Hi friends

At the social level there are two versions of criticism: Destructive criticism 
and constructive.

Destructive criticism works like this: "You think so and therefore you are an 
idiot". 
Leaves the subject in an antagonistic mood and replies with arguments of more 
destructive invokations.

Constructive critcism works like this: "You think so which is wrong because 
this and that. If you think about this and maybe do that you will understand 
better".
Gives the subject a chance to answer with sound argumentation and an 
opportunity to think in another way.

Jan-Anders

> 19 jul 2014 kl. 19:23 skrev david <[email protected]>:
> 
> 
> 
> On 16 July, ARLO said to Ian:
> ...Except, what I wrote is not "criticism" by any stretch of that word. It's 
> a simple presentation of a process. Could I have been more elaborate? 
> Perhaps. But I guess I am used to working with people who wouldn't need this 
> process elaborated upon. Apparently, I was wrong. (Yes, you can count THAT as 
> "criticism".) I am tempted to point out that your reply to this, however, was 
> all criticism. And you didn't follow your Dennett-steps yourself. Do as I 
> say, not as I do, eh? (Count that as a bonus "criticism".)
> 
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> Yea, it's frustrating that "criticism" is taken as a dirty word by some 
> members of this philosophy discussion group. I totally disagree with Ian's 
> attitude that criticism should be used very rarely, for example, and I think 
> Ian and John's persistent refusal to answer the standing criticisms is 
> completely inappropriate to the situation. Philosophy is essentially a 
> critical engagement with reasons and arguments. Philosophy could very well be 
> defined as critical thinking. I mean, the ad hominem argument is not 
> considered a fallacy simply because it's rude or insulting. It's not just bad 
> table manners. It's considered an invalid because it rejects arguments or 
> criticisms for reasons that are irrelevant to the arguments or criticisms. 
> It's prohibited because the thinking is flawed, not because philosophers are 
> supposed to be sweet and kind. It's rejected for intellectual reasons, not in 
> deference to social niceties. 
> 
> 
> Here's another message for John Carl, Ian, and anyone else who resents the 
> demands of critical thought. It's from the Wiki page on "Critical Thinking":
> 
> 
> Etymology
> One sense of the term critical means "crucial" or "highly important"; a 
> second sense derives from κριτικός (kritikos), which means "able to discern".
> 
> 
> Critical thinking has been defined as:
> "the process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, 
> synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion"
> 
> "disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by 
> evidence"
> 
> "reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do"
> 
> "purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, 
> analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the 
> evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual 
> considerations upon which that judgement is based"
> 
> "includes a commitment to using reason in the formulation of our beliefs"
> 
> disciplined, self-directed thinking which exemplifies the perfection of 
> thinking appropriate to a particular mode of domain of thinking thinking 
> about one's thinking in a manner designed to organize and clarify, raise the 
> efficiency of, and recognize errors and biases in one's own thinking. 
> Critical thinking is not 'hard' thinking nor is it directed at solving 
> problems (other than 'improving' one's own thinking). Critical thinking is 
> inward-directed with the intent of maximizing the rationality of the thinker. 
> One does not use critical thinking to solve problems - one uses critical 
> thinking to improve one's process of thinking.
> 
> Skills
> 
> The list of core critical thinking skills includes observation, 
> interpretation, analysis, inference, evaluation, explanation, and 
> metacognition. According to Reynolds (2011), an individual or group engaged 
> in a strong way of critical thinking gives due consideration to establish for 
> instance:
> Evidence through observation
> Context skills to isolate the problem from context
> Relevant criteria for making the judgment well
> Applicable methods or techniques for forming the judgment
> Applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the problem and the 
> question at hand
> In addition to possessing strong critical-thinking skills, one must be 
> disposed to engage problems and decisions using those skills. Critical 
> thinking employs not only logic but broad intellectual criteria such as 
> clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, 
> significance, and fairness
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                         
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html

Reply via email to