You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: An Experiment In Critical Thinking
You are missing the point, I do not want to debate the 9/11 conspiracy, I was using ONE particular example and showing how lots of people can start to believe something that isn't true, simply because they haven't thought it through properly.
Using the Qui bono? argument is an example of heuristic thinking, instead apply critical cognitive processes to any theory proffered to you, this is much better and will more likely get you to the correct answer.
It would be better, IMO, if you used another subject to make your pedagogical points on critical thinking as using 911 in this context simply comes off looking like propaganda. I'm not saying that you're doing this or that's your intention but your points wouldn't be disputable if you choose another referent.
And I agree, I stopped discussing 911 online around 2008 as I saw that it was pointless.
Propaganda; are you suggesting that I'm coming across as one of them?
You are quite welcome to your opinion, however I don't shy away from any subject, it often doesn't make me popular, it has even lost me whale votes in the past; however I don't care. I will never ever be cowed from speaking the truth as I see it, and trying to spread my message of rationalism over superstition.
Think about that for a second . . .
My points are about using rational thinking to come to a conclusion.
This is indisputable , it is objectively true to think about something rather than jumping to heuristic conclusions.
Whether I'm talking about 9/11 or a story about fairies, my points are that you should think about them rationally. If you think about the missile theory rationally, there is no way on earth it was anything but a plane.
However it is difficult for us sometimes to let go of long held beliefs in the face of new evidence. This is the reason religion persists, even though there is overwhelming evidence for the non-existence of a religious god, there are over 3 billion people whom believe in one god or another.
Mostly this is because of childhood indoctrination, ergo it is cognitively easier to say; this new piece of information is wrong, and what I have 'known' for X years is correct.
Over to you :-)
Cg
I'm not saying that you are, but rather coming across as one in this context. Is it really that surprising given that the Steem template is modeled on nepotist circle-jerk algorithms which create inane echo chambers?
I argue in a link below that there isn't much about our present condition that is rational but rather our systems are an extension of blind chance lowly evolved reptilian limbic system thinking. https://steemit.com/philosophy/@andrewmarkmusic/dog-eat-dog-and-top-dog-and-his-bitches
If what I'm saying is true then most of your points would fall under the category of hubris.
In another video I'll link below I talk about spirituality and would argue briefly here that you've succumbed to a false dichotomy: modernity or myth; or science juxtaposed to mythical religion. https://steemit.com/philosophy/@andrewmarkmusic/disinguishing-between-states-and-dimensions
True, one would have to be sympathetic to a Whiteheadian fondness for metaphysical speculation as far as considering what I'm saying.