109d, Posted for: Whole Community
Critical Thinking Analysis--Going Deeper
Posted by: James Brent
{"ops":[{"insert":"This was a really good overview of some of the features relating to how analysis fits into our critical thinking model. Dr. Nosich's building upon Dr,. Elder's initial discussion of the topic was a key point, by saying that using analysis within a \"systems\" framework or \"logic\" was an essential part of what critical thinking analysis involves. While taking something apart is basic analysis, the purpose is almost purely informational (which Dr. Elder confirms), and the logic (bringing in other elements of reason) allows for the interpretation of that information and developing inferences, implications, etc., from it. \nOne question that rises from the interchange is in reaction to Dr. Nosich assertion (if I understand him right) is that looking at something from a systems viewpoint or logic viewpoint is necessary for a meaning to emerge. What occurred to me is that, if for instance I was trying to see if a part of my car was damaged, I could look at the part in comparison to its design and tell, without having any need to look at any other part. But perhaps the design itself implies the logic within which the part is supposed to function. \nAlso, I appreciated the notion that analysis meant digging deeper into concepts, \"parts of parts,\" in order to complete the process. We look for subconcepts, and we look for \"prior\" questions, in order to do analysis well.\nAnd finally, the discussion of synthesis was interesting. The concept of \"integration\" was brought in, but I would have liked to see how this might have been related to the concept of \"creativity\" which Bloom has its the top of his heirarchy but which the Paulian theory also talks about. I have thought about this in terms of using the elements and standards to develop new ideas or better versions of old ones. I would be interested in seeing how this meshes with others' thinking.\n"}]}
Posted by: Gerald Nosich
{"ops":[{"insert":"Hi James,\n\nThese are incisive take-aways from the podcast. In addition, you raise good questions about the content. Let me respond to one or two of them.\n\nAbout the damaged car-part in relation to systems: Here's an extension of what you are questioning: People do not need to know the system of how a car works in order to repair a part. (Back when I repaired my own cars, I had no idea of the role, say, a solenoid starter played--I just knew that the clicking means it had to be replaced.) So that brings up the nice question you raise about what systems are necessary to understand in order to diagnose and repair a damaged part?\n\nOne answer is the one give: the design gives gives you at least a rough-and-ready logic. We know enough of the logic of design to know that an unattached wire is not part of the intended design. Related to that is the concept of \"damage\" itself. I have to know enough of the part's function to see that it needs to be replaced. An oil pan with a gash in it (from going over rocks, for example) is damaged--but it doesn't on those grounds need to be replaced. But if it's"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" leaking oil"},{"insert":", it "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"does"},{"insert":" need to be replaced. That is, it's about the standard of relevance: what is "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"relevant"},{"insert":" to replacing a part is not just whether it is \"damaged,\" but whether its function is impaired. That's systems-thinking.\n\nAbout your comment about Bloom. Synthesis is allegedly at \"the top\" of his hierarchy, but it seems clear to me that that is a mistake. Bloom always leaves the standards out. He must be assuming that the synthesis in question is both "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"accurate"},{"insert":" and "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"significant"},{"insert":". A says \"The U.S. government is dysfunctional.\" B says \"What about it is dysfunctional? In what ways is it dysfunctional?\" A replies, \"The whole thing is dysfunctional!\" A is doing synthesis: bring all the parts together. But it's not critical thinking. It's just an empty synthesis. \n"}]}