"I don't really think that taking an article, doing your analysis, and then making yourself capable to speak to it in a press conference is the final word on critical thinking either."
Absolutely correct – it is not – but it was a place to begin, to acquire the skills that would need to be developed for the rest of one's life. An attorney…
"I don't really think that taking an article, doing your analysis, and then making yourself capable to speak to it in a press conference is the final word on critical thinking either."
Absolutely correct – it is not – but it was a place to begin, to acquire the skills that would need to be developed for the rest of one's life. An attorney need not believe his client is not guilty, but he needs to be able to think like his opposite to raise reasonable doubt.
A crucial part of the exercise was to read the article, and begin to parse editorial comment presented as fact, from actual fact, then subject to scutiny both the editorial content, and the reported fact for accuracy, truth (supported by contextual data, or someone else's talking point?); put in writing, and write a paper that presents the analysis, conclusions, and reasoning behind them in a readable manner.
Yes. One professor stated on the first day of class to say nothing without several supporting quotes and context must be considered, etc. The difference as I see it from them till today is that then, we were required to study it, research it, ask questions, take a position on it and defend that position (often being required to take the opposite position and defend it as well!), and so. But today, it seems information is presented, swallowed whole uncritically, and how well it is regurgitated determined what your final grade is.
"I don't really think that taking an article, doing your analysis, and then making yourself capable to speak to it in a press conference is the final word on critical thinking either."
Absolutely correct – it is not – but it was a place to begin, to acquire the skills that would need to be developed for the rest of one's life. An attorney need not believe his client is not guilty, but he needs to be able to think like his opposite to raise reasonable doubt.
A crucial part of the exercise was to read the article, and begin to parse editorial comment presented as fact, from actual fact, then subject to scutiny both the editorial content, and the reported fact for accuracy, truth (supported by contextual data, or someone else's talking point?); put in writing, and write a paper that presents the analysis, conclusions, and reasoning behind them in a readable manner.
Yes. One professor stated on the first day of class to say nothing without several supporting quotes and context must be considered, etc. The difference as I see it from them till today is that then, we were required to study it, research it, ask questions, take a position on it and defend that position (often being required to take the opposite position and defend it as well!), and so. But today, it seems information is presented, swallowed whole uncritically, and how well it is regurgitated determined what your final grade is.