Critical Thinking - Standards of Thought - Part 2

Part 2 - Dr. Richard Paul defines the universal standards with which thinking may be "taken apart" evaluated and assessed. Excerpted from the Socratic Questioning Video Series.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• critical
• thinking
• standards
• of
• thought
• improve
• education
• teacher
• faculty
• humanities
• social
• science
• humanit

[amoxtlacatl]

Absolutely marvelous.

[PursuitOfReality]

thanks

[bossscrillaguy]

Isn't that the purpose? He isn't teaching anything new, he's teaching you to be conscious & mindful to the aspects of critical thinking. Some people are unaware they are critical thinkers & seek terminology to aid them in deeper understanding of this field of thinking.

[kd7one]

@BeachBallEffect It's nit the jeans that make you fat.........It's the fat that makes you fat

[BeachBallEffect]

Does my butt look big in this jeans honey?. No, you look beautiful.

[cuzifeelikeit]

@EdgePitSwing or uncommon sense

[EdgePitSwing]

I have to say, this shit is common sense...

[juanfracisco]

He just give the sansation of exactitud given rules of verbalization. Well, there is other human tradition that do just the same thing: RELIGION.

[juanfracisco]

Human communication is not rational. That´s the hole point why phyloshofy went wrong. Language is not learned and do not use intellectual standarts to be significant. Human behavior responds to incentives and motives of cooperation and competion, and not to rational standarts of what phylosofers call thinking. . He doesn´t explain why humans sometimes don´t agree, netheir, why language is ussualy used not to tell the truth. Phylosophical explains are just rules, not explanations.

[MartialArtsMaster]

@Shadowslamer

What? What does that have to do with Richard Paul's actual argument? You're just demonstrating your own egotism by angrily attacking ideas and calling others pretentious instead of summarizing their arguments first and then calmly explaining why you believe those ideas are misguided.

[MartialArtsMaster]

@juanfracisco

Do you actually have a reason to say that, based on purposes, questions, information, inferences, implications, etc.? Or are you just angry because his ideas don't conform to yours?

[MartialArtsMaster]

@juanfracisco

You're demonstrating Richard Paul's point, that we angrily attack ideas we don't like instead of rationally critiquing their bad points, or even admitting that they might have something new to teach us. All you do is insult Richard Paul and call his speeches for the weak-minded, while giving no substance as to why you think that to be the case.

Are you upset because you're a psychologist and approach things narrowly, while Paul draws from multiple fields?