I am in pre-nursing meaning but I am not in program yet this term! I am having a extremely difficult time with my Microbiology Exams and In need of critical thinking skills or test taking strategies but most of all I am looking into understanding critical thinking and applying it? Can someone tell me where to look so I can learn these strategies as well as how to critically think during a test?

In my Critical Thinking courses and Introductory Logic courses, I've found that even bright college students sometimes have trouble with the fundamental concepts of logic. This video is my attempt to make things as clear and obvious and straightforward as possible.

https://youtu.be/6Sg9zI-GNsI

Hope some of you find it useful, especially if you're a teacher. Thoughts? Criticisms?

Why have a coup d'etat? When you can infiltrate an organization?

Let me know if I'm in the wrong subrreddit.

Coups tend to be bloody and super risky. And it is my understanding that they normally fail and you kind of need to "infiltrate" an organization too. What's a coup without a top general? yah know.

Is infiltrating an organization really that hard? Puppets leaders.

Why were we unable to infiltrate the Taliban? Did we hand pick the new Taliban leader? My understanding is that he is more moderate that other options.

Also, in an organized religion-the only way to really control the future of the church is internally. No external threat can really take it down.. Just the way religion is sometimes.

Infiltrating takes a longggggg time, patience, and the original mission is probably never followed through. Coups are deadly and risky.

What are some external groups that influence an organization? Lets do a thought experiment.

Lets think about the Republican party. You got the Christian conservatives, libertarians, neoconservatives, and the moderates. These factions are super hard to control because it's largely democrats in that the platform is built in the image of the mind's of the individuals.

But... what about special interest groups and bribes??

The Koch's special interest groups, The Royal Family, the Rothschilds, the Russian Oligarchs. These powers are the ones that can work behind the scenes and can really alter an organization.

So, if you are a spy agency then this is the best way of altering an organization. So, if you can control people in power, then you can control the organization. Unless, that puppet turns on you lol.

My thinking is why didn't we do this with the Taliban? Why weren't we able to get inside the inner circle?

And then the Catholic church. Why can't certain people get into the inner circle?

I would assume it's because it's hard to build alliances with the inner circle, unless you have something to offer. Thats where convincing and bribing comes into play.

If you are convincing an immoral greedy inner circle person, then they will respond to cash or promises of power.

If you are convincing a moral man, then the only way to really convince him is via logic.

I would assume that the Taliban comprises of "moral" people who REALLY believe in what they are doing.

That leads to my question. Was a high-ranking leader of the Taliban convinced? In order to convince someone you would probably need extensive time talking to them-AKA prison.

Abdul Ghani Baradar was second in command in the Taliban I believe. He was in prison in Pakistan for many years. I don't know if he talked to U.S. agents.

Now. How does one convince Abdul Ghani Baradar to become a "puppet"? He is probably "moral man" that sincerely believes in his beliefs. Two options that I can think of:

1. Brainwash him
2. Deprogramming him

Brainwashing would probably only yield short term results and you probably need a very tight leash in order to do this.

I think deprogramming is better because this yields long term results. And in order to do this you would need a deprogramming expert that would be a good fit. In the end, only Abdul Ghani Baradar can "figure out" he was wrong or he can "double down" on his Taliban beliefs.

Let me know what you think.

Hi all,

I made a video on my take on Plato's Cave and the lessons we can learn from it. I don't stick to Plato's conclusion from the fable but look at it in terms of how what we perceive with our sense impressions is necessarily divorced from the reality which gives rise to our sense perceptions. Hope it's of interest x

https://youtu.be/QpC4-6JqaBY

I've been encountering this argument lately that "People who choose government financial assistance (e.g. stimulus cheques and other income supplements and help due to the massive lay offs during the pandemic) are lazy."

The argument usually goes something like:

"People who choose government financial assistance are lazy because they refused opportunities to work and stay home and live off government financial aid."

I find this argument erroneous because laziness is not purely based on employment status. Laziness means a lack of effort.

Many people who work and have full time jobs are very lazy and make the workplace difficult and toxic for their co-workers. Many people who are unemployed currently are making diligent efforts to build different careers from the one they were laid off from-they may be starting training programs or going back to school. They may be considering starting their own business or using the government aid to give themselves time to select better options than the current jobs being offered. The government financial aids they receive during the pandemic is helping them make ends meet while they develop new careers and seek better futures then their jobs prior to the pandemic.

There are many more reasons why a person may not readily accept current job offers and that does not necessarily make them lazy. They could be unexpectedly finding themselves being a caregiver for family members. Maybe they lost a family member lately due to an illness or are suffering from an illness themselves-physical of mental due to the pandemic-while at the same time looking for work even though they may not be in the best circumstance for it. There can be even more than what I can mention but the very definition of being lazy has nothing to do with a person accepting a job offer-being lazy is simply a state of voluntarily not willing to make an effort. A person who refuses a job offer does not mean they are lazy.

For some they may have realized that spending their last days working at a thankless, meaningless, job where they may even face violent and frequent abuse just isn't worth losing their life over.

Nonetheless, what category of fallacy would the argument "People who choose government financial assistance are lazy because they refused opportunities to work and stay home and live off government financial aid" fall under?

It's a faulty generalization to say the least.

It would seem that important ambiguities have existed in all of the arguments that we have looked at in class. Is this problem avoidable for the communicator? If so how? If not, why?

​

📷 Discussion

Human civilization is so incredibly evolved,as some might say, that it has found ways to collaborate, create and innovate. Although this might be true for certain restricted domains we've invented along the course of our lifetime, it's not really that that really matters now. If you've lived right, you might have witnessed some rather depressing events, be it on the internet or in real life. Now at those instances,you might have questioned the purity in the system assuming it works towards an end goal where everyone is emotionally,physically and economically well-put and how well it is doing so far. However, diving further into the topic, we start to suspect that there must be some flaw inside the system that's responsible. Maybe, it's the media and politics spreading fake or biased information and avoiding news that really matters and promoting false notions and gaining profit however they can and fast. Or it might be the schools, for they are responsible for developing the primary good traits in a person and it might be their strict adherence to academics rather than the developing of "good" manners and cultivation of a "good" social behaviour that might have "butterfly effect"-ed on all the bad stuff we see around. Or as the last candidate, we could turn to religion for it restricts the emotional space for a person to think in because it puts a celestial overbeing in their heads who rewards accordingly for all the actions and thoughts one creates making an inherent fear inside them inevitable and that could be the reason as well. Or lastly, in the worst case scenario, all of these might be to blame. That makes things even horrible. They might be working in perfect synergy for all this time that it became the flaw in the system. But we should take into account that these three are the products of the current system itself making us question that if it's really the system that's flawed. Well yes. This system is not the most innovative way to live. This division of people on the basis of inhumane criteria, uneven distribution of wealth, contrasting living conditions, different mindset for each individual to pursue similar routes, division of the whole population into religious communities and into countries,states and whatnot are all the necessary elements that makes this system work. It's not possible for everyone to own everything they need, and its one of the main things that makes it work so "perfectly", at least not in this system. The only solution is to forget everything we've learnt and got accustomed to learn and start fresh. With a clear objective and a different,more creative perspective.

Should there even be a system with the horizontal positioning of power to control and order those at lower stratas? Do we need a new system? One that really works and really puts meaning to human sentience? How would that system be? How far are we from it? How should we change ourselves for that new system to be at its maximum potential?

I’ve mentioned that TLOB will promote or champion certain themes that we feel are important to our followers and to society at large. The first theme I want to highlight is….Critical Thinking.

In due course TLOB will produce a series of articles and videos on multiple topics but all will have the theme of Critical Thinking at its foundation.

For example.

Today’s article and the video to follow, will be on the subject of Understanding Atheism. It will NOT be a promotion or a critique of either Atheism or Theism, it will simply be an explanation of common misunderstandings surrounding the use of these words and hopefully allow us to think more critically about the way we use words and question if the way we use them is in fact rational.

So, let’s start by understand some definitions?

If you do this by assuming that all you have to do is read your preferred dictionary to understand what a word means, then you’ve just fallen at the first hurdle.

Sadly, many people believe that dictionaries are some form of arbiter about what a word should mean.

Everyone who believes this should memorise this phrase…

“Dictionaries are descriptive NOT prescriptive”

In short, dictionaries tell you how people currently USE a word, not what it SHOULD mean.

This is why dictionaries are constantly updated. The way we use words not only changes but each word can have multiple usages at any one time.

What you should do when discussing a subject with anyone is, understand how they are using a word, then let them know what you mean when you use a word. If the usages differ, then agree to discuss the concepts attached to each usage so you both know what the other is talking about.

Now, let’s look at Atheism.

Should we examine the usages of Atheism?

Well, in this case, since “A”-“Theism” is in fact a noun, formed by adding the “A” at the start of another noun to indicate “without theism”, then it makes sense to look at the root noun first.

So let’s start by looking the usages of Theism. (Source: dictionary.com)

Noun:

1. The belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the Universe
2. Belief in the existence of a god or gods

Looking at these usages it can be inferred that anyone who fits usage 1 will automatically be covered by usage 2. 1 is therefore a subset of 2.

Now let’s look at the usages of Atheism.

Noun:

1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Once again, Looking at these usages it can be inferred that anyone who fits usage 1 will automatically be covered by usage 2. 1 is therefore a subset of 2.

Now, for simplicity’s sake, for both words, let’s continue with the usage described in number 2 as it clearly encapsulate both usages.

So, regarding the question “Do you believe God exists?”

Well, ignoring all the rabbit holes we could go down with reference to the words “God” or “exist”, the question clearly pertains to a persons BELIEF.

And, this is where most people go off the rails. How?

By failing to recognise that belief is binary.

For any one claim, you either do believe it or you don’t. There is no middle ground.

“But” I hear you say, “why can’t I just say that I don’t know?"

Well, that’s because you’re not answering the question. The question is about what you believe and saying, “I don’t know” is telling us about your knowledge.

We are now of course introducing Gnosticism and Agnosticism and we are all familiar with the use of Agnosticism as the cop out, mythical position of neither believing nor not believing.

Let me demonstrate why this position is impossible with the flip of a coin:

Coin flipper: Do you believe it’s heads?

Observer: I don’t know

Coin flipper: I know you don’t know but I’m asking you what you believe. Do you believe it’s heads?

Observer: Until I see the coin, I can’t believe it’s heads

Coin flipper: So, you DON’T believe it’s heads

Observer: No, but I don’t believe it’s tails either

Coin flipper: Thant’s fine, as not believing either until there is evidence either way is the logical, default position!

So, let’s assume that we all accept that belief is binary.

Anxiety levels usually rocket at this point as many people realise they can’t cop out by claiming the neutral position of agnosticism, and therefore feel they are being forced to say... “I do not believe God exists”.

But, what they fail to understand is they are incorrectly equating this statement with, “I believe God does not exist.”

I’ll say that again in case you missed it:

“I do not believe God exists,” is NOT the same as saying, “I believe God does not exist.”

To demonstrate, let’s look at the claims about God.

The question asked was A) “Do you believe God exists?”

Your answer can either be

1. Yes…I believe God exists

OR

2. No…I do not believe God exists

But, we could also have asked B) “Do you believe God does not exist?”

Your answer can either be

1. Yes…I believe God does not exist

OR

2. No…I do not believe God does not exist (Note: that’s a double negative)

This therefore means…

A Theist answering question A) would say, 1) Yes…I believe God exists

Therefore, on answering question B) they would say, 2) No…I do not believe God does not exist

So, an Atheist answering question A) would say 2) No…I do not believe God exists

However, on answering question B) they could say 1) Yes…I believe God does not exist (See the Red circle in the Venn diagram attached)

BUT, they could just as correctly answer 2) No…I do not believe God does not exist

In short, an Atheist can lack a belief in either proposition. Why? Because it’s the same situation as being an observer of a coin flip. As long as there’s a hand on top of the coin you are justified in not believing the coin is heads AND simultaneously, not believing the coin is tails.

The trick is to remember that we are talking about what you believe and not what you know.

So let’s review this by introducing a Venn diagram (attached to post).

The outer circle is all the people on the planet.

The Blue circle is all the Theists on the planet - anyone who believes there is a God or Gods.

Therefore the Yellow area & Red circle are all the Atheist - anyone who doesn’t believe there is a God or Gods.

The Red circle is those that believe there is no God or Gods - These people are Atheists they just add a claim (There is no God or Gods) to their disbelief in a God or Gods.

Let me know your comments and questions

The director of the International Health Foundation recently released this announcement:

“A new medical test that allows the early detection of a particular disease will prevent the deaths of people all over the world who would otherwise die from the disease. The test has been extremely effective in allowing doctors to diagnose the disease six months to a year before it would have been spotted by conventional means. As soon as we can institute this test as a routine procedure in hospitals around the world, the death rate from this disease will plummet."

a)       Write down the CONCLUSION of the above argument.

b)       What are the PREMISES of the above argument.

c)       What are the ASSUMPTIONS in the above argument.

d)      What are the fallacies in the above argument? (mention at least three)

e)      Suggest how the above arguments could have been strengthened or improved.

Really confused with part c and d.

Not sure if this is explained more by logic or psychology... Or both.

Example:

Person 1: I really like the color green Person 2: So what you're saying is, you don't like the color Blue.

Is there a fallacy that explains this annoying trait? Lol

I'm looking for some help finding critical thinking videos for my kids (4&8). They love to learn and are constantly using there "tablet time" to watch videos about there favorite video game, minecraft. Lately they have been watching what I call conspiracy theory videos about minecraft, its actually titled game theory. I would like to get them away from the coincidence equals proof and more towards the scientific thought process of trying to disprove your hypothesis.

Any suggestions are welcome.

http://davidjacobin.com/critical-thinking-era-of-covid/