Hello everyone and welcome to week three.
Last week we learned about Integration and how it applies to interdisciplinary. We also watched a video that showed us how interdisciplinary approaches can solve problems.
This week we will discuss Critical thinking.
Dictionary.com defines critical thinking as a disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence.
My own personal definition is a way of thinking that is holistic minded and that utilizes both sides of your brain to solve problems and find possible solutions that might be considered unorthodox.
Answer the following questions in 150 – 200 words and give as many examples as you like.
1) How does your critical thinking relate to being interdisciplinary?
For the next two questions you must complete the exercise found by clicking this link
After completing the exercise please Answer the following questions in 150 – 200 words and give as many examples as you like.
2) Comment on how the Virtual Philosopher scored your response. From the comments you received about your responses, what insight have you gained about your own critical thinking and reasoning?
3) How does the outline of your critical thinking disposition match with the application of it in doing the Virtual Philosopher?
Remember to reply as a comment and not as a new post! Also respond to at least two other student’s comments.
He scored my responses as that I was favoring "Equality". That I thought that the men shared everything equally. My own thinking in my day to day living is that of this short test. I feel that I am fair and reasonable. Most things that require a decision should be though of how its fair and how it is equal before a decision is made. I can agree that at times my decisions can go either way but most of the time its what is fair and share equally.
ReplyDeleteEli,
DeleteThat sounds good. However let me challenge you a bit. Who defines fair and equal? How do you know that your views are the correct views and not someone else’s? From a critical thinking point of view, have you considered the possibility of an alternative view of fairness and equality from the perspective of the other end? I don’t mean to say that you don’t have it right, I’m simply trying to identify possible blind spots that could help elevate the way we all think.
Pedro:
DeleteIt is great that you strive to be fair and equal. I have noticed in today's world though what you or I may think is fair and equal someone else doesn't see it that way.
I believe that as long as you are kind to others, treat them as you would want to be treated, you will probably be doing the right think.
Rosalind King-Miller
Pedro, I love your challenge of who defines "fair and equal". I have the same problem with those two words, because being fair is defined differently for every person. Same obviously goes for equal. I'm especially weary when politicians use such words. It's a blind spot most people have and don't think about.
Delete1. How critical thinking relates to being interdisciplinary to me involves insights derived from philosophy, sociology, scientific knowledge, environmental philosophy and ethics. There is a wide range of values and how they relate to each other. It is to be objective and there is no place for personal opinion or preferences.
ReplyDelete2. I answered each question differently according to the site. I took what I thought was a just answer. The site didn't like it and wanted me to go back and re-answer. The second time I favored equality over need and merit. I felt the second time I answered it was uncomfortable and I merely was answering for the 'site' and not what I truly wanted to pick.
3. Well apparently my answering that I needed to be objective and keep personal preference as stated in my definition did not work while I answered the questions on the site. It appears that I must not have been able to separate my own personal preferences. In answering this third question, it became obvious what I need to work on and what critical truly means. Thanks!
I agree with your idea of being able to think critically includes ethics, which is determined be each individual and lays many fundamental characteristics in their decision making. Critical thinking is also 100% objective, like you said.
DeleteThe website worked fine for me, maybe the issue you encountered had to do with the browser you were using. I believe that you should not have to compromise who you are, to answer any questions. But it is important to transcend ourselves when we want to think critically. Think bigger picture. Does an ant understand the vastness of the world from its perspective? Likewise, we need to separate ourselves from our own traditions and look at our world, or any situation, from an eagles perspective to get a holistic view of the situation and therefore think critically.
DeleteThe site also told me I was answering inconsistently and that I should retake it. I didn't retake it because I knew I would answer the questions exactly the same. I believe to think critically, each situation needs to be analyzed independently.
DeleteIt's hard not to naturally try to apply personal experiences and biases into critical thinking. It can actually be defined in psychology as a type of personality of people who naturally will apply personal perspectives in order to solve problems. You are not alone. I think that critical thinking whether we want to admit it or not involves both personal subjectivity and objectivity.
DeletePedro:
ReplyDeleteWhen you talk about an alternative set of fairness - where are you pulling those ideas from? How do you think you go about looking at fairness from different perspectives?
Thanks.
Rosalind King-Miller
My position is simple. We often use fair to state unfairness, which comes from a position of power, were someone has knowledge about a situation and decides what is fair upon someone else or two others completely unrelated.
DeleteSo, maybe a better way for me to have stated that would have been to say is ok to ensure that we are always just, (from our experience, do what is good to others.)
Fairness will mean that I first seek to understand and consider their input before I eradicate judgment. This is not common practice and can only be accomplished by thinking critically.
I think we confuse the word “fair” and “justice” to often and we transpose them. The word “fair” is not a behavioral trait, however the word “just” is a behavioral trait. Most often we want Justice, which we also transpose for payback, and revenge, yet we ask for fairness, and then when we get fairness we are dissatisfied because it wasn’t just.
This is only my opinion, I could be wrong. What do you think?
When using the word "fair", i use it in the context of what is equal. I'm in management and have to also think first before I decide on a judgement that's "fair" for both parties involved.
Deleteperfect example. do you also realize that your position comes from having the power to chose the fait of someone else? just food for thought.
Delete1) How does your critical thinking relate to being interdisciplinary?
ReplyDeleteBeing able to think critically can help one in any discipline, but in this case being able to solve problems implementing ideas from multiple disciplines ensures a greater outcome.
2) Comment on how the Virtual Philosopher scored your response. From the comments you received about your responses, what insight have you gained about your own critical thinking and reasoning?
Well, I’m a pretty hardcore libertarian, so I don’t agree with everything the Virtual Philosopher said. I firmly believe in incentives, which creates growth and prosperity. I understand his idea of distributive justice, but I also don’t believe in plunder or taking by force things from others so that those who are “less fortunate” can reap the benefits of their hard work.
As technology improves, certain things become cheaper. Take the cell phone: as the new iPhone comes out the first generation one becomes cheaper along with all other cell phones from that time period. The first calculator was once thousands of dollars, but now they hand them out for little cost at conventions or sell them for less then $5 (depending on the functions of the calculator, of course).
I know that from reading about the way laws and concepts of economic effect the world of technology and sociology. All of these are very different disciplines, but in this case the author combines these ideas alongside philosophy to come to his conclusion about distributive justice.
3) How does the outline of your critical thinking disposition match with the application of it in doing the Virtual Philosopher?
In the video of the Virtual Philosopher we see him present the idea of Distributive Justice, and then explain it’s many implications upon society as a whole. He gives several examples to make his ideas seem more concrete, and then wraps it up by simply restating what he had briefly said in the beginning.
In my response/rebuttal, I tried to do the same thing. I noted that I didn’t agree with his idea of Distributive Justice, and the reasons for it. I also included some examples of why his idea that only the wealthy will prosper since it’s a fact that as technology improves, so do the prices- it just takes time.
How do the less fortune benefit from old antiquated technologies when they become cheaper?
DeleteLet me give you an example. A few years back computers cost was around a thousand for an entry-level computer. I guess that by your definition the less fortunate could not buy them. At the time the high prices also came with longevity, those PC’s that cost a thousand also lasted 6 to 8 years. Today computers are “cheap” they cost a lot less but last a maximum of 2 to three years. Just using this example I would think that it was less expensive and more cost effective to save your money to buy the better long lasting computer.
I guess my point is that the “less fortunate” have a way to provide for themselves as well as or better than those with a lot. At least they learn to value it more. We should be careful not to confuse critical thinking with justification.
I too firmly believe in incentives. And not to plunder which is the notion to take from the rich to give to the poor. I guess being a libertarian will have you disagree a lot with the Virtual Philosopher.
DeleteI like the fact that you said a greater outcome can be achieved by taking knowledge and insight from each discipline. This is very important as an Interdisciplinary student. Although an answer can be achieved by one discipline, we need to consider each.
DeletePeople choose to buy new computers, because technology becomes better, faster, more efficient, and cheaper over the years. With that quality also improves. The first computer my parents had was $10,000 in the 70s, which was enormous, slow and didn't have certain software technology like Microsoft Word or Power Point.
DeleteIf you really mean what you say then I suppose you still have a pager or have decided not to have a cell phone at all, right? Probably not. I wouldn't trade my iPhone for my old flip phone that didn't have internet, because the newer technology I decided to invest in is, in fact, better quality. Hell, it's a hand held computer!
The poverty line in the States today includes those who make $22,000 and under for a residence of four. Almost 100% of those people each have a cell phone, a color TV, mircowave, and air conditioning in their home. Would that have been the case 20 years ago when only people like Bill Gates could afford cell phones, which were huge and certainly not as efficient? Probably not.
Technology is allowing more people to buy things they would have never been able to afford just a decade ago. It is your prerogative if you have chosen to buy a new computer after two years because it's offers more, better features.
Here's a video I think you might like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk
My definition of critical thinking would be to analyze each situation thoroughly, keeping in mind the different aspects that may come in to play. In relation to being Interdisciplinary, critical thinking is what students of this discipline are able to use as a tool to combine different teachings to come to a well thought out conclusion.
ReplyDeleteVirtual Philosopher rated my responses as being inconsistent and suggested that I should take the quiz again, keeping the common goal in mind. If I were to have taken the quiz again, my answers would be exactly the same because of my definition of critical thinking. In my opinion, to think critically one must analyze each situation independently, not see them as all the same.
For example:
A lifeboat has room for only one more passenger, a pregnant woman or a 50 year old male drug dealer. Which would you choose to let aboard? Should they be treated equally?
Peter,
DeleteThat’s exactly how I felt the first time I took it. I think you are correct. There is always more choices than just A and B. The virtual philosopher is more of a guideline than anything and I think is meant to test your Emotional Quotient, not necessarily interdisciplinary.
That said, life will through you curve balls, we might actually bee faced with decisions like this. And if and when we do, what would you choose. It might be a good exercise to retake it in the mindset of training and pick the best solution presented.
The Virtual Philosopher helped me to have a greater appreciation for politics. There are sometimes so many factors that go into making such big choices that don't just have an A and B answer.
Delete1. My critical thinking relates to being interdisciplinary by using my skills to try to be a equal and fair as I can be. I want to be as prepared as I can be for my future career as I can be.
ReplyDelete2. I was scored for having a equality response, which doesn’t surprise me at all. I feel like it has to do with my upbringing I want everyone to be treated equally. I feel like if everyone is neutral or treated fairly then a persons true character can shine through not worldly advantages such as money or power.
3. It was pretty equal. I understand that being equal or searching for equality is a difficult concept but I think that my next default would be merit, because it involves a persona character which I think can not only help to improve a persons individual quality of life but also help in the larger scheme of things.