For syv år siden i denne uge argumenterede David Foster Wallace for, at "at lære at tænke betyder virkelig at lære at udøve en vis kontrol over hvordan og hvad du tænker." Men i en tid med uophørlig sensationslyst, pseudovidenskab og et ubarmhjertigt kapløb om genveje, hurtige svar og sølvkugler, virker det stadig mere udfordrende at vide, hvad man skal tænke. Vi kommer med værktøjer som The Baloney Detection Kit og skaber vidunderlige animationer for at lære børn om kritisk tænkning, men kunsten at tænke kritisk er en vane, der kræver omhyggelig og konsekvent kultivering. I sit bemærkelsesværdige essay med titlen "The Burden of Skepticism", der oprindeligt blev udgivet i efteråret 1987-udgaven af Skeptical Inquirer, fangede Carl Sagan - altid den velformulerede og lidenskabelige forklarer - dualiteten og den osmotiske balance i kritisk tænkning smukt:
Carl Sagan: Om Balancering Mellem Skepsis Og åbenhed
- Available Languages
- English
- Amharic
- Arabic
- Basque
- Bengali
- Bulgarian
- Catalan
- Cherokee
- Chinese (PRC)
- Croatian
- Czech
- Danish
- Dutch
- Estonian
- Filipino
- Finnish
- French
- German
- Greek
- Gujarati
- Hebrew
- Hindi
- Hungarian
- Icelandic
- Indonesian
- Italian
- Japanese
- Kannada
- Korean
- Latvian
- Lithuanian
- Malay
- Malayalam
- Marathi
- Norwegian
- Polish
- Portuguese (Brazil)
- Romanian
- Russian
- Serbian
- Slovak
- Slovenian
- Spanish
- Swahili
- Swedish
- Tamil
- Telugu
- Thai
- Turkish
- Ukrainian
- Urdu
- Vietnamese
- Welsh
- More Languages (login required)
- Chinese (Taiwan)
- English (UK)
- Portuguese (Portugal)
"Det forekommer mig, at det, der kræves, er en udsøgt balance mellem to modstridende behov: den mest skeptiske granskning af alle hypoteser, der bliver serveret til os, og samtidig en stor åbenhed over for nye ideer. Det er klart, at de to tankemåder er i en vis spænding. Men hvis du kun er i stand til at udøve én af disse måder, uanset hvilken det er, er du i dybe problemer.
Hvis du kun er skeptisk, så slår ingen nye ideer igennem til dig. Man lærer aldrig noget nyt. Du bliver en skæv gammel person, der er overbevist om, at nonsens styrer verden. (Der er selvfølgelig mange data til støtte for dig.) Men nu og da, måske en gang i hundrede tilfælde, viser en ny idé sig at være på banen, gyldig og vidunderlig. Hvis du har for meget for vane at være skeptisk over for alting, kommer du til at savne eller ærgre dig over det, og uanset hvad vil du stå i vejen for forståelse og fremskridt.
På den anden side, hvis du er åben over for godtroenhed og ikke har et gram skeptisk sans i dig, så kan du ikke skelne de nyttige fra de værdiløse. Hvis alle ideer har samme gyldighed, så er du fortabt, for så, forekommer det mig, har ingen ideer overhovedet nogen gyldighed.
Nogle ideer er bedre end andre. Maskinerne til at skelne dem er et væsentligt værktøj i håndteringen af verden og især i håndteringen af fremtiden. Og det er netop blandingen af disse to tankemåder, der er central for videnskabens succes."
Her er en udsøgt tilføjelse til disse berømte definitioner af videnskab.
COMMUNITY REFLECTIONS
SHARE YOUR REFLECTION
3 PAST RESPONSES
when I said 'sick' I mean a bad feeling my friends hid in G+.
I can explain another story when I had two people who worked my store they were different clans but same community. So in msn I was chatting two of online one talked bad about the other one and I agreed then the other one talked and I greed yet two of them thought I belong to one's. So if you again look the first version of the story and the last one you can know it was meant immediate actions.
Anyway, it was great you suggested in today's dailygood though I would like friends of that community to ask and see their points. When I saw some people talking Hitler I could call myself Hitler. And some people would feel hurt. I recently learnt his history. It is like that.
Though that we talked, What I don't like is what people I socialized perceived about me. I am very sure it must made them sick but I didn't know but I sensed something was incorrect when one praised a divine. So I lacked sobriety and I didn't know that the buddy knew something about woman who spoke up. But I tell you I know it could hurt innocent people's but you have to follow the facts that I explained last week. That art was though of ten minutes on desktop and what it says except the money was meant immediate actions. Yes some sort of the story was circulated but those statements were not in me. It is very hard someone not an artist can think that.
So you need to understand the theory as wise and not come as a cranky. I really couldn't know where enmity came from when you send me frightening dailygood. If you could say that something was disgusting I could have solved and cleanness would have worked. You know, I am honesty.
This beautiful article by Carl Sagan gives us a new insight into the pattern of human thinking.
Yours Sincerely
Muralikrishna.P.