[split] Critical Thinking Skills

[jstrodel]

It is different because anyone can post anything on the internet, whereas if you read books that are carefully chosen that represent the philosophical tradition clearly and put more work into it (because it takes more work to read a book than to read an article), you will be on your way to understanding things about philosophy.

It matters because you don't know what you are talking about, and it is plain as day that the fact that you are even questioning the difference between using wikipedia or reading a random article on a website that isn't subject to any standard of verification and reading books that represent the strongest of the philosophical tradition that you have never seriously studied philosophy (let alone, theology).

Philosophy is very positive towards Christian belief, although Anthony Flew (now a Deist) may say this that or the other thing about the No True Scottsman "fallacy" or this or that, if you study philosophy you will find many of the greatest philosophers in history have been Christian or had positive views of God (from Aristotle to Aquinas through Descarte and Bacon to modern day figures like Mortimer Adler or Alaisdair MacIntyre or Alvin Plantinga).

[Joel]

I think you'll find that I did not, once, mention wikipedia - or any specific information medium, for that matter.

[Cyberman]

This thread is like helplessly watching a train wreck. Horrifying and disturbing, yet somehow you just can't turn your head away.

[jstrodel]

It is obvious that that is where the majority of your beliefs come from, or something similar (a blog?).

[Joel]

It is obvious that that is where the majority of your beliefs come from, or something similar (a blog?).

Wrong, sir.
It's obviously not that obvious, when you're wrong.

EDIT: Hang on, what beliefs?

[jstrodel]

You are arguing that reading random articles on the internet is the same as reading a book. Whatever, you can believe it is a fallacy always to argue from authority and you can believe that spending 100 hours reading atheist websites make you a serious thinker, but you should accept the fact that you are harming others, because your understanding of those issues is as good as the argument from authority that you make when you use words that you can't prove their relevance to assessing the veracity of truth claims.

Enjoy your argument from authority.



Everything that you write is based on beliefs that you have about the world. Your criticisms and values are all beliefs that require formal justification, if they are to be taken seriously as anything other than your ignorant opinions.

[Joel]

You are arguing that reading random articles on the internet is the same as reading a book. Whatever, you can believe it is a fallacy always to argue from authority and you can believe that spending 100 hours reading atheist websites make you a serious thinker, but you should accept the fact that you are harming others, because your understanding of those issues is as good as the argument from authority that you make when you use words that you can't prove their relevance to assessing the veracity of truth claims.

Enjoy your argument from authority.

Stop asserting things.

I didn't say articles. I didn't say articles were the same as reading.
I actually said that "to say X said something, therefore it is true" is wrong.

Nice snarky comment at the end.

Evidence of an ignorant opinion with regards to my world belief, please?

[Cyberman]

You are arguing that reading random articles on the internet is the same as reading a book.

What if the articles are not random but are, in fact, pertinent and relevant to whatever subject is at hand?

[jstrodel]

But that isn't what the argument from authority is, and if you read serious books instead of hiding in your atheist free thinker zone, you would know that.

---

You are arguing that reading random articles on the internet is the same as reading a book.

What if the articles are not random but are, in fact, pertinent and relevant to whatever subject is at hand?

There is some good stuff on the internet, I am not against it, but reading articles on the internet almost never reaches the rigor of seriously studying philosophy, which typically is done using books and pencil and paper.

---

If you don't write out what you believe in formal logic (or some similar rigorous method) and clarify your ideas on pencil and paper and think through the truth claims and read relevant criticisms, you are not doing real philosophy. You are just following someone else.

[Autumnlicious]

My dad is a university administrator and my grandfather was a professor. I grew up with liberal bullshit.

I guess even the educated can hit the genetic rapids.

My condolences to your family.

Mental illness is s challenge to deal with.

A liberal is someone who will insist that they don't know much, and look you in the eye, smile at you and try as hard as they can to persuade you that you should place all your trust in them and try and feign a sort of meek, feminine attitude at the same time.

Meek feminine attitude?

Not that I qualify for either, but is there something inherently wrong with those qualities?

Something is certainly rotten in the state of Denmark methinks.