Street Epistemology - Practice

[curiosne]

From my perspective, it's to analyse from a critical thinking methodology, how we know, what we know...ie ascertain the truthfulness of a claim.

Ok... your first response just appears to be the definition of epistemology.   Are you just going out and examining claims at random?   I would agree, that epistemology should  not just be a  classroom exercise.

Also to promote rational thinking and move people towards rational actions. I believe that the more rational a civilisation becomes, the wiser we will be.

I think that this is good as well.  How would you go about doing this in your "street epistemology"? 

I think that many don't give enough thought to epistemology and many don't want to take the time for critical and rational thought.   For instance on the topic of extra ordinary claims that you want to return to.   I find that when I inquire most of the people who proclaim it, really haven't given it much thought to it's belief.  I usually get the same example (not reasoning) of believing something like the "cat" or "dragon" discussion that went on here.  And really that's it. How would you proceed in an instance such as this?

The problem I see on why people don't think critically is due to how they are taught in school. Schools mainly try to get students to memorise facts without teaching the to properly assess facts and evidence in a critical way.

When I started trying to do street epistemology, I wasn't quite sure how to proceed with trying to improve people's rational thinking. It wasn't until the last few posts where polymath257 mentioned statistical evidence to determine what is ordinary and what is extraordinary that one piece of the puzzle came together.

I had the statistical evidence in the back of my mind when I was reply to your questions earlier in the thread but couldn't articulate it properly, however it is an appropriate term to use to gauge what is ordinary and what isn't.

Let me know your thoughts on this.

---

From my perspective, it's to analyse from a critical thinking methodology, how we know, what we know...ie ascertain the truthfulness of a claim.

Ok... your first response just appears to be the definition of epistemology.   Are you just going out and examining claims at random?   I would agree, that epistemology should  not just be a  classroom exercise.

Also to promote rational thinking and move people towards rational actions. I believe that the more rational a civilisation becomes, the wiser we will be.

I think that this is good as well.  How would you go about doing this in your "street epistemology"? 

I think that many don't give enough thought to epistemology and many don't want to take the time for critical and rational thought.   For instance on the topic of extra ordinary claims that you want to return to.   I find that when I inquire most of the people who proclaim it, really haven't given it much thought to it's belief.  I usually get the same example (not reasoning) of believing something like the "cat" or "dragon" discussion that went on here.  And really that's it. How would you proceed in an instance such as this?

The problem I see on why people don't think critically is due to how they are taught in school. Schools mainly try to get students to memorise facts without teaching the to properly assess facts and evidence in a critical way.

When I started trying to do street epistemology, I wasn't quite sure how to proceed with trying to improve people's rational thinking. It wasn't until the last few posts where polymath257 mentioned statistical evidence to determine what is ordinary and what is extraordinary that one piece of the puzzle came together.

I had the statistical evidence in the back of my mind when I was reply to your questions earlier in the thread but couldn't articulate it properly, however it is an appropriate term to use to gauge what is ordinary and what isn't.

Let me know your thoughts on this.

---

From my perspective, it's to analyse from a critical thinking methodology, how we know, what we know...ie ascertain the truthfulness of a claim.

Ok... your first response just appears to be the definition of epistemology.   Are you just going out and examining claims at random?   I would agree, that epistemology should  not just be a  classroom exercise.

Also to promote rational thinking and move people towards rational actions. I believe that the more rational a civilisation becomes, the wiser we will be.

I think that this is good as well.  How would you go about doing this in your "street epistemology"? 

I think that many don't give enough thought to epistemology and many don't want to take the time for critical and rational thought.   For instance on the topic of extra ordinary claims that you want to return to.   I find that when I inquire most of the people who proclaim it, really haven't given it much thought to it's belief.  I usually get the same example (not reasoning) of believing something like the "cat" or "dragon" discussion that went on here.  And really that's it. How would you proceed in an instance such as this?

The problem I see on why people don't think critically is due to how they are taught in school. Schools mainly try to get students to memorise facts without teaching the to properly assess facts and evidence in a critical way.

When I started trying to do street epistemology, I wasn't quite sure how to proceed with trying to improve people's rational thinking. It wasn't until the last few posts where polymath257 mentioned statistical evidence to determine what is ordinary and what is extraordinary that one piece of the puzzle came together.

I had the statistical evidence in the back of my mind when I was reply to your questions earlier in the thread but couldn't articulate it properly, however it is an appropriate term to use to gauge what is ordinary and what isn't.

Let me know your thoughts on this.

---

From my perspective, it's to analyse from a critical thinking methodology, how we know, what we know...ie ascertain the truthfulness of a claim.

Ok... your first response just appears to be the definition of epistemology.   Are you just going out and examining claims at random?   I would agree, that epistemology should  not just be a  classroom exercise.

Also to promote rational thinking and move people towards rational actions. I believe that the more rational a civilisation becomes, the wiser we will be.

I think that this is good as well.  How would you go about doing this in your "street epistemology"? 

I think that many don't give enough thought to epistemology and many don't want to take the time for critical and rational thought.   For instance on the topic of extra ordinary claims that you want to return to.   I find that when I inquire most of the people who proclaim it, really haven't given it much thought to it's belief.  I usually get the same example (not reasoning) of believing something like the "cat" or "dragon" discussion that went on here.  And really that's it. How would you proceed in an instance such as this?

The problem I see on why people don't think critically is due to how they are taught in school. Schools mainly try to get students to memorise facts without teaching the to properly assess facts and evidence in a critical way.

When I started trying to do street epistemology, I wasn't quite sure how to proceed with trying to improve people's rational thinking. It wasn't until the last few posts where polymath257 mentioned statistical evidence to determine what is ordinary and what is extraordinary that one piece of the puzzle came together.

I had the statistical evidence in the back of my mind when I was reply to your questions earlier in the thread but couldn't articulate it properly, however it is an appropriate term to use to gauge what is ordinary and what isn't.

Let me know your thoughts on this.