Critical Thinking, What Does it Mean to Be Open to Learn?


Here is a blog of mine on why the Fibonacci-sequence is not scientific evidence of a creator: http://damienmarieathope.com/2015/09/fibonacci-sequence-as-scientific-evidence-of-a-creator/

“I want real factors of evidence Not Mockery in discussion. Mathematical factors in correlation of so many structures in life certainly do prove evident to me that there is a design. I will admit ive been wrong but mockery proves nothing to me but seeming contempt.” – Challenger

Nancy Raso I was going to send this to you but to be honest I didn’t get to listen the whole thing. Damien AtHope doesn’t usually mock but let me hear it & get back to you.

My response, Life is part of evolution so there is connections and similar patterns that is not design. Creationism is a debunked religious conspiracy theory, just like its wolf in sheep’s clothing cousin, intelligent destine. The theory of evolution originated with Charles Darwin but left hypothesis, when it was supported by study of DNA combined with physical evidence. Creationism debunking examples which support the Theory of Evolution are a universality in the worlds genetic code along with cross-species genetic commonalities. While it is scientifically understandable to grasp that we share DNA with great apes including orangutans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and bonobos; which can share up to approximately 98% of human DNA but it does not end there by a long shot. Humans also share DNA with other animals, as we all evolved together in a since or more accurately share common evolutionary ancestors. You may be amazed to learn mice seemingly so different than us can share up to approximately 90% of human DNA, dogs can share up to approximately 80% of human DNA, but then all mammals have a DNA similarity; in fact, we share DNA genes with plants and with every other living organism. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended; because of DNA evidence that appears to be shared by all life on Earth. Then there is the other very strong proof of the fossil record, from the simplest fossils in the oldest rocks to the vast amount of skeletal remains all accumulatively supporting evolution again and again. Therefore, evidence supporting evolution presented must be added with so many other things that could not just fill a book on its own, like common traits in embryos, extra. The terrain of evidence supporting the theory of evolution is so vast it is less like a mountain of evidence, than a mountain range of evidence from multiple areas of science creating a unified whole. Moreover, there is simply so much more valid and reliable reason and evidence confirming the theory of evolution that to reject evolution, is paramount to one accepting that they can be view as a discredited unscientific magical conspiracy theorist. Creationism (pseudoscience): http://damienmarieathope.com/2016/09/creationism-pseudoscience/

”Ok so using the allegory of “Magic” as derogatory and falsehood in correlation to design… seems mockery to me… Perhaps its Text tone… sounds all determined opinion to me.” – Challenger

My response, Science is not the same as opinion and both creationism and intelligent design had their day in court and lost as they are not scientific.

“So many say the earth was flat.” – Challenger

My response, And the ones saying such things are factually incorrect.

“Ty for your opinion.” – Challenger

My response, There is lots of science and pictures showing the earth is not flat.

“True knowledge is in knowing we know nothing is my view… Science was proven wrong by time huh?” – Challenger

Here is my blog addressing flat-earth:

http://damienmarieathope.com/2017/11/flat-earth-mania-a-debunked-religious-theory/

Nancy Raso Please don’t tell me you believe that the earth was flat, Davy! We have seen it from space.

“Whatever.” – Challenger

My response, So if you know nothing then why are you making claims?

“Ive stated my opinions.” – Challenger

My response, To say something about knowledge and then claim to not have knowledge is a contradiction.

“Im not claiming i know… i regard i may learn more, ok what else? ” – Challenger

Nancy Raso Damien’s not trying to mock you. These are basic scientific facts. The problem is that people need to learn science.

My response, But the admission that you can learn more means that you have knowledge but you claimed “we know nothing in my view”, how is this consistent?

“Is there an absolute and is science absolute?” – Challenger

My response, I will answer your question when you answer my question.

Nancy Raso There’s a difference between opinions and facts. Only facts can be proven not opinions.

My response, Opinions can be proven with facts.

Nancy Raso Yes, that’s true, Damien.

“My view is that there may be no absolute … therefore knowledge is not consistent with our lives… ever changing just as the science can be ilusive to the eye at first. Science is fallible in my view … just as any view of course, therefore… conviction is moot in learning.” – Challenger

My response, To claim knowledge of science if fallible is to assume an absolute in the claim or do you not know this for sure?

“What do believe Science to be… other than Study of man?” – Challenger

My response, I find it funny a question of absolute as there are lots of absolute things. We are absolutely using Facebook and talking in English. Science has lots of absolutes. It is an absolute fact that we are humans and not rocks. We are on earth not the sun.

“Dimensional colors unseen … frequencies unheard and all thats beyond our perception may regard a different view of our decisions and factors altogether no?” – Challenger

My response, To say that reality has oddness is not the same as to confirm supernatural anything.  I am open to evidence even of supernatural anything and when I get it if valid and reliable I will believe in it but I have no reason to do so until then.

“Philosophers throughout time recognize facts are often a an illusion debunked in time is my point. So to make claims of “facts” is to what ends? Do i believe them myself? not often honestly.” – Challenger

My response, Justified True Belief equals knowledge was the philosophy standard. I enjoy philosophy.

“Love of Wisdom.” – Challenger

 

My response, Philosophy stands for the love of wisdom.

“Agreed.” – Challenger

 

Nancy Raso There’s different types of philosophy though.

My response, True, I love the tools that aid in critical thinking.

“I like that…” – Challenger

Nancy Raso He’s awesome. I’m admire your work, Damien Marie AtHope.

My response, Thanks for your support Nancy Raso.

Nancy Raso Thanks for your posts & your comments on my page.

 

My response, Cool, I don’t believe there is or ever has been anything. I mean, I don’t believe without justification, like the non-naturalism believers like to assume must beyond reality even though there is no valid reason to believe that.

“Im not religious… i dislike religion mostly… however, it appears there is more than we all know and understand… what that is… im curious of. I also tell Nancy Raso that i value the Altruism of good willed Atheists.” – Challenger

 

Nancy Raso I am a good-willed atheist. I’m a humanist. I think you’d Damien AtHope you should check out his page.

“Fair enough 🙂 peace luv n granola powered engines 🙂 I think along the lines is that i trust most of my views are valid from experiences .. but we all see things a bit different… its all good in my eyes… we arent throwing rocks so im glad we can talk civilized … Ty for that Regard.” – Challenger

Nancy Raso I told you he doesn’t mock. He’s a humanist. I believe in debating not arguing.

“:) cool. perhaps the “text tone” in my reading was obscured.” – Challenger

Nancy Raso I do have to listen to that whole thing. He’s very intelligent.

“I agree.. i was reading a bit and was discouraged honestly… however he is intelligent which i have had no doubt.” – Challenger

Nancy Raso I also admire him as person because he doesn’t name call or bad mouth religious people.

“Perhaps his writings are your cup of tea. Ill regard he was very pleasant in communication with me.” – Challenger

Nancy Raso That’s his personality.

My response, Here is a blog of an interaction with a believer who starts with calling me names and by the end apologies. I attack thinking not people. I don’t believe in religions or gods but do believe in people. I see myself as a teacher and fellow learner. http://damienmarieathope.com/2016/02/turning-a-theist-attack-into-a-chance-for-their-new-learning-an-open-dialog/

My response, I call my style “Truth Navigation” here are its main Techniques for Discussions or Debates:

I do truth navigation, both inquiry questions as well as strategic facts in a tag team of debate and motivational teaching.

My eclectic set of tools involves:

*The Hammer of Truth: ontology, epistemology, and axiology

*REMS: reason, evidence, and methodological skepticism

*Utilizing Dignity: strategic dignity attacks or dignity enrichments

*Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion (motivational teaching)

Asking the right questions at the right times with the right info can also change minds it’s just you can’t just use facts all on there own. Denial likes consistency, the pattern of thinking can not vary from a fixed standard of thinking, or the risk of truth could slip in. Helping people alter skewed thinking is indeed a large task but most definitely a worthy endeavour. http://damienmarieathope.com/2017/12/truth-navigation-techniques-for-discussions-or-debates/

 

My response, Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking which attempts to reason at the highest level of quality in a fair-minded way. People who think critically consistently attempt to live rationally, reasonably, empathically. They are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left unchecked. They strive to diminish the power of their egocentric and sociocentric tendencies. They use the intellectual tools that critical thinking offers – concepts and principles that enable them to analyze, assess, and improve thinking. They work diligently to develop the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in reason. They realize that no matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always improve their reasoning abilities and they will at times fall prey to mistakes in reasoning, human irrationality, prejudices, biases, distortions, uncritically accepted social rules and taboos, self-interest, and vested interest. They strive to improve the world in whatever ways they can and contribute to a more rational, civilized society. At the same time, they recognize the complexities often inherent in doing so. They avoid thinking simplistically about complicated issues and strive to appropriately consider the rights and needs of relevant others. They recognize the complexities in developing as thinkers and commit themselves to life-long practice toward self-improvement. They embody the Socratic principle: The unexamined life is not worth living , because they realize that many unexamined lives together result in an uncritical, unjust, dangerous world. ~ Linda Elder, September, 2007 http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

“Ty for your patience and thoughtfulness.” – Challenger