Hi James:
Did Rome burn or is it still standing? So, who did the *better* job of
applying Critical Thinking (1) to the potential of an earthquake yesterday
and (2) to how best to deal with the possibility-- the seismologist, the
media, the people who fled, or those people who stayed?
On Thu, 12 May 2011, James Weinheimer wrote:
> When one side of a debate is focusing on practical matters and the other
> focuses on theory, it is difficult to find common ground.
True-- the old "apples vs. oranges" contradiction. I'd say that Critical
Thinking provides a *practical* method of evaluating the *practicality* of
theories and statements ranging from dogma to "working hypotheses."
> using critical thinking ... is highly time consuming
How much time did it take you to decide not to vacate Rome?
> and will quickly founder in the ocean of reality.
Actually, Critical Thinking is the only practical way to interpret
"reality" and comprehend the depth of the ocean in order to keep from
foundering. Think of it as a tool.
Let's say you are planning to take a long vacation involving lots of
driving on back roads where potential hazards and unfamiliar conditions
may exist and your car may not function perfectly. That is a situation
that parallels life and thinking in a complex society full of
misinformation and deception. So, wouldn't you want to take along a map
and a tool-kit, perhaps even a car repair manual and a GPS unit? Add
Critical Thinking to your life-kit, and you can have some understanding of
your emotional and cognitive surroundings and a fuller appreciation of the
diversity of possibilities in order to prevent damage of all kinds to
yourself and others.
> if I want to vote for a candidate ... and ... [have] issues I am
> concerned about ... I need to know something about [the issues] to make
> a decent vote. But the evidence [relating to complex issues can be]
> extremely technical and dependent on all kinds of people and complex
> technology all over the world.
Critical thinking focuses on the way issues are addressed, not on the
details of them.
This is quite a common scenario, where the obvious distracts from the
subtle. Critical Thinking re. politics doesn't ask one to collect facts on
issues, it gives one tools to permit one to evaluate the candidates as to
whether they may be uninformed, blindly dogmatic, entirely
self-interested, and/or possessed of ulterior motives, *OR* engaged in
testing "working hypotheses." and trying [!] to make "deeply informed
decisions."
Specific issues immediately at hand are often employed as distractions
just to arouse emotional responses (and are very often in conflict with
one another). The issues, then, have far less significance that the nature
of the thought-processes engaged in by the candidates.
> if we say that critical thinking ... is "the" or "a" solution for
> libraries [esp. in the selection process] ...we would not be providing
> our patrons a service they want, and we are throwing it on their
> shoulders.
First, a competent selection process has to derive from Critical Thinking
about all the factors involved (patron interests, budget, time, etc.). The
critical thinking simply assures that all the factors are considered *and*
accepts and explains the conclusion that any decision may be an incomplete
compromise, adequate only in so far as it can be implemented at the time
it takes place.
2nd, people who expect others to do their thinking for them need to be
shown how to think for themselves. For example, the limitations of
"library selection" need to be clearly explained. Our society is run by
people who insist that we let them do our thinking for us *because* we
have been trained to believe that we can't get involved (e.g. haven't
time) in improving the society. In fact, improving the society should be
everyone's dominant paradigm, not stepping-back to see if others will do
it for them.
People need to do a lot of information "selection" for themselves in our
highly manipulated society, which requires extremely judicious use of any
social structures that may imply folks should *expect* others to do their
thinking for them.
> Google and its imitators will be more than happy to step into this breach.
Take any self-interested entity, or those with any tendency to seek power
and control over others. It's all about animal instincts (and brain
structure). Critical Thinking can give people tools to discern instinctual
(or even psychopathic) behaviors and rhetoric toward self-serving ends
from practical "working hypotheses."
> Thus, it would be a step toward oblivion for libraries ... my opinion!
Libraries are already oblivious in many ways :) [from being self-focused]
-- my opinion!
Critical Thinking requires that we examine ways to avoid oblivion [and
obliviousness], not accept it as certain.
If a librarian teaches how to obtain information and how to interpret the
emotional and practical nature of it, is he/she still a librarian? If
there will always be some information and data that can only be obtained
from within library buildings, can libraries become obsolete? What could
libraries and librarians do to help make sense of information if they do
no longer needed to be custodians of material?
How about leaving the "horse-and-buggy-failure" paradigm behind and
instead be positive: suggest ways libraries can change to meet the modern
challenges our society faces, e.g. the destruction of society by
manipulated information and data.
It's no longer enough to just push out "information"-- not only is the
practice inherently inefficient due to the mass of data available and to
how much of it is manipulated and manipulative, it is misleading in
implying that it is efficient. What is needed these days is individual
instruction in how to interpret what we see and hear (e.g., might it
*possibly* be one-sided and manipulative, or part of a responsible
"working hypothesis"?).
> [That library oblivion is possible] is not the opinion of someone who
> has never worked with any of these issues before.
Lots of people who have never worked in libraries already think libraries
are obsolete. They aren't applying Critical Thinking either, but we could
teach them to participate in the solution instead of being part of the
problem. After all, it is *their* problem if libraries close-- the
ever-resourceful librarians will surely be able to find new means of
employment ... won't they (in corporate libraries, perhaps :))?
> And sorry, but "The statement that "none of us can take the time to learn
> everything to make deeply informed decisions" is a statement of absolute,
> 100% fact." is completely true in a practical sense.
Then God help those of us who are depending on those who are trying to
take the time to learn everything to make deeply informed decisions.
"Practically" speaking, such an assumption is not only counter-intuitive
but counterproductive. It is suggesting that we stop trying to learn, not
stating a fact. The points required are to not discourage people from
thinking and to distinguish thoughtful statements from deceptive ones.
Demagogues already claim to know everything (or at least everything that
is of any importance), and, since they do not make "deeply informed
decisions", they could use the *statement* as a justification for telling
us to stop thinking altogether.
Others, *practically*, engage in seeking knowledge following "working
hypotheses" (to the extent they can apply time to do so) and make
"decisions" which are as "deeply informed" as "practical."
> We must cooperate and rely on others for help, for information, for
> advice and many other needs.
Exactly, except "collaborate" might be a less-loaded way of putting it
than "cooperate." Trouble, is there presently no one out their teaching
*how* to collaborate, or even *how* to distinguish "cooperation" from
obeisance.
> Critical thinking is good and important for individuals, but it *cannot*
> be seen as any kind of solution for libraries.
I don't' see it as a solution to library problems, I see it as a
responsibility of purveyors of information.
> Insisting on it is a refusal to deal with the problem of people needing
> help with selection.
Insist on applying Critical Thinking to define and resolve the problem in
terms of "people needing help with selection" as a "working hypothesis."
> If critical thinking is to occur, it will take place in the hearts and
> minds of individuals
If they become aware of it and the need for it.
> but those same persons will nevertheless have no choice but to rely on
> all kinds of experts for all kinds of needs.
Quite alright, as long as sufficient skepticism of ulterior motivations
is afoot to prevent false self-proclaimed "experts" from dominating
society.
Our informed but material society is a lot stronger now than when
Pharaohs and Caesars and Napoleons and Goebbels ran the lives of their
subjects. Unfortunately, materialism itself (along with Glenn Beck, the
Koch brothers, etc.) has become the universally accepted authority figure
perpetuating and sometimes enforcing the disarming belief that "We don't
have time to think!"
> This is nothing new, it is nothing bad, it is part of being human
The worst part of being human is rushing forth into self-slaughter like a
"lower" animal; the best part is being able to think about it and put on
the brakes.
> I am involved in mankind.
> And therefore never send to know for whom
> the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Every time
I turn on the radio
Or read the news
The bell tolls anew.
But in rings in a forest
Of distracted people
Where no one hears
Or will take the time
To listen
Or critique the tune.
Cheers!
jgm
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
jmarr_at_unm.edu
jmarr_at_flash.net
**There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
the box."
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
Received on Thu May 12 2011 - 15:00:44 EDT