On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 19:22:45 -0500,Jim Clark wrote:
Hi
Perhaps some lack of discussion is because a number of us were
involved in a discussion of this issue on the PESTS list just a week
or so ago before Michael P posted it to TIPs?
Just a few points:
(1) Chris Green was the person who
Hi
Some of discussion on PESTs of this issue follows below.
Jim
James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology and Chair
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca
Michael Palij m...@nyu.edu 07-Jul-12 6:15 am
(5) So, since this issue was thoroughly discussed on PESTS,
anyone want to
One of the guidelines for critical thinking is to consider alternative
explanations not other scientific explanations.
michael
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here:
Yep.The sub-atomic particle that was the bang that initiated the big bang.This
first cause particle has been speculated by Thomas Aquinas (although in
theological
terms) and the end of the universe by Theillard de Chadrin ,a French Jesuit
paleontologist hinting at an omega point
in his classic
Some subscribers to TIPS and TeachEdPsych might be interested in a
recent discussion-list post Microsoft's Lesson For Public
Education [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:
*
ABSTRACT: EDDRA2's Mike Martin at http://yhoo.it/Pw1ks5 wrote:
Hi
I'm afraid I do not consider alternative (i.e., un- or anti- or
non-scientific) explanations, anymore than I accept alternative (i.e., un- or
anti- or non-scientific) medical treatments.
Critical thinking does not equal gullible thinking or critical non-thinking.
Take care
Jim
James M.
