Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6276002" data-attributes="member: 177">Oh, they're pertinent.&nbsp; I just didn't extend to the conclusion.&nbsp; I'd considered this as I was on my way to work this morning, so please allow me to continue....Upthread, kingius mentioned critical thinking.&nbsp; So, let's consider that.&nbsp; When thinking critically, the first question we apply to a piece of information shouldn't be, &quot;Do I believe this?&quot;&nbsp; The first question is, &quot;Should I believe this?&quot;&nbsp; Has the information been gathered or presented in such a way as to help avoid <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases" target="_blank">the foibles and failings of casual human thought</a>?&nbsp; This is what the processes of science do for us - get us information in which we can have some level of confidence, and a way to refine and correct going forward.Now, my previous statement becomes difficult to flip around.&nbsp; We humans are easy to fool.&nbsp; So, we should take strong precautions against being fooled.&nbsp; What precautions went into the gathering of the evidence he refers to?Now, perhaps he doesn't want to get into it - that's fine, as EN World isn't a peer reviewed journal or anything.&nbsp; But, this becomes a key point to anyone who does decide to look at the evidence, and make up their own mind.&nbsp; It isn't enough to read a report of an event or events - one should think critically about how that report was prepared and presented, and what it means in the greater context.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6276002, member: 177"] Oh, they're pertinent. I just didn't extend to the conclusion. I'd considered this as I was on my way to work this morning, so please allow me to continue.... Upthread, kingius mentioned critical thinking. So, let's consider that. When thinking critically, the first question we apply to a piece of information shouldn't be, "Do I believe this?" The first question is, "[I]Should[/I] I believe this?" Has the information been gathered or presented in such a way as to help avoid [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases]the foibles and failings of casual human thought[/url]? This is what the processes of science do for us - get us information in which we can have some level of confidence, and a way to refine and correct going forward. Now, my previous statement becomes difficult to flip around. We humans are easy to fool. So, we should take strong precautions against being fooled. What precautions went into the gathering of the evidence he refers to? Now, perhaps he doesn't want to get into it - that's fine, as EN World isn't a peer reviewed journal or anything. But, this becomes a key point to anyone who does decide to look at the evidence, and make up their own mind. It isn't enough to read a report of an event or events - one should think critically about how that report was prepared and presented, and what it means in the greater context. [/QUOTE]

Verification