Yes. A thread about critical thinking, not COVID or spaceships.
It has struck me that many people do not know what critical thinking actually is. About 10yrs ago I came across a lecture from the below bloke, and was really interested. I saw some flaws in my rationale with stuff. Then not long after it seemed the term was starting to be flung around by a lot of people with counter-culture type ideas. It became really prevalent for CT types to claim they possess critical thinking, or indeed only they are capable of it as they see what nobody else does.
Might be a bit much to suggest that some people apply these principles to their beliefs - cos I doubt they will but go on, I dare ya.
Read properly and apply it to anything where you feel you're always trying to convince people of something
skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=5240
skepticalinquirer.org/1990/01/a-field-guide-to-critical-thinking/ (this is what I first saw, but the first one is better cos it has a great acronym)
I knew it. 
Pete have you read both those in the 4mins since I posted.... and engaged in self -reflection about whether you truly apply the principles therein? Come on, mate....
I had a quick read of the second. I hope you do realise that for many current science in many instances is scientism?
Apply your own logic in eventually answering my question.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
Yes. A thread about critical thinking, not COVID or spaceships.
It has struck me that many people do not know what critical thinking actually is. About 10yrs ago I came across a lecture from the below bloke, and was really interested. I saw some flaws in my rationale with stuff. Then not long after it seemed the term was starting to be flung around by a lot of people with counter-culture type ideas. It became really prevalent for CT types to claim they possess critical thinking, or indeed only they are capable of it as they see what nobody else does.
Might be a bit much to suggest that some people apply these principles to their beliefs - cos I doubt they will but go on, I dare ya.
Read properly and apply it to anything where you feel you're always trying to convince people of something
skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=5240
skepticalinquirer.org/1990/01/a-field-guide-to-critical-thinking/ (this is what I first saw, but the first one is better cos it has a great acronym)
Conspiracy Theorists are very good at projection. They are the Sheeple who follow whatever garbage is presented to them, as long as it's in a meme and there is no evidence, data or big words.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
I had a quick read of the second. I hope you do realise that for many current science in many instances is scientism?
Apply your own logic in eventually answering my question.
Pete I will read up on WTC7 using the principles in those links. I will take hours.
If I know that you will do the exact same and rigorously apply them to chemtrails, fluoride, and all the "Them" crap you espouse here.
Trouble is I know you won't.
That is why I posted this thread. A few people need to read those and actually apply them to their beliefs.... 99% of the population applies some of the principles some of the time and manage to come to the same conclusion.
Those who completely disregard them start 300 page threads about utter crap and 'proof' is a ranting dude on youtube with no quals.
If its a dude with some quals, still go apply them and you may see he may well be incorrect (and the 99% are right) - causing you to look further than JUST HIS channel and all the places suggested by his channel and the links they send you cos its the same thing you like.
You are the sheeple. The ones following social media arguments and not using critical thinking skills.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
I had a quick read of the second. I hope you do realise that for many current science in many instances is scientism?
Apply your own logic in eventually answering my question.
Why did you not read the first one?
^^ well yes.... and "quick read" is not really enough when it is something that may change the way one approaches thinking about life and everything
If they really are out to get us or lying to us, I would think it incumbent upon everyone to really engage in self-education about how to think and assess issues!
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
Yes. A thread about critical thinking, not COVID or spaceships.
Read properly and apply it to anything where you feel you're always trying to convince people of something
skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=5240
skepticalinquirer.org/1990/01/a-field-guide-to-critical-thinking/ (this is what I first saw, but the first one is better cos it has a great acronym)
Interesting reads, thank you Mark. (but sadly a complete lack of memes or young singles in my area.
)
Perhaps a tad unrealistically optimistic to hope for this not to devolve into Covid on a flat earth where everyone you don't know dies suddenly.
Select to expand quotefangman said..
Perhaps a tad unrealistically optimistic to hope for this not to devolve into Covid on a flat earth where everyone you don't know dies suddenly.
But 4 minutes has to be some sort of record.
Unless of course PM33 and MarkAus are the same person... ah hah! Multiple personality disorder?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..fangman said..
Perhaps a tad unrealistically optimistic to hope for this not to devolve into Covid on a flat earth where everyone you don't know dies suddenly.
But 4 minutes has to be some sort of record.
Unless of course PM33 and MarkAus are the same person... ah hah! Multiple personality disorder?
Nah, they're definitely two different people. Bout the only thing they have in common is they both windsurf.
unless of course I'm hallucinating. Hmmm
Thanks for sharing Mark. An excellent read. A quote from Mark's shared link that PCDefender might want to ponder on:
science doesn't provide absolute certainty; instead, uncertainty is reduced as evidence accumulates. There's always the possibility that we're wrong, so we have to leave ourselves open to changing our minds with new evidence.
Select to expand quotephiln said..
A quote from Mark's shared link that PCDefender might want to ponder on:
science doesn't provide absolute certainty...
That will never happen.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..Pcdefender said..
I had a quick read of the second. I hope you do realise that for many current science in many instances is scientism?
Apply your own logic in eventually answering my question.
Pete I will read up on WTC7 using the principles in those links. I will take hours.
If I know that you will do the exact same and rigorously apply them to chemtrails, fluoride, and all the "Them" crap you espouse here.
Trouble is I know you won't.
That is why I posted this thread. A few people need to read those and actually apply them to their beliefs.... 99% of the population applies some of the principles some of the time and manage to come to the same conclusion.
Those who completely disregard them start 300 page threads about utter crap and 'proof' is a ranting dude on youtube with no quals.
If its a dude with some quals, still go apply them and you may see he may well be incorrect (and the 99% are right) - causing you to look further than JUST HIS channel and all the places suggested by his channel and the links they send you cos its the same thing you like.
You are the sheeple. The ones following social media arguments and not using critical thinking skills.
Like Lachterman who used critical thinking and came to the decision to stop fluoride in the town water after a federal court ruled that fluoride lowers IQ in children.
Are Tennessee lawmakers using critical thinking passing laws to stop chemtrails/geoengineering?
Are you beginning to use critical thinking or are you up to you 10th booster and 2nd monkeypox Vax?
Snoidberg........Are you beginning to use critical thinking or are you up to you 10th booster and 2nd monkeypox Vax?
Hilarious comment but also with much validity
Confounding factors may play a role too. Quote from the highest raked paper in Google Scholar on the subject of IQ and fluoride;
" ...the possible effects of the abovementioned confounding factors including the parental education and difference in socioeconomic status between the villages. Therefore, it is not possible to explain the IQ of children based on the effects of exposure to high or low-fluoride water alone."
journals.lww.com/jpcd/fulltext/2016/06003/effect_of_fluoridated_water_on_intelligence_in.11.aspx
I haven't had an opportunity to read/research any other papers. I would like to add that the F levels that are assessed are all higher than recommended by Au standards. The highest IQ group were those in the segment that has 200% more F than Au standard. Those in the very low F group had an IQ score very similar to those in the very high F level.
More work to be done in this field it seems.
Hmmmm.....
That Tennessee bill was passed on April 1st.
Coincidence?
Or was it deliberate?
This thread was started to actually look at critical thinking and it has only attracted the CTers that have no interest in thinking, but only posting links to other stuff without any analysis.
Where are the important topics, like split junction boxes? 
So,..... it must be hard to apply crtical thinking to something if you can't first apply objective reading, listening or observing.
Faulty input data isn't going to assist no matter how good the processing then is.
And what I'm beginning to think from all these critical thinking threads is that those who most believe they are masters of the art first look at the username of the poster and make a judgement before they then read (or scan over) the actual post.
I myself confess that whilst I did read Mark's links, I didn't read Pcdefender's 83 comments on a video I had to start watching at the 5 minute mark. Do I have to do both to be able to make a truly informed decision ?
Can it all be explained by the same rainbow triangle that explains why scientists mostly vote for the Greens ?
"In 2001, [Bloom's] taxonomy was revised, renaming and reordering the levels as Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create. This domain focuses on intellectual skills and the development of critical thinking and problem-solving abilities."
I'm not sure Conspiracy Theorists make into the bottom level because it requires the remembering of facts, and CTers have no interest in facts.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Where are the important topics, like split junction boxes?
Have you watched Season 11 of Walking Dead? Has it got any better?
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..FormulaNova said..
Where are the important topics, like split junction boxes?
Have you watched Season 11 of Walking Dead? Has it got any better?
I was waiting for KiteBoyDave to give his critique of it first. Can you/he offer any comments on it? Maybe you could start a discussion between him/yourself and have a great chat about it?
Although for some reason you/he seem to go quiet whenever I mention the multiple logins you have.
Why is that? You would think that if they weren't both your logins that you would argue about it, but instead you go quiet.
Anyone else here got shill accounts that they use to entertain themselves/green thumb themselves/argue with themselves/hide behind?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
I was waiting for KiteBoyDave to give his critique of it first. Can you/he offer any comments on it? Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
...And what I'm beginning to think from all these critical thinking threads is that those who most believe they are masters of the art first look at the username of the poster and make a judgement before they then read (or scan over) the actual post.
Groundhog day today ?
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
Can it all be explained by the same rainbow triangle that explains why scientists mostly vote for the Greens ?
Bloom's triangle is a construct used to push a leftist agenda.
As I thought
This is nowhere near as popular with the CT folks as threads where they make huge claims based on what one guy said even though hundreds of properly researched articles by experts disprove their crap.
critical thinking first requires strong application of the principles to oneself - a proper self reflection about whether you do believe things for the right reasons.
that's not as fun as yoochoob.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
As I thought
This is nowhere near as popular with the CT folks as threads where they make huge claims based on what one guy said even though hundreds of properly researched articles by experts disprove their crap.
critical thinking first requires strong application of the principles to oneself - a proper self reflection about whether you do believe things for the right reasons.
that's not as fun as yoochoob.
If you applied more critical thinking before creating this topic, you would have known that.
I'm attending this presentation and will report back.
Thursday 10 October 2024, 6pm-7pm, Murdoch Lecture Theatre, UWA Arts Building, RSVP FREE ONLINE via events.humanitix.com/research-bik
Science builds upon science. Even after peer-review and publication, science papers could still contain images or other data of concern. If not addressed post-publication, papers containing incorrect or even falsified data could lead to wasted time and money spent by other researchers trying to reproduce those results. Several high-profile science misconduct cases have been described, but many more cases remain undetected. Elisabeth Bik is an image forensics detective who left her paid job in industry to search for and report biomedical articles that contain errors or data of concern. She has done a systematic scan of 20,000 papers in 40 journals and found that about 4% of these contained inappropriately duplicated images. In her talk, she will present her work and show several types of inappropriately duplicated images and other examples of errors or research misconduct. In addition, she will show how to report scientific papers of concern, and how journals and institutions handle such allegations. Finally, she will address the growing problems of 'paper mills', for-profit networks that produce and sell large amounts of low-quality or fake papers.
Elisabeth Nik, PhD is a Dutch-American microbiologist who has worked for 15 years at Standford University and 2 years in industry. Since 2019, she is a science integrity volunteer and consultant who scans the biomedical literature for images or other data of concern. She has found over 8,000 scientific papers, and her work resulted in over 1,200 retractions and another 1,000 corrections. For her work in science communications and exposing research misconduct, she received the 2021 John Maddox Prize.
Elisabeth Bik's visit is supported by the Forrest Hall Research Foundation, the Office of Research and Institute of Advanced Studies at The University of Western Australia.
