{"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"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"The main organizing ideas of the podcast was that intellectual standards are essential to assessing how well we are thinking, as we attempt to think through the elements about any issue or topic, and that it is important that we do this explicitly rather than unconciously in order to not just come up with useful conclusions but also in order to communicate our thinking more clearly to others and as part of the process of improving our thinking.\n\nInsights that I received involve my own teaching--in that I do not explicitly reinforce the standards enough and that leads me to take shortcuts that I shouldn't take in presenting content. Ironically, developing online resources may actually be beneficial in uncovering where I do this and maybe getting me away from doing it. Another insight related to teaching consists in doing things that may actually be disrespectful to students, such as being unwilling to say \"I don't know,\" but instead pulling up what I do, and saying what I suspect about the rest. I think it would be better to be \"intellectually humble,\" and say \"I don't know. How do you think we can find out?\" A third insight related to this is giving homework that is largely passive and not enough that stretches them. \n\nQuestions relate to the overlap between intellectual standards: If we push for depth and breadth, aren't we also working toward sufficiency? Something can be relevant but not significant, of course, but not significant without being relevant. So if we have significance, you can say that relevance is somewhat \"irrelevant.\" That sounds a little flippant, maybe, but I just wondered what makes the theoretical distinction? \n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"This discussion had as its chief organizing ideas an exploration of the concept of inferences within the framework of the elements, and how inferences relate to assumptions and information.\n\nThere were many parts of the discussion that were insightful from my perspective, but the three that stand out to me are the notions that inferences can be conclusions, but they can also be steps in the process of reaching conclusions. This goes back to the element of purpose--it might be that the conclusion is the ultimate purpose, but inferences may provide the stepping stenes on the way to it, and each one is a minor purpose to itself. \"A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.\"--but the journey involves a lot of individual steps and each one must be taken separately.. Secondly, interpretation is a critical aspect of making inferences (and the notion of interpretation helps us understand that each inference we draw involves a choice which derives from our interpretation of information). The third insight is that assumptions imply the necessary information to make inferences, even if we do not have conscious awareness of that information.\n\nA number of questions arise from the discussion. One relates to my own field of history. History is all about interpretation, but the discussion suggests that there is a \"chicken and egg\" problem. Which comes first, the interpretation and then the inferences based upon it, or the inferences which then give rise to the interpretation? The latter would seem the most proper, but is not an initial interpretation assumed in order to help make at least tentative inferences? Another question is that, even though we shouldn't simply ask students to make inferences, we must ask students to make reasonable inferences which imply the fundamental awareness of how inferences are made? And finally, the part of the discussion involving the classical method of making inferences had the notion of the syllogism very clearly embedded in it. (Major premise--Noon is lunchtime. Minor premise--It is noon. Conclusion--It is lunchtime.) Is not this classical method built into the standard of \"logic\" and therefore an essential part of the larger theoretical structure? \n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"The discipline of history since the early 19th century has focused on \"the cult of the fact\" and learning how to find facts, ad infinitum, and to ascertain their accuracy (which is the single criterion that sets them apart as facts). The stated purpose is to develop a true narrative of the past. A historical method whose foundations date to the Renaissance exists in order to carry out this purpose. We're very good at finding information and evaluating it from a critical standpoint, as far as that goes. \n\nBut if we evaluate our information from the point of view of an audience that wants simply to be entertained, and from a subjective viewpoint of what will sell the most books, then what depth and breadth mean as standards is very different from something that might actually engender new ideas that lead to enlightenment. On the other hand, historical scholarship that \"teaches\" can fall into the trap of validating assumptions based on some ideological framework by ignoring or downplaying information that seems contradictory. This encourages further research and the publication of alternative interpretations, true, but these tend to be ignored except by the scholars themselves. \n\nA century ago the profession made the effort to overcome some of the pitfalls by trying to turn history into a \"science,\" where some approach to an empirical enterprise could be used to validate facts, and as a result to develop theories and \"laws\" of history just as the natural sciences were supposed to do for their domains. While quantification and statistics are of course valid and valuable for the \"social sciences,\" I think that critical thinking in this discipline must rely mostly on the type of conceptualization that the podcast referred to. \n\n\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"The main organizing ideas of the podcast according to Dr. Nosich are that, first, when we reason, we always have a purpose (even if we're not entirely conscious of what it is) that underlies all the other elements, and second, that we can say the same thing about all the other elements--they are all equally interdependent. \n\nThe concept of faith was not really used in the podcast, but the notion that we should believe in our own ability to attain or achieve our own capacity, to fulfill our own purpose, is. That suggested to me that faith in essence is a fundamental assumption that there is purpose or meaning in life, the universe, and everything (as Douglas Adams would say). \n\nBut the first question is, do we find that purpose or meaning, or do we make it? \n\nDr. Nosich cautioned that we might not be able to achieve happiness as our purpose or goal. Buddhists do assume that by following the eightfold path we can reach nirvana, and Erich Fromm suggested that mindfulness could help us do something analogous. \n\nAnother important insight the podcast provided was that time is a function of our own capacity to reach our goals or achieve our purpose. We may have the inherent ability to reach our capacity, but it's still impossible because we don't have the time to do it. \n\nThe topic of making choices and being satisfied with one's life arose during the podcast. It occurs to me that the sense of self can be integrated into a living as long as one can focus on the fact that \"doing\" the job is fulfilling, not just getting paid for it. \n\nFinding different layers of purposes was also an important topic of the discussion. But it raises some questions: foremost, shall we apply all of the elements to each of the elements as we analyze something? We have a purpose, but must we know whether that purpose has a purpose, and so on? That looks like a Zeno's Paradox in the making. I suspect that through our application of the standards we validate whether our purpose is the one we want to focus on, so we don't have to perpetually revolve around the wheel. \n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"The key organizing idea of the podcast was to clarify what we mean by the concept of \"concepts.\" While the notions of definitions or \"meanings\" in the usual sense of the word is useful, dictionary definitions only scratch the surface. Dr. Nosich's move in saying that conceptualizing is more than finding a dictionary definition, it is a process of developing a categorical meaning, is a valuable one. \n\nOne important question that arises from this is whether conceptualizing is tied to the standard of precision, as it suggests that to arrive at a concept you need to establish a categorical framework that allows you to describe or define a key term precisely. \n\nDr. Elder's proposition that a concept is \"an idea in a human mind,\" that does not necessarily imply any critical standard, is one that I have not previously considered. The corollary that you need to ask the use of the term rather than its meaning in order to realize the power of a concept is important. But it does suggest another question: if we consider that a concept is like a brick, that is used for constructing an intellectual edifice, then it follows that, just as the substance of the brick must be known in order to determine whether it can be used for building, doesn't the substance of the idea have to be known before we know how it can or should be used? Or is a concept entirely a product of our subjective awareness? \n\nIs not the purpose of \"concepts,\" as one of the elements of reasoning, that it must be explicitly referenced, in order to be tested? Does not the trait of confidence in reason come from a sense that knowledge must be finally empirical, as a product of induction or experience?\n\nI appreciated again those statements about dystopianism and mental health, and caught this time the important idea that a capacity to SEE the beauty in circumstances is necessary to overcome dystopian hopelessness. Therein lies the great significance of conceptualization. \n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"This podcast struck home with me, as I am dealing with important concepts in my political science honors class. If we ask what are the pros and cons of democracy, for instance, we have to be aware of what \"democracy\" means, and of the fact that the pros and cons may differ depending on whether a society accepts one definition of democracy or another. Other concepts we addressed were those of elitism and pluralism. If we are trying to figure out whether a political system of a \"democracy\" is more pluralist, elitist, or individualist (perhaps populist or majoritarian might be more appropriate terms). then defining these terms within the framework of democracy is vital. The discussion about psychology as science was also important to me, as I am going through an issue relating to psychological testing of a person close to me. \n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"I have taught history and political science for many decades, and since my high school days I have admired Gandhi, ever since I read a biography of him for a report. His self-discipline, commitment to non-violent resistance against oppression, and leadership skills in fighting for Indian independence formed the basis for my admiration. But as I have been reading his writings in All Men Are Brothers, it has become apparent that while those external features remain admirable, the thinking behind them can and should be questioned. \n\nThis hit home with the reading of the first paragraph in Chapter 6. I do not know if this passage was originally in English, or if it was translated. The Borodino Books edition published in 2018, from which I quote, does not list any translators but rather says it is using Gandhi's own words. If however it is a translation, then the translation may be the problem. Assuming that it is not, however, then the paragraph is one that might be quickly read and accepted uncritically by someone familiar with and sympathetic to Gandhi's goals. But the paragraph itself leaves questions for someone who actually tries to develop its logic.\n\nFirst off, Gandhi states his beliefs, and assumes that they are true. The core belief is that of advaita vedanta, the notion that the individual self is an illusion, existing only as a reflection of the ultimate reality which is the atman or soul of Brahma. Gandhi interprets this as the \"essential unity of man and for that matter of all that lives.\" He infers from this that \"if one man gains spiritually, the whole world gains with him and, if one man falls, the whole world falls to that extent.\" The practice of any virtue leads to more virtue in the whole community, and any immorality is a threat to the virtue of the whole community--\"nay, of the whole world.\" \n\nIf existence is non-dualistic, then do individuals really have the capacity to gain or lose spiritually? \n\nIf, for argument's sake, an individual can gain spiritually and thus raise the whole community, what happens when another individual at the same time is falling spiritually, and bringing it down? \n\nIf virtues and morality are essentially communal, then who gets to decide how they are defined and imposed (assuming that \"all men are brothers\" and therefore equal)? \n\nEven the opening line of the paragraph, \"I do not believe that an individual may gain spiritually and those that surround him suffer,\" leaves room for questioning its meaning. If people are suffering, does this indicate that no one is able to gain spiritually? Should it read, \"those that surround him suffer "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"for his gain"},{"insert":"?\" Should it read, \"may gain spiritually and "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"allow"},{"insert":" those that surround him "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"to"},{"insert":" suffer?\" Again, this may be a matter of translation, but as it stands the sentence is ambiguous, and depending on how it is read, there are important implications. \n\nIn reference to these basic elements of Gandhi's life and thought I mentioned at the beginning, none of these questions necessarily undermines my admiration for his public life of service. Using the elements and standards of critical thinking, in terms of defining questions, concepts, testing assumptions and logic and clarity, etc., do help to reinforce the importance of thinking for ourselves rather than just accepting the principles and conclusions of those we have been taught to admire. . \n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"Of all the novels we have read thus far in our workshop, Silas Marner is my favorite--the only one I could not lay down when I had reached my assigned stopping place. And there are so many reasons why. Because it is written from the viewpoint of an intelligent woman whose ability to describe places and personalities with equal skill, and without overdoing it, beats any others I've seen by a long shot. Because it has lessons to teach, about the nature of organized religion and how society approaches it, about the nature of fatherhood and being a good husband or wife, about pride and greed, about how we confront death--especially valuable to me with the death of an old family companion (our dog Coco) this week after a long illness, about keeping secrets. I think the one that speaks to me most about Critical Thinking is the one on fatherhood, however, because Silas, when the truth is revealed about Eppie's parentage, lets her make the decision, and trusts her to make the right one for herself, and makes sure she knows what she's doing, and defends her when she's made it. That is something that is most valuable to me, with a teenage daughter of my own, that I will keep in mind. \n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"This is in no way a criticism of IT people. I like IT people; I couldn't survive in my work without IT people, and I find them generally--as a group--the most helpful people you can meet. \n\nBut I very, very recently had trouble getting logged in to a website because, first, I was confronted with a technical problem which I handled in the normal way I handle them--I went to the IT people instead of going full throttle into an analysis and trying to work it through myself, which I see after the fact I probably could have done using what for me passes for common sense. (And that is a criticism, of myself, for claiming to try to be a critical thinker and still making the assumption that, because I don't know something right off the bat, I can't figure it out because it's not strictly speaking logical or not in my field). But even so, with the IT people on it, it took nearly a day to work through what turned out to be a problem with a very simple solution. What took us so long is that I didn't ask one or two relevant questions, which would have led me to the depth and breadth required, and because of which \nneither I nor those very helpful IT people could get to what needed to be cleared up precisely. It's a cautionary tale--always remember the standards.\nHope everyone enjoys the conference. \n\n"}]}