Not sure why critical thinking is in quotes - critical thinking is a real thing. It's connecting conclusions with premises that lead to those conclusions, so that if someone else started with those premises, they'd also arrive at the same conclusions. It's not a different opinion or perspective, and it's not pompous - it's by definition something that can be shared across all opinions and perspectives.
> if someone else started with those premises, they'd also arrive at the same conclusions
I like your definition of critical thinking, it also allows me to highlight why I agree with sideband. In the bay area there tends to be less acceptance for differing premises.
I am a conservative Christian and certain premises I bring to the conversation automatically make me "hateful" or "bigoted". While I have seen this most prominently in the religious/moral realm I see it in politics as well.
In the bay area there is a right set of premises and a wrong set. If you start with the wrong set it is acceptable to wholly reject the conclusions without engaging critically with why the premises are wrong.
Yes, I'm far from a conservative Christian but I appreciate that while some premises are fact, other premises are simply "values" ("should/ought" statements) that can vary from person to person. People can reason accurately towards different conclusions from those values. People should be able to debate/disagree respectfully about differing values, assuming there's a basic level of humanity in those values.
Of course, people can reason incorrectly, too. I think there's a set of people that disagree with the values, but there's another set of people that object to conclusions that appear inconsistent when compared to the premises/values they purportedly rest upon.
> assuming there's a basic level of humanity in those values
I am not saying that you are this way, but I have had interactions that lead me to believe that reasoning allows some to wholly reject values I hold dear as "intolerant" without consideration, all in the name of tolerance. It comes across as comical in a tragic way.
On the flip side, I have had interactions where I was able have a disagreement and work backward to the differing values which we were able to agree to disagree on.
There are some deeply held values worldwide that are deeply offensive to others, that's for sure. For instance, there are those who earnestly believe that some class of humans is naturally inferior to others, or more genetically suited to servitude, etc.
The question of how or whether to limit some kinds of speech... I honestly think this is one of the great philosophical struggles of this generation. I am not sure why it has come up again when it seemed largely settled in the past. On the liberal side, you see people like Howard Dean and Elizabeth Warren disagree on it, which is a weird experience.
I think the question is, is there some set of underlying values where we can appropriately justify excluding someone entirely?
If the answer is yes, then how do you draw the line, and how do you protect against arbitrary lines being drawn against you in return? If the answer is no, then there's a whole host of other questions, like how do you deal with trolls?
I remember there was a great deal of consternation about Bill Nye debating Ken Ham, for instance. So many voices thought it was inappropriate. I thought the debate was a good thing.
On the other hand, I have a hard time accepting that trolling is protected speech. Heartfelt offensive speech I'm fine with, but trolling feels like a close cousin of fighting words, with intent only to destroy. On the other hand, I'm not sure how to tell the difference between trolling and heartfelt ignorance.
When you see someone look down on another's thoughts because they aren't "critical thinking enough, you'll find someone (or a culture) that assumes they have all the facts, and have considered all possibilities. That is hubris.
I find people who are truly open don't hold so desperately to facts, because they tend to change over time.
The fact that this entire comment could have been written by (for example) a flat-earther in response to criticism of their flat-earth beliefs makes it difficult to understand what kind of "facts" you are disappointed that people hold so dearly to, and what kind of facts you believe change over time. Depending on your response, I might agree entirely with you or disagree entirely. I understand that human knowledge is inherently fungible, and therefore sometimes what we previously understand as facts can change. However, that does not mean that I can decide that the Holocaust didn't happen, for example.
The truth is generally not up for interpretation by any person who feels it should be. Critical thinking is actually a thing, and the lack of it does actually result in believing false things. If someone told me that I'm not applying critical thinking, then my response would be to ask for specific details on what aspect of critical thinking I'm not applying and exactly where I'm getting things wrong. What I would not do is respond by criticizing the idea of critical thinking itself or tell them that they need to consider alternative facts.
Flat earthers are derided now, but that wasn't always so. You might have been in that camp 500 years ago and been just as adamant then as you are now.
500 years from now I have absolutely no doubt that there are things we absolutely believe to be truth to be proven wrong. (Maybe light isn't both a wave and a particle?)
Heck, maybe antibiotics do contribute to autism some how. I very much doubt it. But it would be hubris to assume I know absolutely everything there is to know about the human body, antibiotics, and all their interactions. So I disagree with anti-vaxxers, based on current evidence. But I won't dismiss them and consider them less intelligent.
Flat earthers are derided now, but that wasn't always so. You might have been in that camp 500 years ago and been just as adamant then as you are now.
We knew this 500 years ago too, but even if we didn't it would not have been rational to pretend to know the shape of our entire world without having evidence to back it up. All we would know is that it appears to be flat from our limited vantage point, and we were free to investigate further using various methods.
500 years from now I have absolutely no doubt that there are things we absolutely believe to be truth to be proven wrong. (Maybe light isn't both a wave and a particle?)
500 years from now it will still be the case that light can behave like a particle and a wave depending on how you're measuring it. We may have better, more accurate models to explain the behavior of light in 500 years.
So I disagree with anti-vaxxers, based on current evidence. But I won't dismiss them and consider them less intelligent.
The reason that many people believe vaccines cause autism is because of a fraudulent study by Andrew Wakefield. Believing in a claim based an a proven fraud is not rational regardless of what is discovered in the future.
To put it generally, if you believe in claim X for bad reasons, and it later is discovered that X is true, it does not mean that you were retroactively acting rational for previously believing in claim X for bad reasons.
> To put it generally, if you believe in claim X for bad reasons, and it later is discovered that X is true, it does not mean that you were retroactively acting rational for previously believing in claim X for bad reasons.
That is true. Isn't it equally as true that if one goes around telling people they are wrong, and then it turns out that one is wrong (based on new evidence), one has been wrong AND a hypocrite? The temptation is to say "ahh, but THIS TIME we have better science!". That's always been the case.
My point isn't about truth and error as much as hubris, humility, and respect.