Critical thought

StarPhoenix · Post by **StarPhoenix** » 09 Dec 2010, 08:01

It isn't often that I hear of ideas and practises that sound odd to me, or are not in agreement with whatever I may have read about a given topic. More often than not, I don't know whether I can trust the notions
that germinate in the cavity between my ears.

I usually try to stay out of arguments [because I tend to come off second best] at home and at work regarding
people's perceptions of the way the spacetime we inhabit works, whether the "detox" regimen my colleagues have been discussing ad nauseum is efficacious and whether it has any basis in medical science, whether wearing a copper bracelet does anything more than make a fashion statement, on what I think amounts to the spurious claims and showmanship of mediums and the use of "myself" instead of "me" at work.

The answer I received after pointing one of the ladies who had been regaling us on the merits of detoxification diets to an article to a dismissive medical article was, "Well I don't believe that. I can see that it makes a difference for me."

My question is this: How does one critically appraise an idea with a view to determining whether it is valid or not?

Post by **Stuart** » 09 Dec 2010, 08:12

StarPhoenix wrote:
My question is this: How does one critically appraise an idea with a view to determining whether it is valid or not?

Stop trying to be so absolutist. If it has merit for YOU then it has merit. Truth is relative.

Tribble · Post by **Tribble** » 09 Dec 2010, 08:22

Birdie - most of what we believe - works for us because we believe it. There often is no anecdotal evidence. Logically detoxing must work. We eat so much junk and so many artificial flavourings and preservatives that must affect our systems. By cleansing colons and eating healthily as ones does during detox, you will feel better. It is not actually the detox that makes you feel good - it is the good practice of eating healthy, natural foods - and avoiding those things that cause irritation in the bowels (white flours and sugars), So yes - it does work for her. But if she ate correctly all the time - she would not need to.

Not sure about the copper but I can make a stand for the magnetic bracelet. Since I started wearing mine - my migraines have dropped from 8+ a year to perhaps 2 or 3. Is it the bracelet or is it coincidence? No clue - so I choose to believe the magnets do help. Theoretically it allows the blood cells to carry more oxygen - and that is how they say it works. I really don't care - I am grateful for the relief from migraines.

I won't go to the time paradox as my brain refuses to believe time is real - I am nuts - yes. Don't worry that you cannot convince people that they are wrong - they don't want to be wrong so will not give credence to any theory that might prove that their hypotheses are erroneous. Just take a deep breath and go somewhere you cannot hear them.

wizardofid · Post by **wizardofid** » 09 Dec 2010, 09:12

If you believe to be surrounded by crackpots leave it at that especially in the work place, after it may be required to work with the idiot in future.

So never ever discuss things like this in any work environment period...even if you are correct, just leave it at that.Their narrow minded naivety is not going to help you working relationship.

As to your question keep it to your self.

StarPhoenix · Post by **StarPhoenix** » 09 Dec 2010, 12:35

Right....so I should keep my opinions to myself.....

Turning inwards, how do I know:

a) whether whatever source of information I am using is accurate?
b) whether what I happen to be thinking is bonkers?

Tribble · Post by **Tribble** » 09 Dec 2010, 12:38

He said don't discuss it at work - you can discuss with friends and family. Unfortunately most sauces

of information are suspect imho

wizardofid · Post by **wizardofid** » 09 Dec 2010, 12:52

StarPhoenix wrote:Right....so I should keep my opinions to myself.....

Turning inwards, how do I know

a) whether whatever sauce of information I am using is accurate?
b) whether what I happen to be thinking is bonkers?

Well I said it in a nice way, well tried to say it as such.

People get very defensive, especially in a already stressed environment.Can you afford not to be talking to some one in your office because your opinion might actually be correct.

StarPhoenix · Post by **StarPhoenix** » 09 Dec 2010, 13:16

@wizard: you did say it nicely, that's just how I related you advice to myself

Nah.....my opinion doesn't matter that much.
Well I have managed to keep pretty quiet for the last two days.

Website · Post by **hamin_aus** » 09 Dec 2010, 13:27

If you want to bother me with talk about how XY or Z is so fantastic I will bother you back by suggesting that your claims are exaggerated.

The Aussies are actually pretty good about not pushing personal agenda's at work - it helps that they are one of the least religious people in the world, and generally not given to flights of idiotic fancy. The ones that are have the good sense not to mention it at work.

But back at my old office in Durban I was the scourge of the religious, the spiritual, the superstitious, the pious, the overly charitable and the exquisitely empathetic. As well the bane of the new-age hippy, the person who believes everything they read in email, the feminists, the causist and anyone else I deemed to be misguided, naive or backwards.

Tribble · Post by **Tribble** » 09 Dec 2010, 13:36

No wonder you are so popular here

StarPhoenix · Post by **StarPhoenix** » 09 Dec 2010, 13:40

causist?

Website · Post by **hamin_aus** » 09 Dec 2010, 16:28

StarPhoenix wrote:causist?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/causist

Moses · Post by **Moses** » 09 Dec 2010, 16:35

jamin_za wrote:If you want to bother me with talk about how XY or Z is so fantastic I will bother you back by suggesting that your claims are exaggerated.

The Aussies are actually pretty good about not pushing personal agenda's at work - it helps that they are one of the least religious people in the world, and generally not given to flights of idiotic fancy. The ones that are have the good sense not to mention it at work.

But back at my old office in Durban I was the scourge of the religious, the spiritual, the superstitious, the pious, the overly charitable and the exquisitely empathetic. As well the bane of the new-age hippy, the person who believes everything they read in email, the feminists, the causist and anyone else I deemed to be misguided, naive or backwards.

You are definitely my kinda guy. Wanna hook-up?

Website · Post by **hamin_aus** » 09 Dec 2010, 16:39

Moses wrote:You are definitely my kinda guy. Wanna hook-up?

Yes.

KatrynKat · Post by **KatrynKat** » 09 Dec 2010, 16:41

jee · Post by **jee** » 16 Dec 2010, 10:12

StarPhoenix wrote:Right....so I should keep my opinions to myself.....

Turning inwards, how do I know:

a) whether whatever source of information I am using is accurate?
b) whether what I happen to be thinking is bonkers?

Calo, it takes time to lean what information is reliable and accurate and after a while one tends to navigate to a particular author/professor/scientist/naturalist/hippy; or website or journal/magazine because MOST of what they posits or explain or theorise have a ring of truth. Many ideas/things have no absolute answer - it has been proven beyond a doubt that hydrogen and oxygen molecules combine to form water, and a burning match glibly flicked into a tank of petrol will create a glorious whoosh.

However, when one ventures into something like quantum and cosmology - you will find experts with theories that makes sense to you, but not to me... and even then, just taking the string theory - there are not just ONE string theory - but many. Which one is accurate? Not even the experts can tell you - because after all, its a theory. Can one use the same argument for detoxing and other "unscientific" beliefs? If it works for me, i believe it - that is a safe (and sane?) thought.

Sydney Gottlieb and Jack Parsons - they were thought to be brilliant - yet, they were madder than hatters and really really wicked (from my point of view). Not all "weird" thinking is seen as bonkers - unless your name is jamin

What hamin huns thinks of as "not-weird" i find offensive - and vv. Yet, we see eye to eye on many other things (huggles Hamin

)

You need to find a path for yourself. You need to investigate - and if you really believe in something - then its truth becomes yours - even if you paint yourself green and lies naked in the forest (I think this is stupid because there are all kinds of noenoes in the forest that just love all that naked expanse - but then, to the noenoes this idea is not bonkers - to them it seems to be an Eureka moment!)

I do believe that there are times and places to discuss some of one's more erm unusual thought processes because not everyone can handle people who finds the hole in the circle and follow the thought outside.

jee · Post by **jee** » 06 Feb 2011, 09:58

Carr has always been one of the bloggers that I have been following because his thoughts on technology are very similar to mine.

This video throws light on intellectual technology and how the changes of technology change our brains.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/26562

PCFormat Forum Archive

Critical thought

Critical thought

Re: Critical thought

Re: Critical thought

Re: Critical thought

Re: Critical thought

Re: Critical thought

Re: Critical thought

Re: Critical thought

Re: Critical thought

Re: Critical thought

Re: Critical thought

Re: Critical thought

Re: Critical thought

Re: Critical thought

Re: Critical thought

Re: Critical thought

Re: Critical thought