“Experience was what Galileo considered key to formulating accurate theories, since experience, which is literally defined as exposure to and observation of facts and events, gives one a tangible, real-life occurrence that substantiates a statement, rather than raw logic, which leads one to consider what’s plausible based on probability and deduction but not necessarily what’s true. Raw logic, Galileo knew, could lead one to discover a possibility, but not an actuality. Experience exposes the facts of the REAL WORLD, not what logic and reasoning, or the mind alone can create. Aristotle did not want to rely on abstractions and intangibilities, but in reality, he did, as he used sole logic.” HistoryLogicExperienceHistorical FictionCritical ThinkingTheories Book:For the Intellect Source: For the Intellect
“For example, in the example with Terry and Chester, a person who was just beginning to meet the two could come up with the conclusion based on those two axioms, which a friend revealed to him/her. The person might try to come up with a solution to Terry’s hatred of Chester’s voice, and decide to teach the two characters American Sign Language, so Chester wouldn’t have to speak, but the person might later on discover that Terry seems to be functioning normally when Chester talks during casual, everyday conversations. It’s not that the person’s logic was incorrect; the conclusion was logically valid and logically followed the two axioms. It’s just that the axioms were accepted and assumed to be true. In reality, when the friend of Terry and Chester was referring to Chester’s “voice,” the friend was talking about Chester’s singing voice, not Chester’s actual voice, and the phrase “Terry hates everything Chester likes” could have been used hyperbolically, meaning that Terry does not literally hate everything Chester likes. The person came up with a logical conclusion, but the axioms were just immediately accepted as true; the person was not evaluating or verifying the information, nor was the person analyzing the multiple meanings behind the axioms. With critical thinking, however, there are a few stages that are required before making a conclusion: there is remember and understand, so to understand information, a person would need to see if the information makes sense or is plausible. For example, if a person was learning about the properties of matter, he/she should be able to understand that it makes sense for liquid to have faster moving molecules than solid matter, because it does not have a definite shape unless it is put into some container, or he/she might try to scroll through multiple sources of information to fill any gaps in understanding and confirm information. Unlike logic, which immediately accepts axioms as true to create a conclusion, a person must look at information with a critical eye in order to truly understand it in critical thinking. In addition, I think there is more skill and effectiveness behind deeply thinking about information (critical thinking) than trying to discover information (logic.) When it comes to thinking about the information (critical thinking), a person would have to understand the information’s real-world application (apply), the components of the information (analyze), the significance of the information (evaluate), and what can be made out with that information (synthesize.) Logic is an objective approach to trying to discover valid information, and it is highly important, but there is that lack of deep thinking when it comes to logic alone. A person would need critical thinking to verify the axioms and see the significance of the conclusion. Logic itself cannot view the significance of the conclusion Terry hates Chester’s voice, because it is meant to discover information based on axioms, not evaluate and make something out of information. With this, I do find that critical thinking is more important and has a higher range of skill than logic.” PhilosophyLogicThoughtCritical ThinkingSkill Book:The Reformation Source: The Reformation
“...but my favorite already-discovered aspect of critical thinking in cooking is the demand for thought experimentation when trying to innovate with food. For instance, today, I made you that crab salad (although the crab was actually just imitation crab), but anyways, I observed that there was this sweetness to the imitation crab, so I conducted a thought experiment with myself. I thought that the sweetness of the crab made the crab delicate, so I deduced that it would be best to use iceberg lettuce in the salad to enhance the delicacy of the crab, because iceberg lettuce is light and crisp, as opposed to cabbage, which is thicker and has a stronger and most likely overpowering flavor that may be incompatible with the delicacy of the crab. In that same thought experiment, I also thought that bell peppers would go well with the salad, because they also have a sweetness similar to the imitation crab, and they have a fresh flavor to them, so I thought it would compliment the crab. I also added that lite ranch dressing, because I knew that the lightness of the dressing would still be cohesively connected to the overall delicacy of the salad, and plus, a lot of the components in the salad were sweet, so the ranch balanced the ratio of sweetness to savoriness. Then, in the thought experiment, I reasoned that if I sprinkle sunflower seeds on it, the dish would be more elevated because of the nuttiness of the seeds. Overall, because of my experiment, the dish had most of the flavors that you and I wanted, but you did say that you wanted more vegetables to balance out the crab, so while we were eating, I conducted another thought experiment, where I thought, of course, about adding more vegetables, and I also thought about the possibilities of adding lemon juice or some citrus fruit like tangerines into my revised version of the salad.” FoodCookingCritical ThinkingThought Experiment Book:The Reformation Source: The Reformation
“To summarize, the model I created was a revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Usually, in the 2000’s, it was common for people to use a pyramid to represent Bloom’s Taxonomy, with “remember” at the base, and “synthesize” at the shortest part, or the top. This was a good model for determining the attainability of each skill and the levels each skill is at, but I decided to use the umbrellas to add stronger emphasis on how each skill depended on and impacted one another. I did not think that the pyramid modeled this dependency and impact well, because it did not visually show how each skill overlapped one another; it merely showed the levels of each skill, not how each skill depended on and impacted one another.” EducationCritical ThinkingNerdyBloom S Taxonomy Book:The Reformation Source: The Reformation
“Why speak with assumption, Why speak with theories, When we could analyze the actual person? Prejudice is not only be immoral, but also illogical” PhilosophyPoetryJusticeLogicPrejudiceActivismCritical ThinkingCommentary Book:For the Intellect Source: For the Intellect