Y'know, the difference between "thinking" and "critical thinking" can only be described by one word:

Pomposity.

Egotism.

Insecurity.

Pretense.

Posturing.

Signalling.

Maybe a few others.

Can I get an "Amen" for Brother Crid?

It's like a Carol Burnett skit (I'm old okay?).

Ex. Trump says "I'm going to deport 2 million blah blah blah." Massive uproar.

Goggle Obama's deportation stats. Easily 2 million.

Funny.

The details are who and how and what process. But ...

I'm on board with this idea in general, but I do have to point out an inconsistency here. First they say this is how we should be reasoning:

"IF A, THEN B, UNLESS C."

Then they immediately violate their own stated goals when talking about this idea:

"If I'm correct, then it would be the holy grail of critical thinking."

Where is the "unless" component here?

They had an opportunity to model this type of reasoning immediately by describing the conditions under which this idea would fail to result in improved cognition... and they completely ignored it.

If the advocate for this method can't seem to provide an "unless" statement for the idea that we should be providing unless statements in our reasoning then perhaps the reason people do not tend to do this is that providing instances where our logic breaks down is not quite as straightforward as they are suggesting.

Basically, the reason people tend not to do this isn't because they have insufficient training, but that to do is is more challenging than the traditional if/then type of logic and many people aren't up to the task.

I took critical thinking in high school and it was really the best class I took. Crid likes to make fun of stuff like this but lack of reason is the root of so many problems, and the reality is, we have cognitive biases that lead us to be irrational while believing we're thinking rationally.

Understanding this allows you to take a more nuanced view of why this version by Boghossian is helpful.

Simply sneering at something as "too college" ignores research by Kahneman, Tversky, Walter Mischel, and others on how we are swayed and misled by cognitive shortcuts built into the human brain.

Amy, I think what Crid is sneering at, and deservedly so, is the current tendency of the academic Left to slap phrases like "critical theory" on whatever mystery guild mumbo-jumbo they are promoting at the moment, to try to make it sound more impressive to the yokels. The Left, fancying themselves as masters of language manipulation, constantly looks for ways to hijack the phraseology of legitimate sciences and arts to try to make it look like they are engaged in objective thinking, where in fact they are doing the opposite.

And I actually appreciated Artemis going meta (whether it was intended as comedy or not), because the point is that nothing is completely beyond question. We have certain things that are taken as axioms because they correspond extremely well with our view of the ordinary world; it is very unlikely that anyone is going to prove that 2+2=5, despite a whole bunch of people having tried. But there is always new data coming in; quite possibly, someone some day will formulate a new system of logic in which the author's statement is not true, at least not in all cases. 25 years ago, after Hawking finished publishing his basic papers on superstring theory, we thought we had a pretty good understanding of how the universe was created and what its ultimate fate will be. Now it's all up in the air again. It started with the realization, 7-8 years ago, that the bulk of the matter-energy in the universe exists in some form that we have not yet been able to observe; we have no idea what it is, where it came from, or how to find it.
I saw a paper the other day challenging the validity of general relatively. The paper hypothesizes that gravity isn't actually a fundamental force in the same sense of the other three (strong, weak, electromagnetic), which is why we haven't been able to isolate the graviton (gravity's equivalent to the electromagnetic force's photon). Rather, it's caused by space-time fluctuations that "manifest" in the presence of matter. I didn't really understand a lot of it, but if some evidence can be found to support it, the implications for physics and cosmology are huge.

This isn't human nature but neither is mathematics. People should be taught to think more rationally. And it should be a component of most classes without needing to be separated into a critical thinking class. But we also shouldn't run the schools in a learn for the test and then forget it manner. What is the point of teaching something when you plan for your students to forget all about it in a year or two? Why bother teaching it in the first place?

Cousin Dave,

It wasn't intended as comedy so I am glad you took my commentary seriously. I was actually surprised that this individual would be declaring the importance of questioning ones beliefs... but then immediately failed to question their own beliefs. It actually undermines their point a bit because while he may believe it is important, he simultaneously demonstrates how difficult it is to implement in practice.

I also wanted to note that Hawking's contributions to physics were not primarily in string theory. String theory was originally developed by folks such as Leonard Susskind (along with many others).

Where Hawking made his mark was with a theoretical understanding of how quantum mechanics could be coupled with black holes to link together the quantum and relativistic physics. In particular, he showed that black holes evaporate through a quantum mechanical mechanism that has since become known as Hawking radiation.

This was a deep and important insight, but has nothing to do with string theory.

As for things like dark matter and dark energy, these are items that have been on the scene for a bit longer than 7-8 years. Dark energy became a big thing once observations were made that the expansion of the universe was accelerating. This discovery was made about 15 years ago.

In any case, you are correct that we always need to be open to new data.

"This isn't human nature but neither is mathematics. People should be taught to think more rationally"

Easier said then done. You can't teach what you can't do yourself.

Critical thinking became a educational buzz word back in the 80's and most the educrats throwing the concept around had no idea what it meant, much less how to actually *do it*.

My experience with teaching critical thinking is that people that can do it, are best at it within their own area of expertise, and you must develop a great deal of expertise to be able to apply it at all to a complex problem.
It can't really be taught per se. It must be learned instead. It can be modeled but only certain talented individuals will catch on.

When even very bright people get into a subject area outside of their own area of expertise, critical thinking breaks down because they don't have the tools to evaluate the validity of the information provided by other people, that they want to apply critical thinking to.

When they have to rely on other people to determine their axioms you get into the garbage in, garbage out problem where you will reach the wrong conclusion because you don't have the ability to vet the data or even realize that you might not even be dealing with the data you need.

Fake statistics have been around even longer than fake news.

Most people get in the weeds when they over generalize about the applicability of their theories.

They think they are using logic but their emotional biases keep them from seeing that their initial assumption might be totally wrong. (And probably is)

Applying critical thinking to bad data or a wrong assumption doesn't yield any useful conclusions.

So yea, I agree with Crid, again. No surprise there.

It surprised me, back in Naval nuclear power school, that the term, "exact" was a colloquialism, that every measurement properly included an uncertainty term about its level of precision. Only standards have no possibility of error, being definitions.
Now it surprises me that few people know this.

In practice, people who cannot tell how tall they are or how much they weigh presume to tell a profession that can measure currents under the surface of the sun, and detect planets orbiting others stars, and send probes like Cassini-Huygens, that they are doing it the wrong way.

Another thing to do is make sure you are exposed to and understand different views. I read The Economist, The Washington Post and Salon. You learn to hone your own arguments by listening to the people you disagree with. If you are honest with yourself, your views will change as you understand the other side.

I learned more reading the supporters of Trump and Bernie Sanders than from politicians I supported. I am less confident of my own libertarians views. I still feel Sanders, Trump and their supporters are economically illiterate but I realize that there are major flaws in libertarian economics as well.

isn't "critical thinking" just a fancy, intellectual way of saying "thinking?"

Per Wikipedia, "According to Barry K. Beyer (1995), critical thinking means making clear, reasoned judgments. During the process of critical thinking, ideas should be reasoned, well thought out, and judged."

So, normal thinking doesn't involve clear, reasoned judgements? In normal thinking, ideas aren't reasoned and well thought out? Normal ideas aren't judged?

Are "critical thinkers" somehow on a higher plane than the rest of us? "You, sir, are a mere thinker, whilst I am a critical thinker."

And now we have Critical Thinking 2.0?

> I took critical thinking in high
> school and it was really the
> best class I took.

Exactly. Oh, this is golden. Not even undergraduate-level phenomenology or symbolic logic, just high school.

Don't you little people understand???
I have taken a class!!!!!!!

> stuff like this but lack of
> reason is the root of so
> many problems

Why can't the normies —wallowing in their incoherent savagery— just acknowledge the majestic supremacy by which I comprehend the world's punishing nuances and difficult truths? Why? Why?

People seem only able to regard the election as a creeping encroachment by fascism; but the tally was also, just as much, a protest against it.

> tendency of the academic Left
> to slap phrases like "critical
> theory" on whatever mystery
> guild mumbo-jumbo they are
> promoting

Exactly. A perky and wretched new exemplar of this pattern in public life is this guy.

People who, finally, sit through one lecture without squirming or throwing a paper airplane are tickled-totally-pinko with themselves, especially if they've almost finished a book in the preceding sixth months. They need a way to express their social distance from lesser humanity.

So what they do is they take normal, unremarkable virtues and pretend that once someone has achieved their own vaunted degree of brilliance, God delivers unto them an entire new tier of virtues yet to conquer.

Thinking is for little people: Critical thinking is for the chosen.

Honesty is for little people: Intellectual honesty is for the chosen.

>It wasn't intended as comedy

It never is with you, but you crack our shit up.

> I read The Economist, The
> Washington Post and Salon.

!! !!! !

> the term "exact" was a colloquialism

☑

Artemis, thanks... I haven't kept up with that area as well as I might have wanted to. I wish I could find that paper about gravity again... actually I'm not sure it has been published yet; I might have just read a news article about it.

And of course it brings back up the old argument about whether an objective reality (one independent of human senses, which are imperfect) exists. I contend that it does on both practical and philosophical grounds. The practical: The sciences, based on the presumption of an objective reality, have done more to improve the human lot than anything else that humanity has come up with. The philosophical: If there is no objective reality, and nothing that we perceive is even slightly reliable, then existence seems kind of pointless. What fun is that? It goes back to my criticism of nihilism, which is this: nihilism sucks. What is the logic behind that? Well, by nihilism's own rules, the statement "nihilism sucks" is irrefutable. QED.

Seeing isn't believing. Believing is seeing.

"Seeing isn't believing. Believing is seeing."

Ah, yes. And then, reality is that which persists when you no longer believe in it.

MM says I'm wrong.

MM says I'm wrong.

Crid at December 9, 2016 3:26 PM

Different situation. You aren't writing a book review. You are responding to Hubris

Yeah, but she's got me on the Patrick thing.

Maybe

Industriously intellectual

Intellectually thrifty

Intellectually courageous

Intellectually prudent

Intellectually chaste

We didn't take that class.

So we'll just never know the struggle of being really, really shmart.

But our lives will actually be easier!

Because we don't have to be a-thinkin' so much!

"Different situation. You aren't writing a book review. You are responding to Hubris"

Isab at December 9, 2016 7:00 PM

But to MM's point (and Crid's), Conan said it more clearly, directly and without snark:

"isn't "critical thinking" just a fancy, intellectual way of saying "thinking?"

Per Wikipedia, "According to Barry K. Beyer (1995), critical thinking means making clear, reasoned judgments. During the process of critical thinking, ideas should be reasoned, well thought out, and judged."

So, normal thinking doesn't involve clear, reasoned judgements? In normal thinking, ideas aren't reasoned and well thought out? Normal ideas aren't judged? [...]

Conan the Grammarian at December 9, 2016 9:00 AM

The greatest enemy of logical thinking isnt a lack of fasification in your thought process.

It is trying to reach conclusions about areas of imquiry that you dont understand, and/or you have deep seated emotional biases on the topic which you are blind to.

This is how so many otherwise smart individuals convinced themselves that Hillary Clinton winning the election was inevitable. .

Too many problems have no right answer, and convincing yourself you can find one, thorugh nothing but logic

(and that,you are using pure logic on those knotty philosophical or social science questions) is the worst sort of Hubris.

Humans in general aren't very logical, and if you try to study anything about them using some bone headed simplitic calulation like: IF A, THEN B, UNLESS C. You are going to end up with garbage.

This sort of basic logic was covered in seventh grade pre algebra. It isnt suited for much above that level because (UNLESS C) has no deriveable meaning when C is an unknown.

> Conan said it more clearly, directly
> and without snark

Well, yeah, but so did I for the first ten years.

"first ten years"

That's priceless Crid.

This "critical thinking"* stuff was old in the early '70's but as noted above the college "teachers" loved the students that acted this way. (Except for the STEM classes where it was rigorously applied if you tried to debate things too much.)

*Back then "critical thinking" was throwing out 10 or more points rapid fire and not allowing any to be challenged. The teachers loved it.

Conan said it more clearly, directly and without snark ~ Michelle at December 9, 2016 9:14 PM

Darn. I was going for snark; or at the least, witty sarcasm.

This is how so many otherwise smart individuals convinced themselves that Hillary Clinton winning the election was inevitable. ~ Isab at December 9, 2016 10:57 PM.

And how they convinced themselves that she was a viable candidate to begin with.

Even today, her campaign staff is still struggling to understand how they lost, refusing to admit the weaknesses and general dislike of their candidate. And how those were exploited by the winning side, preferring to blame the racism of white voters and the sexism of male voters; which surely exist, but not in numbers sufficient to derail a better-received candidate.

That is the old joke of them claiming they are open to all points of view and then being horrified that there are other points of view. We were supposed to be going into a future of permanent Democrat majorities due to demographic changes. Instead we may be going into decades of Republican majorities due to the Democrats self destructing. Calling a majority of the voters names just isn't a good strategy for getting their votes.

"You can't teach what you can't do yourself." ~Isab

Well, some people can, sorta. After all most of my teachers didn't understand quite a bit they were supposedly teaching.

Talk about your weak ass refutations. But that is all I got. I largely agree with you Isab, but I hold hope that someone can find a better way of teaching these things. As for critical thinking, as far as I can tell that is normal thinking with at least ten seconds of effort pasted on top. Which is why I used the word rational and talked about math. Those words have more meaning to me.

"Darn. I was going for snark; or at the least, witty sarcasm".

Conan the Grammarian at December 10, 2016 7:54 AM

Keep at it - apparently the investment bears fruit.

~~~

"Too many problems have no right answer, and convincing yourself you can find one, thorugh nothing but logic

(and that,you are using pure logic on those knotty philosophical or social science questions) is the worst sort of Hubris."

... (UNLESS C) has no deriveable meaning when C is an unknown."

Isab at December 9, 2016 10:57 PM

I think the belief in and search for a right answer is an arrogance that creates a buffer from the sheer existential terror that there is no intrinsic, right meaning for one to discover - that we're responsible for creating meaning. That there are many, many other people and that they are out of our control or ability to fully know or predict.

Sometimes the most horrifying realization is that all of the options are horrifying, that all one's choices are bad, that no amount of study, sacrifice, or right information is going to make available an option one would want to choose.

One profound stroke of bad luck that permanently takes someone's train off the rails they want to be on, usually shines a light on the infinite unimaginable ocean of possible Cs.

My wife and I invested heavily in renovating our home for "aging in place," because we had loved ones who had to leave home due to an injury or debilitating or terminal illness, and we knew we valued our creature comforts enough to want to invest in that up front for ourselves and for our friends and family. I lost count of the people who told us we were being morbid. Eleven months after we moved in, my wife was diagnosed with cancer, and eight months later she was gone. Even we didn't see that coming. She was able to die at home, the one thing she wanted I could still do for her. But what if she, or we, or I had died suddenly, or died elsewhere? It goes like that. We made the choices we were willing to be wrong about, but there were some things we didn't see coming and we would have done some things differently if we had - but "out of order" death and other ways life reminds you you're not in control can be hard to wrap your head around.

It's less terrifying - and possibly more productive - to go through life imagining that the set of possible Cs is finite and knowable.

In an age where so much information is available but hard to verify (as you pointed out), on most matters I quickly conclude that there's much I cannot know, and my informed opinion means nothing.

As for any US president - I cannot know the realities they face in the job, the reasonings behind the choices they make. I have a healthy appreciation for what I know I cannot possibly know. Sill, Clinton seemed the only sane candidate between the two of them, and she was strategic. There are times when she threw my interests under the bus - made blatantly racist comments, publicly denounced gay marriage - but she appeared to be stable, strategic, smart, and most importantly not a sociopath or a wealth-draining narcissist. She garnered 2 million more votes (and counting) than the current president elect, indicative of the public conversation of support that might have given people the impression that she was likely to win. What concerns me most is the possibility that the electoral college wasn't lost, but stolen - something that I will never have the expertise or information to rule out.

> and most importantly not a
> sociopath or a wealth-draining
> narcissist.

We can agree to disagree.

So far as I could tell, her unprincipled engagement with the worst of political and institutional American life was unprecedented: Never before has a player moved so shamelessly in matters of finance, jurisprudence and governance. Today's entirely vacuous CIA "findings" regarding Russian involvement in the election are a perfect example of the America in which she performed so very, very well.

So I think American government was turning to shit anyway. 2017 and the years to follow were going to be horrible no matter what... And it's only in such a context that a baboon like Trump could be elected. Hillary, and the political machinery by which she thrived, built a culture so repellent that Trump didn't have to steal the election.

In 1992, Bill Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote (only 43 percent) but he received 70 percent of the electoral votes.

As for any US president - I cannot know the realities they face in the . What concerns me most is the possibility that the electoral college wasn't lost, but stolen - something that I will never have the expertise or information to rule out.

Michelle at December 10, 2016 10:05 AM

The electoral college is a very tough system to hijack.

It exists to protect the states from being swamped by a populist groundswell (or massive vote fraud) in the urban areas.
It wasnt nearly as important when the federal government was small and impotent as it is now.

Ironically before the election Hillary's team was conviced that they would lose the popular vote but probably win in the electoral college, which is the calculation they built their moribund elitist campaign around.

This, by the way, is the correct strategy, since the popular vote is as meaningless in a US presidential election as counting yard signs.

I know a lot of people have convinced themselves that somehow the popular vote *should matter* because that is all they have to cling to emotionally, but the fact is, it doesnt, and it never has.

Other than that Michelle, you are spot on, in my opinion. The infinite possibilities of UNLESS C are indeed an ocean of unknowns, and most of those are not known unknowns but unknown unknowns.

I suspect you are somewhat younger than I am or perhaps you would remember the nineties from the middle aged perspective that I had and would see Hillary as the rude imperious condescending power mad harpy that she is, and was.
I was probably helped by knowning some former secret service agents personally, and also by having some friends in Illinois whose older siblings went to school with Hillary.
The press wasn't able to carefully filter or alter my long standing opinion of her.

Tough to believe I know, that Trump was the better option, but for many of us, it wasn't even close.

The press is now desperately trying to paint him as Satan, and flushing what little credibility they have left, in the process.

At any rate, it is water under the bridge. I have some small hope that my husband's life as a Department of Defense Engineer will be somewhat better under someone like Jim Mattis than whoever Hillary would have appointed.
That is it, Crid is correct, as usual.

"Hillary, and the political machinery by which she thrived, built a culture so repellent that Trump didn't have to steal the election."

I'm picturing those great big elephant-like machines from an old Star Wars movie, towering machines that took a lot of time and investment to build, steered by people who could drive them, toppled by people at the bottom using ropes and the top heavy nature of the beast itself to trip them up.

Maybe Obama was a kind of precursor to Trump: I think only someone with little to no experience in politics can have clean hands going into the position of President. Once there though, I don't think being elbow deep in global problems, forced to deal with unsavory people in situations in which sometimes all the choices are bad, allows one to keep clean hands.

What concerns me most is the possibility that the electoral college wasn't lost, but stolen - something that I will never have the expertise or information to rule out. ~ Michelle at December 10, 2016 10:05 AM

You don't need expertise. Hillary Clinton did not win over every part of the country that she needed to in order to win. There were whole swaths of the middle part of the country, you know those deplorables clinging to God and guns, that didn't feel she represented what they wanted in a president.

Cities and close suburbs are full of people who've never killed or grown their own food (or seen it done), who've never been in an untamed wilderness, who've never been more than 15 minutes from emergency services responders, and who've never been more than 100 feet from their neighbors; people who've never lived in isolation, fired a gun, or stared at an endless horizon from their own porch. People for whom the closing of a factory does not mean the death of their town. Clinton's platform resonated with urban area voters, but not with the rest of the country.

And even some that voted for Obama (her ideological equal), voted against her. Her campaign strategy took for granted that Obama voters would vote for her. She didn't campaign in Wisconsin at the end like Trump did and that backfired on her. No amount of Jill Stein funded recounts will change that. The Michigan votes that were thrown out of the recount because they couldn't be verified were Detroit votes, Democrat votes.

No theft of the Electoral College was involved. Bad candidate, bad campaign strategy. Insulting 25% of the electorate was a bad move. That "basket of deplorables" voted - and that comment resonated with many people beyond open Trump supporters, and not to her favor.

Voters understand political differences, even respect them. She spent way too much time discussing Trump's personality and failings and not enough time showing America she understood the concerns of the middle class she swore up and down she would protect. Instead, she showed them she was part of the Washington crowd: entitled, out of touch, and politically tone deaf.

Like Crid pointed out, the next 4-8 years were gonna suck either way, with either candidate. Trump at least is showing some movement in getting the bureaucracy reduced, hiring people who've opposed or even sued the government agencies they now run.

What concerns me most is the possibility that the electoral college wasn't lost, but stolen - something that I will never have the expertise or information to rule out.

LOL. That's comedy gold.

It's far more likely Trump is right and Hillary's popular vote lead is all due to vote fraud.

Maybe. Maybe not.

As Isab wrote, "Applying critical thinking to bad data or a wrong assumption doesn't yield any useful conclusions."

(Isab at December 9, 2016 7:58 AM)

It remains unclear whether Trump won the electoral college vote, or took it:

"...Shall we take a moment to allow that to sink in? Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader, sworn to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, chose to threaten the White House with a smear if they disclosed this information to the American people.

What happened to defending against enemies, domestic and foreign, Senator McConnell? Is this treason?

What makes this really interesting is what we can see in the rear view mirror. The Trump campaign fought tooth and nail to end the Michigan recount, in a state where there is some evidence seals were broken on voting machines there.

We don't know if malware was installed on those machines. We do know many machines in Detroit malfunctioned on Election Day, however. But what we don't know is how that impacted the final counts in Michigan, mostly because they ended the recount."

Putin had at least 31.3 million reasons to be unconcerned with a Hillary victory.

This—

…said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation…

And as, ummm (Google checking), Robert J. Hanlon once put it, “Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by marketing.”

No, wait, he was "briefing" on a "presentation" he didn't see.

Look, I was typing offline....

...intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks...

Add, y'know, does anyone find the quotation marks around the word “directing” in that Washington Post article to be suspicious? Who are they quoting? If they're not quoting anyone, why do they feel compelled to hold the word at arm's length, as if beyond the reach of its breezy odors?

Well I am certainly relieved that everyone here has determined themselves to be expert critical thinkers and that the people with trouble reasoning through problems is just other folks (people who happen to disagree with them on one matter or another I presume).

Just to be abundantly clear, there are very clear distinctions between "regular thinking" and "critical thinking". Just like there are very clear distinctions between a "regular lifting" and "weight lifting" (this is despite the fact that all items that we lift on Earth have weight... this is one of those situations where the modifier is not exactly literal and implies something beyond what the definitions of each component word alone would imply).

Reasoning ability is analogous to a muscle that must be worked and stressed in order to grow and develop.

If you go through life just lifting normal every day items you are never going to be a power lifter.

Similarly, if you do through life just thinking about normal every day concerns without doing the additional work of taking the arguments apart and examining them in minute detail to understand the logical connections between the constituent propositions (or the lack of logical connections) you are never going to be a critical thinker.

It is always interesting to me how everyone believes they are fantastic at understanding and taking apart problems... and yet they can easily understand that they aren't world class body builders.

Excelling at logic and reason takes every bit as much dedication and effort as it does to excel in a physical attribute... additionally there will be a wide distribution of talent that differentiate people from the start. People don't just wake up one day and run marathons... they train and stress their bodies in order to be up to the task.

Of course since everyone here is a self proclaimed expert when it comes to reasoning ability I shouldn't have anything to worry about in terms of anyone disagreeing with me on this point.

We do know many machines in Detroit malfunctioned on Election Day,

Who runs Detroit? Democrats.

It's suspicious when systems in that city don't malfunction.

Of course since everyone here is a self proclaimed expert when it comes to reasoning ability I shouldn't have anything to worry about in terms of anyone disagreeing with me on this point.

Artemis at December 11, 2016 6:02 AM

Real science has independent verification and peer review for a reason. Because absolutely *NO ONE's* thinking, critical or otherwise can be trusted to know they have all the relevant data, and secondly evaluate it without a whole host of emotional biases creeping in.

Reasoning ability isnt enough and it never has been. Both your assumptions and your data have to be sound as well.

Your simplitic analogy to weight lifting didnt add much. Yes, the brain is a muscle, and if you exercise it, you will get better at the tasks that you set for your brain, but there isn't much transference between skill sets.

You can train your brain to be extremely good at Crossword puzzles or Sudoku, for example and still be lost in trying to evaluate a multi variable calculus problem.

The guy who doesn't want to subdue violent drunks on airliners wants to tell us how brains really work.

I'm writing this from 36,000 feet, but Artemis is annoying from the surface of our planet as well.

> Just to be abundantly clear,

Too late! Insufficient punctuation in your first 'graph soured the mood for your pretense of learnedness. No one can trust you any more.

Isab Says:

"Real science has independent verification and peer review for a reason. Because absolutely *NO ONE's* thinking, critical or otherwise can be trusted to know they have all the relevant data, and secondly evaluate it without a whole host of emotional biases creeping in."

This goes to show how little you understand science or peer review.

You and I have been through this over and over again and I fear it never sinks in.

You are actually one of the primary people I was referring to when I was talking about "self proclaimed" experts.

You aren't a scientist and yet you presume to constantly lecture on how science works or is done.

I've got news for you... the primary reason for peer review isn't to root out things things like "emotional bias".

If "emotional bias" is the problem then 99 times out of 100 the paper isn't even going to be submitted (because other contributing authors would object)... or it won't get beyond the journal editor.

Only manuscripts that pass this extremely low bars you have set up are sent on for peer review where the true merits of the work are evaluated.

To be frank Isab... you are one of the self appointed experts in reasoning here that I find is completely incapable of constructing a self consistent model of reality.

I found this quote of yours to be especially amusing:

"When even very bright people get into a subject area outside of their own area of expertise, critical thinking breaks down because they don't have the tools to evaluate the validity of the information provided by other people, that they want to apply critical thinking to."

Who do you think you are describing here Isab???

You aren't a scientist... have no experience in science... have never published a paper or gone through the peer review process... and yet you continue to lecture and pontificate on how real science works or how the review process works.

This all may sound impressive to someone who isn't a scientist.

However to someone like me who is it all sounds like a load of BS being strewn by a lay person who is getting "into a subject area outside of their own area of expertise".

You're problem is you keep asserting that it is everyone else who has critical thinking issues all while you commit the very logical crimes you presume to warn other people about.

Instead of looking outward for all the reasoning problems in the world, I think it is high time for you to look in a mirror and actually assess where your expertise lies and where its limits are. To summarize... science isn't your field of expertise.

Crid Says:

"Insufficient punctuation in your first 'graph soured the mood for your pretense of learnedness."

Thanks for proving my point Crid about the self proclaimed reasoning experts in this thread:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Style_over_substance

Here is the relevant section:

"The fallacy works in two ways. It can propose an idea using style rather than substance, or it can reject an idea by attacking its style and presentation rather than its information content."

In other words... dismissing the content of an argument on the basis of punctuation is evidence of shitty reasoning ability.

To be blunt... you wouldn't know a good or well reasoned argument if it jumped up and bit you.

Many of the folks who claim to be expert thinkers on this very thread do not understand the most basic tenants of what makes for a good logical argument. You and Isab are actually the two most annoying of this group because you both presume to think you are logical and reasonable people as you toss out fallacy after fallacy. Your ignorance is astounding.

You're terribly verbose.

Are you lonely?

It's because of that residential School for Autistics, right?

Am I right?

Yes.

Instead of looking outward for all the reasoning problems in the world, I think it is high time for you to look in a mirror and actually assess where your expertise lies and where its limits are. To summarize... science isn't your field of expertise.

Artemis at December 11, 2016 7:48 AM

This clearly isnt about me Artemis. This is about you. Everytime you say something really stupid, and someone calls you on it, instead of addressing the issue, you launch into a millennial tantrum about how much smarter and more *sciency* you are than everyone else on this board.

Reasoning is one of the fundamental skills that the scientific method is based on, but it certainly isnt exclusive to science.

You demonstrate my points perfectly.

For those interested in thinking and cognitive biases, check out a new book, The Undoing Project by Michael Lewis. It's about the friendship of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky and their work on behavioral economics and cognitive biases, how the mind errs when making judgements, especially in underestimating uncertainty.

Lewis may not be an academic expert in all the subjects on which he writes and he may have a preternatural fondness for sports metaphors, but he does a fair amount of research and he's usually an interesting read.

I think he's the best popular NF guy of my generation, easily trouncing Gladwell and Freakonomists and all the rest.

Isab Says:

"This clearly isnt about me Artemis. This is about you."

No, actually it is about you.

You sit here telling people that their ability to reason is impaired when they extend themselves outside of their realm of expertise when you are a noted denier of all climate science despite the fact that you have zero scientific credentials.

I am simply calling you out on something I found rather hypocritical.

I happen to agree with you when you say this:

"When even very bright people get into a subject area outside of their own area of expertise, critical thinking breaks down because they don't have the tools to evaluate the validity of the information provided by other people, that they want to apply critical thinking to."

It is interesting to me that you fail time and time again to apply this idea to yourself.

You are one of those people who thinks that the rules of logic you state apply to other people and not yourself.

Somehow you believe yourself to be above all of that stuff about your critical thinking skills breaking down outside of your area of expertise.

If this was about me you could find an example of where I decided to lecture you one military protocol or strategy.

It has never happened because I know the limits of my own knowledge and I do not extend myself beyond them in conversation.

"you launch into a millennial tantrum about how much smarter and more *sciency* you are than everyone else on this board."

No Isab... I am just pointing out your rank hypocrisy on this subject... or are you now a climate scientist... or any scientist at all that would put the sphere of climate science within the "area of your expertise"?

My entire point is that some of the folks here (including you) claim to be experts in reasoning... lay out rules for guiding reasoning... but never seem to follow those rules themselves.

I guess those rules are for the little people.

Isab,

I will also note that on some level you must have known my comment was directed at you because you instantly jumped in to refute it in the following way:

"Your simplitic analogy to weight lifting didnt add much."

It seems to me you wasted time to directly comment on a simplistic analogy that didn't do much... why even bother?

You bothered because you understood quite well that I was talking to people like you with my comment about "self proclaimed expert when it comes to reasoning ability".

That could have been referring to any of a number of people and I didn't directly address my comment to you.

Yet somehow you couldn't help yourself but respond because something in that comment got your panties in a wad.

Its because you knew that you were in the group I was talking about without me having to mention you by name.

No college, right?

Crid Says:

"No college, right?"

So Crid, which is it?... are you criticizing people for not going to college or for going to college like you did here:

"Basically it's one of those ways that people who've been to college convince each other that they're operating on a completely different experiential and ethical plane that those dweebies around them who had the good sense and courage to learn what they needed to know about the world without going tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt."

Again you so no logical consistency between any of your arguments.

You simply throw shit and hope that some of it sticks.

If you believe someone went to college they are an elite who believes they exist on another experiential plan and are just trying to look down on people for not going to college... and if you someone didn't go to college you criticize them for a lack of education.

Basically if you disagree with someone you have a catch all set of insults that when taken in aggregate mean nothing.

Do you respect college education or not? The question is quite simple and shouldn't cause you much intellectual constipation.

Isab - my first vote for President was Clinton in '92. I was disgusted by the Lewinsky scandal, but I rarely expect politicians to behave better.

My experience with women of my parents' generation who have succeeded in male dominated fields is that they are cutthroat - no Sisterhood. I would expect no less from either Clinton. The only person I know who knew her characterized her as a liar. From afar she still seems infinitely more politically adept, strategic, and stable than Trump.

I wish for the best. I'm not hopeful.

> are you criticizing people
> for not going to college or
> for going to college

Depends on the person. Mostly I criticize socially sketchy people who affirm their own brilliance without describing its provenance: If you know so much, how come?

Do you have friends?

Crid Says:

"Depends on the person."

This is precisely why you have no business involving yourself in a conversation about critical thinking.

Your thinking has no depth to it at all, it is all superficial and entirely related to whether or not you agree with someone at the outset and not on the merits of the argument.

I've watched your responses long enough to figure you out Crid, your inputs and outputs aren't especially clever or interesting. Let me break it down for you:

If you agree with someone:
1) If they have expertise or credentials in the field then it is very relevant and an expert has confirmed your thoughts
2) If they have no expertise or credentials in the field then they are a wise independent thinker who has figured things out through their own investigation

If you do not agree with someone:
1) If they have expertise or credentials in the field they are an elite idiot with no social skills who can't manage to see reality for what it is
2) if they have no expertise or credentials in the field they are an uneducated nitwit who has no clue what they are talking about

At the end of the day the arguments have no meaning for you, you don't digest any thought that doesn't already conform to your preexisting belief set.

The reason it "depends upon the person" is because it was never about logic or reasoning for you to begin with, but a decision in how to attack an opponent in a discussion. Facts simply do not matter to you.

The only reason you look down on critical thinking skills is because you don't have any, nor do you employ them.

As far as the election: Charges that Russia threw the election to Trump don't pass the giggle test. Why not? Because Putin had every reason in the world to want Hillary to win! He would have been in an overwhelmingly strong position compared to a President Hillary, in terms of (a) bribe/blackmail potential, (b) able to exploit Hillary's and the Democrats' eagerness to appease enemies, and (c) machismo in the parts of the world where that kind of thing matters. (And no, Hillary could not have done anything about (c). Whining and stamping your feet about "equality" don't impress anyone in places like Yemen.)

To Russia, Trump is maybe the worst of all possible worlds, because he is, in the famous words of Dick Cheney, an unknown-unknown. Putin doesn't really have any idea what Trump is going to do, and that probably bothers him even more than an ardent anti-Russia candidate would have.

So that leaves the question: if Putin wanted Hillary to win, what about Wikileaks? That's the elephant in the room, and I don't have a good explanation for it. Perhaps Wikileaks was only supposed to weaken Hillary, but they over-played their hand. Or perhaps it is really controlled by an anti-Putin faction inside Russia, that saw Trump as a potentially superior opponent for Putin. It's inconceivable that Wikileaks wasn't also able to hack a bunch of Republican stuff, yet very little of that seems to have emerged. There's a big part of the story yet to be told here.

...that saw Trump as a potentially superior opponent for Putin. ~ Cousin Dave at December 12, 2016 7:39 AM

If Russia influenced the election favor of Trump (big if), it was because Putin is tired of dealing with wannabes and babes lost in the woods. Putin is old school KGB; he is the new tsar and he wants to play the Great Game. He measures himself against his opponents.

And Obama couldn't or wouldn't play the game. Obama's "red line" in Syria and subsequent failure to enforce it told Putin that Obama a modern-day Neville Chamberlain, wishy-washy.

Hillary can't play the game. Her "reset" button fiasco showed him she is a naif. Subsequent failures in Libya showed Putin she's not a worthy opponent.

With Trump, he gets a worthy opponent, or at least he hopes so.

It's inconceivable that Wikileaks wasn't also able to hack a bunch of Republican stuff, yet very little of that seems to have emerged. There's a big part of the story yet to be told here.
Cousin Dave at December 12, 2016 7:39 AM

My suspicion is that Republican emails contain very little of anything interesting, and are all along the lines of: "Hey Bart, we need more chairs at the rally so could you call the contractor and make sure they can deliver them by 9 a.m. ?

On the other hand the entire Democratic party has been exposed as a bunch of gossipy little girl Lena Dunham want a bes, talking smack about their supporters.

Contrary to Amy's assertions otherwise, I know who the adults in the room are, and it isnt the Democratic party.

On the Republicans being hacked, they have been. Stuff has been revealed. It is just so yawn worthy that no one cares. The GOP leadership is so incompetent they've been irrelevant for decades. Is it any secret that they hate Trump? Or that they hate Cruz even more than Trump? A batch of emails from old farts about who they despise more isn't that interesting.

On Putin, I think he does prefer Trump as US president. He finds Hillary quite personally repugnant. But I don't think he was that effective at manipulating the election. Like many foreigners he doesn't understand US electoral politics. (To be fair most Americans don't understand most foreign electoral politics either.)

Honestly he probably wasn't involved in the DNC release either. It was no secret that Hillary all but stole the nomination from Sanders. But there was no proof. Most likely a disgruntled Sanders supporter at the DNC is behind the release.

Either way there will be whining about how the election was 'stolen' from Hillary for decades. Just like we still hear about it was 'stolen' from Gore. Meh. Sore losers who can't deal with their own faults.

Make no mistake Isab. The GOP leadership are just as whinny and backbiting as the DNC leadership. They just aren't as competent. Their hack showed they thought Trump was a joke candidate almost till the end. That Jeb was their guy who was supposed to win. After it was clear that wasn't going to happen they pinned their hopes on either Kasich or Rubio. At the end they threw their support to Trump because they really hate Cruz.

None of that was news so no one cared.

All the GOP is good for is money, and Trump didn't spend that much. Hillary (and her PACs and such) spent $1184 million. Trump (and misc) spent $616 million. Roughly half as much. Roughly half of the money Trump spent did come from the GOP ($305M). But the other half came from small donors.

In the end without that super delegate advantage the GOP wasn't able to do anything about Trump. A conspiracy that was ineffectual and wasn't a secret isn't very interesting.

.

In the end without that super delegate advantage the GOP wasn't able to do anything about Trump. A conspiracy that was ineffectual and wasn't a secret isn't very interesting.

Ben at December 12, 2016 9:53 AM

The GOP primary was a fair unmanipulated primary that yeilded a candidate selected by the voters, and not the party apparatchiks.

Reince Priebus is now in the Trump administration which tells you that Trump got the support of the Republican National Committee after the primary was decided which is exactly how it is supposed to work.

As a Cruz delegate at my County Convention, I am generally happy with the way the system worked.

Hillary's stage managed failure doesnt seem to be teaching the Democratic party any lessons.

> The only reason you look down
> on critical thinking skills is
> because you don't have any,
> nor do you employ them.

Coupla faults in your logic there, Muffin.

Crid Says:

"Coupla faults in your logic there, Muffin."

I don't know Crid, you seem to be doing a fairly good job of demonstrating my point.

I claimed that you do not employ critical thinking skills and your refutation was of the following form:

1) Declare your opponent is wrong and provide no evidence or logical argument supporting that declaration
2) Insult your opponent

That is the classic example of the ad hominem fallacy. You debate at the level of a 3 year old throwing a tantrum.

I'll stick with my conclusion until you provide evidence that you are capable of demonstrating your points as opposed to just declaring them as if they are axioms.

In any case, you may have noticed that the conversation has transitioned toward the political. I'm inclined to let that discussion continue without further interruption since it is likely to be more productive than any interaction I might have with you.

Muffinbunny, I'm not sure you've ever had a genuine discussion with anyone in your entire life... It seems so certain you were raised in an group home or Skinner box or a veal pen. From your first comment onward, you've overtyped dozens of rambling daydreams about the behavior of others without giving any sense that you've even once left your bedroom, your psych ward, or your jail cell. You have no nose for practicalities whatsoever: No food, emotions, conversation, productivity, dirty diapers, electric bills or bus tickets.

Institutional life, right? C'mon. Tell us.

Crid Says:

"I'm not sure you've ever had a genuine discussion with anyone in your entire life"

That is an interesting choice of words Crid.

What you seem to mean is you aren't sure if I have ever had an actual conversation with anyone.

However, if anyone here isn't genuine, that person would be you.

You are fake... you don't hold good faith conversations with anyone here. Not only are you fake, almost everyone here knows you are fake. You aren't fooling anyone with your antics.

As always you can't seem to actually discuss the topic of the thread and constantly obsess about imaginary details about other people.

Conversations for you are never about the topic... they are about whatever fantasy you can come up with to try and poison the well (another fallacy by the way).

Surely you must realize how very stupid you sound when you say things like this in a thread about critical thinking:

"You have no nose for practicalities whatsoever: No food, emotions, conversation, productivity, dirty diapers, electric bills or bus tickets."

You emphasize that I should give you a sense of emotion in a conversation about critical thinking.

This is the part that I can't seem to get through that thick skull of yours.

The entire point about rational discourse is that it is supposed to be separated from things like emotion.

Weren't you paying attention when Isab was going on about emotional bias???

Logical arguments have no room for emotion.

If you want to talk about your feelings go right ahead... but a conversation about critical thinking isn't a discussion about feelings.

I'll save my feelings for the people I care about, if you want to spill your guts on an internet forum be my guest.

Is your obsession with food and dirty diapers that no one fed you or changed you today?... If so I can understand why you would be so cranky. Maybe it is time for you to take a nap.

Crid,

I also wanted to point out how crazy you sound when you say this:

"you've overtyped dozens of rambling daydreams about the behavior of others"

The reason this makes you sound like a lunatic is that your entire first post... the very first post in this thread is a rambling daydream about the behavior of professor Peter Boghossian where you list the following traits to describe his behavior:

"Pomposity.

Egotism.

Insecurity.

Pretense.

Posturing.

Signalling.

Maybe a few others."

Are you sure you aren't reading your own nonsense and in a state of delusion are attributing it to me?

Pretty much all of your criticisms apply to your own posts more than anyone elses.

Don't worry though, I know you won't bother to respond to the substance here.

As best I can tell you are not a rational being as nothing you say seems to correspond with reality.

A residential facility of some kind, right?

I'm totally right.

Crid,

I appreciate your continued efforts to demonstrate that my claim about you is on point:

"The only reason you look down on critical thinking skills is because you don't have any, nor do you employ them."

You're quoting yourself.

Daytimer? Gates to stately institution on manicured grounds open at 8:30am, right? Little bus rolls right in, sometime people's parents bring 'em to the door in a tiny minivan.

Right?

Crid,

I am quoting myself from a previous post to demonstrate that this isn't a new claim.

Why does that bother you so much?

Is it because when I say something there are facts that support it and you have a fact allergy?

You always seem to prefer to talk about things for which you have no evidence.

Are you a post-modernist by any chance?... because that would explain everything.

Are you licensed to drive? Ever kiss a girl, take a first-aid class, or go to a family reunion?

You totally don't have a family, right?

I knew it.

Crid,

Everything you are doing now says far more about you than it says about me.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that everything you are saying you actually believe is true (I am aware that you are a bullshit artist that has no concept of reality, but let's just go with this assumption for the moment).

That means you spend your time attacking and insulting mentally handicapped institutionalized people on the internet.

So assuming you actually believe what you are saying, that would make you a pretty shitty excuse for a human being.

Normal people don't go around kicking homeless people for example... but assuming your behavior here is real I must conclude that you believe beating up on the homeless is a noble hobby.

So we have two options:

1 - You actually believe what you are saying and you are the type of person who thinks it is okay to beat up on mentally disabled folks

2 - You know what you are saying is utter BS, but say it anyway because you don't have anything intelligent to say

See... this is how critical thinking works :)

> So we have two options:

We have thousands. We live in a sweet land of liberty, and each move as we see fit. You write like somebody who doesn't communicates with people in person... You're again concerned with "normal" people.

Do you have friends?

I mean, if it's an institutional thing, we can imagine why those nearby wouldn't be attractive figures of endearment.

Normal people, normal people.

Have you been in some kind of circumstance where you were told that it's important to be like "normal people"?

Crid,

No... there are only 2 options here.

Either you are convinced what you are saying is true or you aren't.

There aren't thousands of options.

It is a binary... if you had even the foggiest notion of how logic worked you would understand this.

"You write like somebody who doesn't communicates with people in person... You're again concerned with "normal" people."

The more you write the more you show evidence that you are an idiot.

You spend post after post insinuating that I am in some sense abnormal and then claim that I am concerned with normality?

Clearly if my behavior is so very odd to you I can't be that concerned with "normal".

This is why I know what you are saying is nonsense... you don't believe a word you are writing.

This is why I know what you are saying is nonsense... you don't believe a word you are writing.

Artemis at December 15, 2016 7:08 PM

From whence comes this strange idea that *belief* is a necessary component for any argument, axiom or assumption?

The reverse is true. The less belief (emotional attachmemt) you have in your own assumptions the more easily you let go of the wrong ones.

Have your mentor teach you about sarcasm, trolling, irony and metaphor.

Maybe while he or she is at it, they can get you to stop doubling down on your inability to recognize when someone is baiting you.

You are a concrete thinker Artemis and you are living in an abstract world.

The concrete mind: all mixed up and permanently set.

I know. I know. That joke is so old....

> this strange idea that *belief*
> is a necessary component

'Zackly. That was in the first week of the 100-level Phil class: Beliefs are the least of it.

Isab Says:

"From whence comes this strange idea that *belief* is a necessary component for any argument, axiom or assumption?"

Strawman argument Isab.

I never claimed that *belief* was a necessary component of anything.

I am simply making my own claim that Crid doesn't believe anything he is saying.

To get more to the point though, one doesn't need to believe what they are saying to present an argument.

They do however need facts, logic, and well-reasoned connections between the evidence and the conclusions.

All of this is missing with Crid's statements.

There is simply no logic in an argument where you respond to a binary logical situation by waxing philosophic about the 1000's of options we have in a free society.

That we may live in a free society doesn't suddenly put 1000's of new states between on and off in a light switch.

"The reverse is true. The less belief (emotional attachmemt) you have in your own assumptions the more easily you let go of the wrong ones."

Isab, that is nonsense and you are committing a fallacy of equivocation here.

Belief doesn't necessarily equal "emotional attachment" as you put it. That is the faith type of belief inherent to things like religion.

To believe something means the following:

"to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so"

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/believe

My claim is simply that Crid has no confidence in the truth or reliability of his claims. Yet he asserts them as fact anyway.

There is nothing noble about asserting as fact that which you have no confidence in.

That is the opposite of reason or logic.

"Have your mentor teach you about sarcasm, trolling, irony and metaphor."

Don't be niave Isab... I know Crid is a troll... I have told him as such on numerous occasions.

I simply enjoy calling out an idiot on their nonsense.

So the question here then is are you also a troll or are you a person with genuine interest in the truth of a claim?

If so then you should avoid fallacious reasoning like equivocating between faith based belief and fact based belief.

The word is the same, but the mechanisms of action are entirely different.

Isab,

One additional note as you have things wrong when you say this:

"You are a concrete thinker Artemis and you are living in an abstract world."

What I am in an enlightenment thinker (not to be confused with the word "enlightened" as I know you folks enjoy playing word games).

An enlightenment thinker believes that it is possible through thorough investigation and careful reasoning to uncover truth in the universe.

Post-modernist thinkers on the other hand operate in this fuzzy bull shit space where facts and logic are essentially non-existent and reality is just an abstract social construction of personal opinions.

You seem to be using the word concrete to imply something other than enlightenment thinking.

In all seriousness, what do you mean by abstract in your statement?

I can agree that the world is a complicated place... but it certainly isn't "abstract" in the most conventional sense.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/abstract?s=t

I must assume that you mean definition 4 as it makes no sense to declare that the world doesn't have a "concrete reality" or that it is "theoretical".

So I assume you mean that the world is difficult to understand... to which my response is as follows:

No shit.

However since you draw a distinction from "concrete thinking" that must mean you think concrete thinkers believe the world is easy to understand.

I don't believe the world is easy to understand... I simply believe that it is possible to understand the world.

If one do not agree that it is possible to understand the world they really have no business talking about science as often as you do... because the entire scientific enterprise is one to better understand the world we live in.

Given the time zone thing, with all efforts happening in pre-EST-daylight hours; the prissy but toddling affectations of learnedness; the substitution prolix rhetoric for practical experience; the sexlessness and other social isolations with a terrified unwillingness to convey personal details, my original presumptions about this individual still apply:

• This person is lightly, but probably permanently, institutionalized in Nova Scotia or Bermuda... Per idioms, American by citizenship (at least of parents).


• I'm sixty percent certain this person is male. Alternatively, I'm fully certain this person is 60% male.

Crid,

I appreciate your attempt to try and turn the only shred of information you have into an entire story, but since you are clearly not very adept at thinking problems through you really haven't drawn any legitimate conclusions.

Let's put it this way... we should all be quite happy that you aren't a detective trying to solve a crime.

I will help you better understand why you keep going off the rails though:

"prissy but toddling affectations of learnedness"

Do you remember how you started commenting on this thread?

You began by asserting that Professor Peter Boghossian was displaying pompous, egotistic, insecure, posturing, and signalling behaviors in his advocation for rational thinking processes.

Doesn't this list of adjectives remind you of how you always describe my behavior?

"Affectations of learnedness" as you say is by definition a set of signalling behaviors applied by an insecure person who has an ego beyond their accomplishments.

Here is the kicker though... while you have no way of being certain of what my accomplishments are, you attack the professor on the same grounds when the provenance is unknown. This is why I found this comment to be so ironic:

"Mostly I criticize socially sketchy people who affirm their own brilliance without describing its provenance: If you know so much, how come?"

Your lack of self awareness is both profound and disturbing.

That statement doesn't describe your actions at all.

You can easily verify Professor Peter Boghossian's education attainment and accomplishments and yet you criticize them in exactly the same way you criticize those who you cannot ascertain their background.

Now let's describe what you actually do:

1 - If you assess that the person with whom you disagree is more educated than you and/or more accomplished than you, you proceed to declare that they are a pompous blowhard that is just putting on airs.

2 - If you assess that the person with whom you disagree is less educated than you and/or less accomplished than you, you proceed to denigrate their lack of education.

To put it simply, you have constructed a wall that is impermeable to facts, reason, and logic.

You ALWAYS have a way to dismiss what someone is saying when you don't like what what you hear/read. There is simply no way to thread the needle here because everyone is either too educated/accomplished or not educated/accomplished enough for you to actually digest the ideas placed in front of you

Lastly I will address this comment:

"terrified unwillingness to convey personal details"

That someone opts not to share their life story with you over the internet isn't some overwhelming fear response.

My guess is this is the same logic you use when someone turns you down for a date... it isn't that you aren't their cup of tea... it is that they are "terrified" of following what's in their heart.

You keep on telling yourself stories though Crid.

I will throw you this bone though... the reason I don't bother to share personal details of my life with you is that I know it ultimately doesn't buy me anything. I could prove to you for example beyond a shadow of a doubt that I was a highly educated individual at the top of my field... and it wouldn't budge the needle with you.

Despite what you claim, you have demonstrated time and time again that provenance doesn't actually matter to you. It simply modulates the tactics you use to dismiss arguments you happen not to like.

> Lastly I will address....

C'mon, it's never over with you. C'mon.

Residential prep school?

Crid Says:

"C'mon, it's never over with you. C'mon."

Again you are projecting.

I never initiate any conversations with you.

You initiate all interactions we have because you seem to have a desperate need to talk to me.

No one has ever put a gun to your head to get you to start chatting with me.

If you are so very interested in our interactions being over there is a very simply solution... ignore me :)... pretend I don't exist. I can assure you that few folks anywhere would feel the loss if you suddenly stopped talking to them.

You enchant us, numbnuts... It's the way you sign our names to your own comments. Patrick used to do it too, which is another reason to suspect you of developmental retardation.

Crid,

Your obsession with minutia and irrelevant information is astounding.

The point being that if you are desperate for my attention you sound stupid when you complain that you are getting it.

> What I am in an enlightenment thinker

Crid,

Like I said... you are obsessed with minutia and irrelevant information.

For you discussions are never about substance, it is about finding typos and punctuation mistakes.

If you are so very concerned about typos and punctuation you really should spend more time worrying about your own errors.

Kiss girls, Arty... Make people like you.

Crid,

You've already admitted that you are enchanted by me... I can't help but be adored by you even when I'm not trying.

You are hooked on my every word and are obsessed with everything I say.

I guess I am just naturally likable that way.

If only you could tell us about the impact you've had on the lives of others or the impact they've had on you.

If only you'd ever had any kind of contact with any other human being, one which you could describe for us, one which you were certain wouldn't expose you to even deeper humiliation and shame.

But you've had no such experience. No friend, sibling, parent, sweetheart, teacher, schoolmate, boss, hireling, bus driver or passerby has ever been more than "minutia and irrelevant information" in your life.

That's tough, Kiddo... That's tough.

No authors!... None!

No musicians... No artists... No sports figures, poets or celebrities... No one who you could ever present as a citation or example.

Your brilliance came to our world in a single wholistic phenomenon, with no antecedents, contributors or influences.

Seems kinda lonely, but there you are.

Crid,

In a very odd way you describe me as some sort of cosmic entity who appeared from the formless void into what we call substantive reality.

Is this why you are obsessed with me?... Is this your attempt at worship or something?

Surely you do not believe any mortal human being just spontaneously manifests itself from nothingness.

Pray tell, how do you suppose I learned the english language or how to navigate the internet if I've never had contact with another human being?

Do you suppose was I born with this innate knowledge... apparently not as you don't even believe I have parents.

> In a very odd way you describe
> me as some sort of cosmic entity
> who appeared from the formless
> void into what we call
> substantive reality.

No... In very normal(!) ways, I describe you as a naive person, fearful of having his/her shallow moral perspective attributed to an obviously sheltered, isolated, and unchallenging developmental background. I've never described anything as "substantive reality," and doubt anyone else here has, either.

I don't like you, and I want to make sure your arguments are appropriately vacated. See Amy's first participation thread today/Thursday for still more compelling rhetoric on what you people have done to my beloved nation.

Crid Says:

"No... In very normal(!) ways, I describe you as a naive person, fearful of having his/her shallow moral perspective attributed to an obviously sheltered, isolated, and unchallenging developmental background."

No Crid... you have described me as an individual who never had parents nor any interaction with any other human being who is locked up in an institution in Nova Scotia.

For someone who has never met not interacted with anyone else it is rather astonishing that I have managed to independently recreate the enlgish language and fabricate a computer for myself that is compatible with technological standards that I could not possibly have been exposed to.

Sorry... but you describe me in terms of being a transcendental being who popped into existence with advanced innate knowledge.

That is hardly a normal way to describe anyone.

"I don't like you, and I want to make sure your arguments are appropriately vacated."

Say it ain't so Crid... you are breaking my heart.

You mean to tell me after all of your sweet talking, telling me that you are enchanted by me, and calling me terms of endearment like "Muffin" that all of those emotional attachment was a lie!?!?!?

And here I was planning our future together, I was so very close to telling you all about myself... but since you now say that you never liked me I guess I'll just have to mourn your loss instead.

In all seriousness... you don't like me so you feel it is your solemn duty to reject anything and everything I say???

And you do this how?... by finding typos and consistently failing to actually address the substance of anything I say?

You sound like an obsessive compulsive crazy man with a grudge against someone you admit you know next to nothing about.

I think it is time for you to seek professional help.

"you people have done to my beloved nation."

I never realized how much influence, control, and political sway institutionalized Nova Scotians held over your very existence.

It seems counter intuitive that people who have never had human contact could hold so much power.

Would you like an aluminum foil hat?... that should protect you from the mind control rays.

Wordy

Crid old buddy old pal... we've been through this before.

If you start saying things that are accurate and grounded in reality I won't have to correct you.

It generally takes many more words to explain why someone is wrong than were in the original wrong statement.

So how about that aluminum foil hat?