We are all flooded with information on a daily basis, from magazines and books, to the television, and especially the internet. Critical thinking is key, not only in terms of an IDS major, but in terms of everyday life. Consider when any one of us have done a research paper- one of the major stipulations is limiting internet sources and maximizing use of academic articles and books. We've all see websites with extremely questionable information, it's a source where almost anything can be posted regardless of its inherent truth. Furthermore, even within academic resources, there is room for bias or simply a limited perspective. We have to utilize critical thinking to decipher what knowledge to take with a grain of salt. There's too much information available to simply take it at face value, in addition to that, there is also the nature of the media. Advertising and economic stakes play a huge role in what information is freely dispersed versus more critical information that is often subdued.
Furthermore, critical thinking thinking relates to our being interdisciplinary because we are forced to combine and integrate knowledge from different fields. Part of being critical is looking at the minute details, seeing the underlying relationships between subjects like art history and relating it to not only the cultural but the political aspects of a society in a given time period. As future holders of an IDS degree, we also need to be able to explain to other people the relations of our academic areas and how, at a critical thinking level, they relate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My critical thinking relates to being interdisciplinary in the sense that my decisions and thought process are a little scattered. My critical thinking represents an area of improvement necessary for the relation of being interdisicplinary. Because my thoughts are a bit scattered, they need to be more cohesive. This represents the cohesiveness needed for our major.
ReplyDeleteThe virtual Philosopher scored my response as being mostly inconsistent. I believe that is, because I always believed there are exceptions to everything. Through this, inconsistency is evident. My disposition matches very well with the Virtual Philosopher. I never really realized what I thought were "exceptions" could be considered to be such inconsistencies.
I was declared “consistent” on A Friend’s Dilemma. The wording of the given response was definitely different from what I would actually say. Being “odd” is something that I regard as a complement, and being “normal” is something I regard as anywhere between undesirable and contemptible. I would explain it in such a way that would not only be sensitive to that person’s feelings, but would steer that person away from conforming to being “normal” in order to keep it from happening again.
ReplyDeleteI was also declared “consistent” on The Lifeboat Problem. There were some details that were not considered, for the sake of the simplicity of the quiz format. Would it be possible to negotiate for the eleventh person? How many people can swim if the boat sinks before help arrives? I tried to consider these questions and more before answering.
However, I was declared “inconsistent” on The Liver Problem. Again, for the sake of the simplicity of the quiz format, there are some things that were not able to be considered in the formulation of an answer to the problem. In fact, believing that all people should be treated equally would automatically render any answer to The Liver Problem as “inconsistent”. A Kantian categorical imperative is easily dismissed by our society without looking into any possible merit. It is possible to argue for a sort of deontological ideal, from which one must deviate only due to the generally unethical nature of society. One can strive toward such an ideal-- but without having that ideal in common with others, being honest, or considering everyone equally, can have such negative consequences that it seems that a more teleological, utilitarian approach must be employed. This is why I actually lean more towards Bentham and Mill in practice.
The Virtual Philosopher also oversimplified the statement when asking if everyone should be treated equally. Does that mean with all other things being equal as well? Even Kant would have made that distinction! Clearly that was not the case with the child, since time was more of a factor for him than for anyone else.
Those comments aside, I think that the Virtual Philosopher is a very useful tool in order to get people to start thinking about consistency in their thinking. I think that philosophy classes should be a part of every curriculum, partly in order to compensate for a lack of critical thinking skills. Critical thinking is something that I think should be inculcated in middle school and high school, in order to get more adults in our society that are “formal operational” in their cognitive development, per Jean Piaget’s research. Interdisciplinarity is not possible without critical thinking. One cannot simply rehash material using an interdisciplinary approach, since this approach requires that subject matter be put together and analyzed in a creative manner, which calls for much theoretical thinking and problem solving.
Eduardo Rodríguez
Eduardo,
ReplyDeleteYou end by saying that you think that the Virtual Philosopher is good for getting people to think consistently. When you talk about IDS I feel like its the exact opposite. Were in this program because of the inconsistencies. How do you feel about that?
Eduardo and Peter, I agree with you both. The virtual philosopher deffinitely pushes consistant thinking, which is often a good thing, but as IDS majors we are learning to think with a more open mind and consider all aspects of a situation. I think that just goes to show that it is good to have a foundation for opinion, or fundamental outlook, but it is also necessary to be able to consider each case in its own light.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like the inconsistencies only exist because of differences in perspectives. These are therefore subjective differences. I think that an IDS student should seek an epistemic bridge across disciplines, but without dismissing what insight exists in each of those perspectives.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, there are limits to logic (and to human knowledge), as expounded in several philosophies, and probably best illustrated in Zen kōans. There is some truth to be found in the existence of paradoxes; even Niels Bohr extrapolated his principle of quantum complementarity to philosophy. This is not a cop-out-- it’s an affirmation that perhaps it’s better to make more certain that we have the right questions than the right answers. This can help prevent us from tenaciously adhering to paradigms, which are always in need of revision. It also places an importance on intuition, which is something that cannot be analytically quantified, but can be a useful tool in interdisciplinarity.
My critical thinking that relates to interdisciplinary decisions is somewhat skewed. In the virtual philosopher our ethics are tested only on a couple of different areas.
ReplyDeleteI was declared connsistent on both A Friend's Dilemma and on The Lifeboat Problem. I was declared inconsistent with The Liver Problem. This was a good exercise for people to think more critically and put themselves in different situations to find a solution to the problem and pick the best avenue of approach to do so. Everyone is going to have a different view point on each one of these subjects and that is what makes interdisciplinary so unique.
Codie Finch
I agree with samantha, it is good to have a foundation for opinion. For me, I am consistent when it comes to making most decisions, but in some cases I weigh the significance of a situation and based on that I will make what I feel is an ethically moral decision.
ReplyDeleteJen, I agree with you in that there are exceptions to certain situations. Every person is different in their thought process and even though you may be inconsistent, it doesn't necessarily mean your wrong. I believe that a person needs to weigh the pros and cons on their crital thinking dispositon and make an appropriate ethical decision based on their reasoning.
ReplyDeleteCodie Finch
Codie, i think your so right in saying that being inconsistant doesnt necessarily mean there is fault in the thought process. I think it is always important to have underlying values that rule your moral code but to be able to approach situations with an open mind and reason both sides of an argument.
ReplyDeleteCodie and Samantha,
ReplyDeleteI'm really glad to hear you both can see my point of view. Just because you see things a little differently, or may handle things in a different fashion, absolutely does not mean it's wrong. It's what makes us individual, and it is evidence in our thought process.
Critical thinking is an essential skill to being an interdisciplinary studies major. True critical thinking is considering all aspects of a situation thoroughly and the outcomes of each possible course of action. The soul of interdisciplinary studies is the understanding of many different areas of study, the critical analysis of each and the subsequent integration of each area into one central focus. Critical thinking in interdisciplinary studies is the ability to openly consider many sides to an argument or a situation and make educated decisions thereafter.
ReplyDeleteThe virtual philosopher scored my response as mostly consistent with some anomalies. This made me realize that I make most of my decisions with consideration for a moral code that I have ingrained inside of me. However, I do try to consider the other options and relate to opposing sides before making decisions.
eduardo,
ReplyDeleteI love what you said about being called normal being almost insulting. I think the weirdness or inconsistencies in people is what make them interesting. normal is not a desirable quality in my book either.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking about this earlier today, and I remembered Emerson’s famous quote that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines”. I think Emerson would agree with Codie’s idea that sometimes it might be OK to have some inconsistency...
ReplyDeleteSamantha, I think you’re right, you have to consider many sides of an argument to a degree that is not as common in a single discipline. That makes critical thinking indispensable in IDS. And yes, “normal” to me seems indicative of someone who is entirely too much a product of social conditioning. I believe, in fact, that such a person is less likely to have developed critical thinking skills.