Social The destruction of critical thinking in higher education

[FIMN]

No, that's your bias.



Only deviant leftists.



No, that's just something you made up.



They were mortified because it's more likely she'll go off the rails. It's a natural, normal, healthy response from parents. All this obsession over making your 'sexuality' your identity is due to a lack of a real, healthy identity (ethnic & religious).

Nothing says healthy worldview than following a religion founded by a charlatan that saw black people as inherently inferior within living memory.

What next, fucking through bedsheets is the way we were meant to procreate and anything else is deviant?

 

[Tatra]

Nothing says healthy worldview than following a religion founded by a charlatan that saw black people as inherently inferior within living memory.

What next, fucking through bedsheets is the way we were meant to procreate and anything else is deviant?

 

[FIMN]

You think Mormons have a healthy worldview and identity?

LOL

 

[Loiosh]

That criticism always tends to remain in vague territory. You pretty much never see a leftist try to debate the specifics of a point Shapiro has made. They just don't like him. Shapiro has gotten into plenty of debates with people more qualified than college kids as well.

That's completely incorrect.

Points he makes are routinely dissected and they're so bad they coined the phrase "is he stupid or lying".

Anyone with an IQ north of 90 knows he's obviously lying because he can't be that stupid.

I could probably find hundreds of videos of leftists addressing his specific points, he's a prominent punching bag because he's front and center and comically full of shit.

 

[mommas homeboy]

Excuses excuses. Shapiro sucks against literally anyone comfortable speaking in front of a mic and camera who thinks about what he says for longer than a few seconds.

And you don't read before you reply, I specifically said Rogan isnt a leftist.

Shapiro sucks against literally anyone comfortable speaking in front of a mic who thinks about what he says for longer than a few seconds? Do you mind showing me videos of him getting wrecked in arguments by people who are comfortable in front of a mic that think about what they say for more than a few seconds?

And as far as Rogan, you were saying something to the affect of "Rogan had them stumped with no answer" and I've never seen him discuss an issue with Shapiro where he proved Shapiro wrong and had him stumped. Where did you see that?

 

[Renard]

Strongly disagree. You're conflating 2 different things - education and dogma.

Higher education is still education. Your post is like saying that because a college expects a math major to demonstrate skilled used of calculus before they let him/her delve into more abstract and innovative areas of math, the college is dogmatic. Hardly. The student is expected to demonstrate a core grasp of the curriculum of their major...including the "why's". But demonstrating a grasp of material does not equate to being forced to agree with it once the class is finished.

This is why the critiques of critical thinking related to colleges and higher education often demonstrate a problem with understanding education, not a problem with the colleges or with critical thinking.

I'll go anecdotal for a moment. In law school, we're expected to learn certain cases. Specifically, to understand why those cases were decided the way that they were decided. On the exams, we're expected to be able to coherently explain the reasoning that the judges of the time applied to those cases and how it fits within the larger jurisprudence of US law. But we're not expected to agree with the reasoning. We're allowed to disagree with a ruling while holding on the knowledge that it is the law of the land and will control what happens in the real world...whether we agree or not.

To make the law school analogy: What too many people are saying is that if you don't agree with the ruling or you question it, the law school shouldn't teach it to you or expect you to understand why it exists. That teaching any case with a controversial outcome is dogma. And that expecting students to apply the reasoning of those cases is "indoctrination". Those people don't understand education or critical thinking.

As they say "You must first understand the rules before you can learn how to break them." College education teaches the "rules", for lack of a better term. Students learn the "rules". But the students are free to abandon those rules once they leave the classroom. Once they've demonstrated, via exams, papers, etc. that they understood the rules that they are questioning. Learning the how and why behind the rules is the foundation for learning how to critically think about those rules and thus draw a conclusion, after the course is finished, on whether or not one supports them.

People want to skip the education part and just straight to the disagreement part. That's not teaching critical thinking. People should understand the process of training people to think critically about something, as opposed to simply disagreeing with it.

Depending on which discipline you picked your experience of university will have been completely different. Law is different than other disciplines in that you're training to become a practitioner of the law, the law being this complex web of arbitrary rules and precedents. The law doesn't really make sense per se, nor is it scientific. As a student of the law your job is to learn to expertly navigate that web, sprinkled with some persuasion in court. It's very hands-on. As far as I understand it the education consists of remembering a lot of information, namely cases, and being able to draw links between cases. A student with a good memory will do well in law. In such a situation, the "basics" do matter. You're not there to question anything, for example whether the law makes sense or not would fall under the purview of the ethics branch of philosophy. The philosophy students will write whole papers over it, but the lawyer's job is to just understand the law and apply it. It's more like a craft than anything. You're not in pursuit of some higher truth like the "founders" of science envisioned it. So you perceive that the basics are very important, however in some disciplines, let's say sociology, the "basics" you're learning essentially involve studying other people's subjective, arbitrary opinions as though they're fact, which so far isn't that different from law, but these "basics" don't have any practical use at all. If you write papers that go against your professor's particular narrative or goes against the general vibe of that department, you very much risk getting a poor grade and not because you didn't understand the theories.

 

[Tatra]

You think Mormons have a healthy worldview and identity?

LOL

You're malfunctioning. Anyway, you think the freaks who see nazis under their beds and have a mental breakdown over 'misgendering' have a healthy worldview and identity?

 

[mommas homeboy]

That's completely incorrect.

Points he makes are routinely dissected and they're so bad they coined the phrase "is he stupid or lying".

Anyone with an IQ north of 90 knows he's obviously lying because he can't be that stupid.

I could probably find hundreds of videos of leftists addressing his specific points, he's a prominent punching bag because he's front and center and comically full of shit.

Wtf are you talking about? I've seen the videos of all those leftists trying to discredit what he's saying, and they always fail. You're talking about people like Sam Seder I guess? He's fucking awful and would never go head-to-head with Shapiro. He critizes Shapiro without Shapiro there to defend himself. Let's see him actually prove Shapiro wrong without selectively picking certain quotes out of context and criticising them in an attempt to discredit the guy.

 

[mommas homeboy]

They should debate him then. Shapiro often has videos on Youtube of him reacting to people who make videos "debunking" him. Now Shapiro, and Matt Walsh too, can be a little too "Woman, get back in the kitchen." levels of conservatism for me. I don't agree with everything they say, especially when they center morality around religion. But most of their arguments are pretty damn solid and are backed up by facts.

This is exactly what I'm saying. But here's the catch: Liberals don't deal in facts. When you deny certain facts, you can make any argument you want because the presupposition needed for an arguemtn to make sense isn't even agreed upon. Without that, it becomes what it currently is. Just a bunch of leftists spewing about bunch of horse shit with no logic or factual arguments backing it up.

Ben is far more conservative than I, and I don't agree with everything he says. But he's living in reality. Leftists are just wildly full of shit and constantly make claims that are utter nonsense.

 

[FIMN]

You're malfunctioning. Anyway, you think the freaks who see nazis under their beds and have a mental breakdown over 'misgendering' have a healthy worldview and identity?

I'll take that you do believe LDS propagate a balanced and ethical worldview as you won't answer.

 

[HOLA]

Shapiro sucks against literally anyone comfortable speaking in front of a mic who thinks about what he says for longer than a few seconds? Do you mind showing me videos of him getting wrecked in arguments by people who are comfortable in front of a mic that think about what they say for more than a few seconds?

Ben Shapiro calls a famously right wing journalist a leftist. : cringe (reddit.com)

And as far as Rogan, you were saying something to the affect of "Rogan had them stumped with no answer" and I've never seen him discuss an issue with Shapiro where he proved Shapiro wrong and had him stumped. Where did you see that?

 

[Tatra]

I'll take that you do believe LDS propagate a balanced and ethical worldview as you won't answer.

Still malfunctioning, I see.

 

[Sinister]

Shapiro sucks against literally anyone comfortable speaking in front of a mic who thinks about what he says for longer than a few seconds? Do you mind showing me videos of him getting wrecked in arguments by people who are comfortable in front of a mic that think about what they say for more than a few seconds?

And as far as Rogan, you were saying something to the affect of "Rogan had them stumped with no answer" and I've never seen him discuss an issue with Shapiro where he proved Shapiro wrong and had him stumped. Where did you see that?

Lol, now I have to do your homework for you? The information is in this thread homeboy.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

He studied law at Harvard, he's intelligent and comfortable in adversarial discussion. Obviously he's going to have a huge advantage debating much younger students in a subject he's dedicated his life to.

We'll never know how good he or most anyone in the public eye is, they're far too careful to take a risk and debate in a truly neutral arena. If I had to guess I'd say Shapiro would do better than most if the rules were clear and he had time to prepare.

Yea this is reasonable enough.

 

[FIMN]

Still malfunctioning, I see.

People, especially the young, educating themselves is scary to conservatives because the movement is based on ignorance and victimhood. Cons seem to end up on the wrong side oh history. Slavery, gay marriage, the environment. Let's add education to the list.

 

[Tatra]

People, especially the young, educating themselves is scary to conservatives because the movement is based on ignorance and victimhood. Cons seem to end up on the wrong side oh history. Slavery, gay marriage, the environment. Let's add education to the list.

The malfunctioning continues.

 

[Bob Gray]

Ben Shapiro is the last guy on the planet anyone should use as a positive example of critical thinking.

You're sort of proving his point with remarks like this.

 

[Source]

You're sort of proving his point with remarks like this.

Shapiro promoted the big lie. He is not a critical thinker. As a matter of fact clearly neither are you.

 

[Bob Gray]

Shapiro promoted the big lie. He is not a critical thinker. As a matter of fact clearly neither are you.

You're still doing it. I don't even know what youre referring to. But rarely is diismissing everything someone says the best practice, or the best example of critical thinking.

I think Chomsky is a complete loon, and biased as all fuck. That still doesn't mean I'm going to completely dismiss everything he says.

 

[MicroBrew]

Did not vote.

To prove critical thinking skills at Universities / Colleges is declining, shouldn't a study need to be done on most of the major Universities / Colleges in every State?