|
|
|
|
|
by mannykannot
3507 days ago
|
|
Ha! - if you are suggesting that I mined your post for something to refute, I would argue that you presented that point as being central to your reply to the second quote that you picked from Qznc's post (and I also think it was central to that reply, so I don't think I am taking it out of context.) I actually went so far as to do a little search into how others defined critical thinking, and they uniformly included being informed and fact-based. It seems unlikely to me that one can participate informedly in a debate without having really listened to the other participants. Given how prevalent and easily accessible that view of critical thinking is, I am curious as to what informed your apparent view that this is not part of critical thinking. |
|
I am doing no such thing. There was nothing in what I said to suggest that it was directed at you specifically. This would be a very bad time to construct a strawman.
> hey uniformly included being informed and fact-based
"Informed and fact-based" is not the same as listening to one's opponent. I wasn't talking about what tools can be used to rebut another's argument; I was - pretty clearly - talking about listening to it before the rebuttal starts. You've pretty much just proven my point.