggested several days ago. Random searches using google are something known as confirmation bias - it indicates a lack of desire to analyze or use ACTUAL critical thinking skills.

Perhaps all those who are blindly followng the 'critical thinking' portion, and just leaving of the 'designed to challenge preconceptions' part would do well to check their analytical tool kit ... and their moral one while they are at it.

 

More base dishonesty.

Once again, deliberately avoiding the 'meant specifically to challenge CHILDREN'S preconceptions.'

Its like talking to a man with no ears and a stiubborn streak a mile wide - just prove your adherence to 'critical thinking' by studiously avoiding the parts of your opponets arguement that are relevant. What a wonderful examination in logic you have provided us.

 

Seems like there out to ban anything that could challenge preconceptions judging by the stance the paper takes on sexed and creationism how can you blame anyone for thinking there going to go over bored and try to ban anything that would even indirectly lead to a challenge of those preconceptions

 

Using Dictionary.com to look-up the definition of the term "critical-thinking" is *not* a *Random* search.

If one is formulating a cognitive attack to challenge a preconception, then what they are teaching the kid is *not* "critical-thinking", according to the standard definition of the term "critical-thinking". The document is internally self-contradictory, and therefore flawed.

Say something like "programmed thinking designed to challenge preconceptions" (aka brainwashing... just say you don't want teachers to brainwash kids... nobody's going to nit-pick over a statement like that).

 

You have to have a bases for understanding. Even the word bases, when looked up, in a Thesaurus explains it right there.