There are 2 choices, 3 votes for Neros Decay's debate

Who Are Society's Critical Thinkers Today?

There are a total of 7 characteristics that qualify a person to be a critical thinker.

http://skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/ch1.pdf#search=%227%20characteristics%20of%20critical%20thinkers%22

what public speaker in today's society do you think would be classified as an uncritical thinker? and a critical thinker? what do they say or do that influences your opinion?

• yo

  Me

  66%  Voted for by grant, Weydon.

  View 14 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • 
    Neros Decay
    September 13, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    in oeder to be a critical thinker you would have to provide evidence to back your claim. what characteristics do you have that are listed in the top 7?
  • 
    Energizer Bunny
    September 13, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    very interesting neros....
  • 
    Weydon
    September 13, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    No, grant's right.
  • 
    Neros Decay
    September 14, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    no, because no critical thinker will outright choose a topic about society's public speakers asked to identify one and put himself down. for one, grant isnt a public speaker in society. he may be public as far as this forum - but i can guarentee that grant has never gathered a crowd in the real world and stated his views and opinions. therefore he failed to do one of the most critical things in critical thinking: analyzing. critical thinkers analyze their statements as well as others, even those they highly respect. he also failed to provide sufficient proof. any statement made by a critical thinker will hold some sort of explanation and details stating as to why that person has that opinon whether it is asked for or not.
  • 
    Weydon
    September 14, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Loosen up.
  • 
    grant
    September 15, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    What you appear to be asking for, neros, is for me to have an institutional stamp of approval for my thoughts in the form of some institutional doctorate or whatever. Without this though, i still critically think. The only difference to my mind is that, as people just love and worship formal qualifications, I don't have a crowd of sychophants hanging on my every word. My ego is out of control enough without sychophantic support thankyou very much.
  • 
    frndofyaweh
    September 15, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    I like this part:

    Mmmmm, comfy thoughts. A quote from start of page two: critical thinker is neither dogmatic nor gullible. The most distinctive features of the critical thinker’s attitude are open-mindedness and skepticism. These characteristics may seem contradictory rather than complementary. On the one hand, a critical thinker is expected to consider viewpoints different from his or her own. On the other hand, a critical thinker is expected to recognize which claims do not merit investigation. Also, sometimes what looks like open-mindedness is simply gullibility and what looks like skepticism is really closed-mindedness.
  • • 
      grant
      September 20, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      The open mind does not "expect" anything. All surprises are welcome to an open mind. Expectations are for the closed mind as only "expectations met" are welcome. The vast majority of the "unmet" never surprises but disappoints. The closed mind's expectations that are met only perpetuate more closemindedness. The closed mind PUTS faith in predictability (prophecies). The open mind HAS faith in whatever shows up (surprise!!). Surprise is like wonder. Predictability is slumber.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 22, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"The open mind HAS faith in whatever shows up (surprise!!)."* I would surpass even this, seemingly. One might class this as open-minded closemindedness. But I would have faith in not even the surprise. To remain sane, one needs to, seemingly, close one's mind to some degree. I do this by realising that open mindedness leads ultimately to destruction. It is a state of faithlessness. So, it is where one can effectively place their faith that enhances oneself.
  • 
    Neros Decay
    September 24, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    no see grant, i asked for public speakers. a figure the general public would come to recognize. yeah? and in either case its not a matter of whether you think critically because at some point everyone thinks critically. its being a critical thinker all the time. there are other aspects to critical thinkers beyond skepticism and open-mindedness. to be a public speaker, the crowd doesnt have to hand on everyword coming from your mouth. certainly people will gather just to hear but they dont have to worship what you say. for the record, a critical thinker's "stamp of approval" is scientific fact and egos pretty much negate any true critical thinking you may have done. because as ive said before - critical thinkers dont always assume they're right and take everyone else's opinion into consideration. but youre welcome? the open mind doesnt place faith in anything unless its been proven that it is fact through science. and that is only because it becomes truth. nothing suprises an open mind because they are open to whatever is proven. if an open mind is truly open minded then there is never a piece that is closed. the brilliance of being open minded is being able to take into consideration that there may be a possibility that open-mindedness wont lead to destruction. so while there may be a good or bad result, the thrill of any open minded person is to keep their minds completely open to find out whether the outcome is destruction or not. so i ask again: public speakers of today- any critical thinkers and why?
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 26, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"the open mind doesnt place faith in anything unless its been proven that it is fact through science."* Boy am I fuming. Do I have to make it my life's aim to debase such 'irrational' yes, irrational notions? This is close-mindedness in itself. To close-mindedly assume that science proves everything and you can't argue otherwise, is an assumption based on no premise. What proof validates science's proof (as in currently held proof)?
  • 
    Neros Decay
    September 26, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    so what else would you be able to porve proves anything else? its not close-minded if it has produced results. science proves itself over and over again. and in some case even re-evaluates itself. thats how we know that it proves everything. nothing is more irrational than relying on solely faith to give you the answers to anything. faith has been and will always be a security blanket. to place faith in faith is redundant.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    September 27, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    I can't believe I am forced to explain this to you again. If you want to debate me, go back to our original argument over the matter, and at least have the guts to answer my damn posts. I am not writing out all that stuff again merely to have you sidestep me. I believe the thread was called "why do people still need a god?"
  • 
    grant
    October 2, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    An open mind doesn't require proof of anything. An open mind doesn't need to feel it is right, therefore, to proove is not even a pursuit. An open mind is not pursuing anything. The closed mind looks for proof because it wants to be right. An open mind is not interested in right and wrong.

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: