Contrary to what Fisher would have us believe through his longwinded essay on different modes of critical thinking, there exists only one way to critically think and he does nothing more than spew synonyms and use semantics. All of the modes come down to one thing, actively using your mind to contemplate something. There are any ways to state it, as Fisher said, but critical thinking is not as complex as he would have us believe.
As for the examples, I believe that Maddow and Stewart, if in fact they come up with their own material and do not have a board of men working late into the night to pry comedy out of politics, are critical thinkers. Their work requires them to think outside of the box and come up with information that can be presented in a way to an audience that both informs and entertains. This can be hard to do when a significant fraction of their audience may not feel strongly tied in with the issues being discussed. It requires dissection of the issues and careful examination.
The epithets should not be considered critical thinking because of how they are used. If they are used as a mere means to achieve some goal or end, such as defaming the person that they are about, it is not critical thinking but rather just insulting. It does not take thought or skill to harp on something that someone is associated with. In fact it is commonsensical to insult the opposition to garner support for one’s own side. This is only taking things at face value. True critical thinking would require questioning of both sides of the issue and weighing pros and cons of both.
No comments:
Post a Comment