3 ms·

The most important process is acquiring evidence. You either have evidence or you don't. It's an observation more than anything. Though if observing what you

by unabst 11y ago

The most important process is acquiring evidence. You either have evidence or you don't. It's an observation more than anything. Though if observing what you know counts as thought, then sure (but I'd still rather reserve the term "thought process" for more difficult problems).

dragonwriter 11y ago
> The most important process is acquiring evidence. Neither evidence nor thought are useful without the other. But people are more likely to be deficient in a manner correctable by training at processing sense data to produce useful and correct conclusions (thought) than they are to be at merely receiving sense data (acquiring evidence as distinct from the thought process of determining what it is -- and is not -- evidence of.) > Though if observing what you know counts as thought, then sure Determing what you can reasonably conclude (and what you cannot reasonably conclude) from evidence is not "observing" anything, it is reasoning -- thought.
- unabst 11y ago
  Yes, and Yes (hence the "sure"). But what is misleading is that we're often led to believe that what we think or believe is somehow relevant or even important in light of valid objective statements and observations. It's important but it's separate, and it's truly only important to us (the importance of our own thoughts are personal). Evidence, once internalized, is analyzed through introspection, and hence internally maintaining the subjective-objective distinction requires discipline and practice. Without this distinction, it turns out we can quite effortlessly reason our way to most conclusions given any evidence, and this activity is mainly driven by our intentions and emotions. Herein lies the dangers of putting too much un-founded weight on thought. But when we let evidence determine the weight distribution of thoughts, we avoid this problem. It also turns out that good evidence is obvious, making it easy to remember and requiring little thought. Sherlock Holmes is my favorite example. His breakthroughs come primarily from observations and connecting dots (insight) [0], and not from deep questioning or deductive logic. Though important, those aren't actually that hard or productive or entertaining. Evidence is the originator, and the tangible of the two. Our imagination may take us anywhere (Einstein), but without evidence we'd get nowhere (scientific method). [0] Holmesian deduction consists primarily of observation-based inferences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes#Holmesian_deduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes#Holmesian_dedu...
andrewflnr 11y ago
What I was getting at is that a lot of people won't even get as far as making that observation. I think that's the biggest obstacle to critical thinking. More directly related to your original point, it's quite easy to think that the tangible evidence you have is sufficient, when in fact it doesn't prove as much as you think it does. That's another key place where logic comes in to critical thinking, before the evidence-gathering phase.

by unabst 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

> The most important process is acquiring evidence. Neither evidence nor thought are useful without the other. But people are more likely to be deficient in a manner correctable by training at processing sense data to produce useful and correct conclusions (thought) than they are to be at merely receiving sense data (acquiring evidence as distinct from the thought process of determining what it is -- and is not -- evidence of.) > Though if observing what you know counts as thought, then sure Determing what you can reasonably conclude (and what you cannot reasonably conclude) from evidence is not "observing" anything, it is reasoning -- thought.

unabst 11y ago
Yes, and Yes (hence the "sure"). But what is misleading is that we're often led to believe that what we think or believe is somehow relevant or even important in light of valid objective statements and observations. It's important but it's separate, and it's truly only important to us (the importance of our own thoughts are personal). Evidence, once internalized, is analyzed through introspection, and hence internally maintaining the subjective-objective distinction requires discipline and practice. Without this distinction, it turns out we can quite effortlessly reason our way to most conclusions given any evidence, and this activity is mainly driven by our intentions and emotions. Herein lies the dangers of putting too much un-founded weight on thought. But when we let evidence determine the weight distribution of thoughts, we avoid this problem. It also turns out that good evidence is obvious, making it easy to remember and requiring little thought. Sherlock Holmes is my favorite example. His breakthroughs come primarily from observations and connecting dots (insight) [0], and not from deep questioning or deductive logic. Though important, those aren't actually that hard or productive or entertaining. Evidence is the originator, and the tangible of the two. Our imagination may take us anywhere (Einstein), but without evidence we'd get nowhere (scientific method). [0] Holmesian deduction consists primarily of observation-based inferences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes#Holmesian_deduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes#Holmesian_dedu...

andrewflnr 11y ago

What I was getting at is that a lot of people won't even get as far as making that observation. I think that's the biggest obstacle to critical thinking. More directly related to your original point, it's quite easy to think that the tangible evidence you have is sufficient, when in fact it doesn't prove as much as you think it does. That's another key place where logic comes in to critical thinking, before the evidence-gathering phase.