- Joined
- Jul 4, 2009
- Messages
- 763
All of Fort's research and philosophy are based on logical critical thinking.
Constructing mundane rationalisations for otherwise paranormal/uncommon phenomena is a sure way to endear oneself to authorities who wish to reinforce their illusion of control. He saw the scientists of his day as the epitome of this manoeuvre.
But nothing changes: In the past few years we have seen in the UK and else-where, the collapse of many of our permanent institutions, including banking, the Health Service, government - we were surprised to find that many of our MP's were ripping off the taxpayer. Organised religion has become irrelevant and yes, science has turned a blind eye, failed miserably to address the clean energy production problem and descended into the political quag of global warming that blames us all for doing that for which we have no other option.
When the battery goes flat in the torch of those who are paid to light our way, it's time to start thinking about a reappraisal.
The reason we find this so difficult is that all of our education and the media we read and watch is based upon the ideas of our failed leaders in the fields mentioned above. We tend only to be critical within the parameters they set for us in the failed establishment education paradigm.
I find support for all of this in the fact that true critical thinking and formal logic are not taught in education to any noticeable extent and I would suggest that the reason for this is that education does not - contrary to its claims - want us to think for ourselves because that would encourage awkward questioning. (See below.)
This guy, an educator, thinks that logic is only useful in math:
"The bottom line is that logic alone can tell us nothing new about the real world", he says.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/logic.htm
Compare:
Forts dissatisfaction was against the selective and feeble renditions of the authority figures of his day."Almost all people are hypnotics. The proper authority saw to it that the proper belief should be induced, and the people believed properly." Fort.
Constructing mundane rationalisations for otherwise paranormal/uncommon phenomena is a sure way to endear oneself to authorities who wish to reinforce their illusion of control. He saw the scientists of his day as the epitome of this manoeuvre.
But nothing changes: In the past few years we have seen in the UK and else-where, the collapse of many of our permanent institutions, including banking, the Health Service, government - we were surprised to find that many of our MP's were ripping off the taxpayer. Organised religion has become irrelevant and yes, science has turned a blind eye, failed miserably to address the clean energy production problem and descended into the political quag of global warming that blames us all for doing that for which we have no other option.
When the battery goes flat in the torch of those who are paid to light our way, it's time to start thinking about a reappraisal.
The reason we find this so difficult is that all of our education and the media we read and watch is based upon the ideas of our failed leaders in the fields mentioned above. We tend only to be critical within the parameters they set for us in the failed establishment education paradigm.
I find support for all of this in the fact that true critical thinking and formal logic are not taught in education to any noticeable extent and I would suggest that the reason for this is that education does not - contrary to its claims - want us to think for ourselves because that would encourage awkward questioning. (See below.)
This guy, an educator, thinks that logic is only useful in math:
"The bottom line is that logic alone can tell us nothing new about the real world", he says.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/logic.htm
Compare:
And then:...Aristotle is credited with the earliest study of formal logic, and his conception of it was the dominant form of Western logic until 19th century advances in mathematical logic. Kant stated in the Critique of Pure Reason that Aristotle's theory of logic completely accounted for the core of deductive inference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
It is logically impossible to achieve true critical thinking within existing institutional philosophical frameworks because of the influence of academic/political/religious/scientific agendas. These constraints do not necessarily have to be abandoned in order to achieve critical thinking but just compartmentalised; in other words the abandonment of a fixed mindset.Critical thinking generally refers to higher order thinking that questions assumptions. The concept is somewhat contested within the field of education due to the multiple philosophical frames in which it is contextualized....(?)
...Greek Socratic tradition that dates back over 2,500 years in which probing questions were used to determine whether claims to knowledge based on authority could be rationally justified with clarity and logical consistency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
In the UK school system, Critical Thinking is offered as a subject which 16- to 18-year-olds can take as an A-Level...
...However, due to its comparative lack of subject content, many universities do not accept it as a main A-level for admissions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_t ... _schooling