Comments on: Critical Times for Critical Thinking http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:37:38 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Thinking Toward Survival › Critical Thinking Definitions http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/comment-page-3/#comment-84430 Thinking Toward Survival › Critical Thinking Definitions Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:28:46 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/#comment-84430 [...] opinions. In another post I’d like to analyze a very long thread about critical thinking on http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/ which contains some good insights but also many examples of people getting off-track and [...] [...] opinions. In another post I’d like to analyze a very long thread about critical thinking on http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/ which contains some good insights but also many examples of people getting off-track and [...]

]]> By: Coralie http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/comment-page-3/#comment-71015 Coralie Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:31:51 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/#comment-71015 Jbl, you are letting through the camel and straining at a gnat. Scalia says: "A friend who homeschools her children — and does it so well that the oldest has won a full academic scholarship to a university — was surprised that commenters would express such contempt not for the committee findings, which contradicted their worldview, but for the reporter who covered it." She does not note that her friend misunderstood the situation. Okay, 2 comments not one out of 1,643. My bad. But this kind of nit-picking is not critical thinking. You're just defending the thread from this mean old troll. Here is the point, and it is a much bigger one. Hiatt's basic argument was based on intellectual dishonesty, quoting out of context. When he quoted the report that something was substantiated by intelligence, he repeatedly left out the second part of the sentence. And in some cases, the Administration'statements "were not substantiated by the intelligence." Scalia did not go to the original source, the Committee Report but ran with Hiatt as if Gospel. First mistake. Then she mischaracterized the Hiatt comments as being mainly insulting and without substance on the basis of TWO comments. So, what do you think critical thinking is? Does it have anything to do with misquoting, or sweeping generalizations? Jbl, you are letting through the camel and straining at a gnat.
Scalia says: “A friend who homeschools her children — and does it so well that the oldest has won a full academic scholarship to a university — was surprised that commenters would express such contempt not for the committee findings, which contradicted their worldview, but for the reporter who covered it.” She does not note that her friend misunderstood the situation.
Okay, 2 comments not one out of 1,643. My bad. But this kind of nit-picking is not critical thinking. You’re just defending the thread from this mean old troll.
Here is the point, and it is a much bigger one. Hiatt’s basic argument was based on intellectual dishonesty, quoting out of context. When he quoted the report that something was substantiated by intelligence, he repeatedly left out the second part of the sentence. And in some cases, the Administration’statements “were not substantiated by the intelligence.”
Scalia did not go to the original source, the Committee Report but ran with Hiatt as if Gospel. First mistake. Then she mischaracterized the Hiatt comments as being mainly insulting and without substance on the basis of TWO comments.
So, what do you think critical thinking is?
Does it have anything to do with misquoting, or sweeping generalizations?

]]> By: Jbl http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/comment-page-3/#comment-70849 Jbl Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:24:58 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/#comment-70849 Inaccurate analysis. Reread this piece. Hiatt is not misidentified, he is identified as an editor writing for an editorial page. 2 quotes from comments, not 1. Interviews a teacher and students. Critical thinking must begin with accuracy. The analysis on your blog is inaccurate. Inaccurate analysis. Reread this piece. Hiatt is not misidentified, he is identified as an editor writing for an editorial page. 2 quotes from comments, not 1. Interviews a teacher and students.

Critical thinking must begin with accuracy. The analysis on your blog is inaccurate.

]]> By: Coralie http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/comment-page-3/#comment-69958 Coralie Sat, 05 Jul 2008 15:22:03 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/#comment-69958 Sorry. Instructions indicated URL would be displayed by my name. Anyway, here it is again: http://enddumbdown.blogspot.com Basically, most of the above thread suffers from lack of questioning the original post. First, Hiatt's editorial used selective quoting and omitted important context. I direct you to a copy of the report itself. Google "Bush Administration Lied 935 Times? Not So Fast!" and link to report from there. The "Not So Fast!" website favors Hiatt's POV, yet if anybody actually reads the Senate report they will find that it is full of statements such as "but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community" "did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties," etc. This was often the second part of the sentence. Second, Scalia used selective quoting by using the STFU quote as representative of 1,643 comments, many of which made substantive points and cited evidence. Also, civil discourse and critical thinking are not the same thing, although a basic minimum of civility is required for argumentation. This post and thread are supposed to be about critical thinking and yet nobody questioned either Hiatt or Scalia or went back to the actual Senate report. Everything was taken at face value. From there, people tended to jump into their own pet topics and ideologies, whether Ayn Rand Objectivism or homeschooling. Maybe it's just more fun to vent one's opinions but please don't call it critical thinking. Another dead end topic as far as CT goes is the deep philosophical discourse about whether truth is absolute or not. Sorry. Instructions indicated URL would be displayed by my name. Anyway, here it is again:
http://enddumbdown.blogspot.com
Basically, most of the above thread suffers from lack of questioning the original post.
First, Hiatt’s editorial used selective quoting and omitted important context. I direct you to a copy of the report itself. Google “Bush Administration Lied 935 Times? Not So Fast!” and link to report from there.
The “Not So Fast!” website favors Hiatt’s POV, yet if anybody actually reads the Senate report they will find that it is full of statements such as “but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community” “did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties,” etc. This was often the second part of the sentence.
Second, Scalia used selective quoting by using the STFU quote as representative of 1,643 comments, many of which made substantive points and cited evidence.
Also, civil discourse and critical thinking are not the same thing, although a basic minimum of civility is required for argumentation.
This post and thread are supposed to be about critical thinking and yet nobody questioned either Hiatt or Scalia or went back to the actual Senate report. Everything was taken at face value.
From there, people tended to jump into their own pet topics and ideologies, whether Ayn Rand Objectivism or homeschooling. Maybe it’s just more fun to vent one’s opinions but please don’t call it critical thinking.
Another dead end topic as far as CT goes is the deep philosophical discourse about whether truth is absolute or not.

]]> By: Jbl http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/comment-page-3/#comment-69594 Jbl Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:08:19 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/#comment-69594 Your analysis has glaring inaccuracies. Your analysis has glaring inaccuracies.

]]> By: Coralie http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/comment-page-3/#comment-69032 Coralie Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:40:49 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/#comment-69032 On the blog above I analyze this post in terms of critical thinking, since that purports to be its subject. On the blog above I analyze this post in terms of critical thinking, since that purports to be its subject.

]]> By: Steve http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/comment-page-3/#comment-66119 Steve Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:28:16 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/#comment-66119 What a truly sad reflection on the author. Many Democrats disapproved of Bill Clinton's skirt-chasing ways, not to mention his many forays to (at least) the brink of legality. I have no doubt that people like Ms. Scalia were jumping up and down about the many flaws of the Clintons, evidently some, perhaps out of jealousy and spite (neither of which are Christian) now imply that the Democrats are wretches to choose the candidate they deem most suitable. Such writing wreaks of hypocrisy, falsehood and just downright despicable people. What a truly sad reflection on the author. Many Democrats disapproved of Bill Clinton’s skirt-chasing ways, not to mention his many forays to (at least) the brink of legality. I have no doubt that people like Ms. Scalia were jumping up and down about the many flaws of the Clintons, evidently some, perhaps out of jealousy and spite (neither of which are Christian) now imply that the Democrats are wretches to choose the candidate they deem most suitable.

Such writing wreaks of hypocrisy, falsehood and just downright despicable people.

]]> By: Critical Thinking and Homeschool « Beagle Scout http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/comment-page-3/#comment-64777 Critical Thinking and Homeschool « Beagle Scout Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:28:15 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/#comment-64777 [...] Thinking and Homeschool Sandra M. comments on an article by Elizabeth Scalia, the Anchoress, at PJM. I see great hope for the future in the homeschooling [...] [...] Thinking and Homeschool Sandra M. comments on an article by Elizabeth Scalia, the Anchoress, at PJM. I see great hope for the future in the homeschooling [...]

]]> By: critical bill 1000 times mp3 http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/comment-page-3/#comment-64758 critical bill 1000 times mp3 Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:52:36 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/#comment-64758 [...] geometry, music ... Ibrahim critical times for critical Thinking by Elizabeth Scalia AP ...http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/The Arcade Fire &gt Elbows Music Blog AggregatorKip s Mid-Year Picks : Arcade Fire - Neon Bible mp3 [...] [...] geometry, music … Ibrahim critical times for critical Thinking by Elizabeth Scalia AP …http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/The Arcade Fire &gt Elbows Music Blog AggregatorKip s Mid-Year Picks : Arcade Fire – Neon Bible mp3 [...]

]]> By: Thomas http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/comment-page-3/#comment-64436 Thomas Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:55:42 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/critical-times-for-critical-thinking/#comment-64436 Broadsword Heavy on the poetry light on the reasoning. Broadsword

Heavy on the poetry light on the reasoning.

]]>