Originally Posted by
Mobile 155
You cannot get off the hook that easy. You list critical thinking, you list education and you list that as a basis for informing others. The critical thinking process has been charted and so can be relied on to reach a conclusion that can be shared. Skip some of the process and what is being practiced is not the critical thinking taught by the same education system. Can you keep redefining the process to support your position even in the face of the conclusions of other educated people.
In your response to ILTB who are you saying has reached the conclusions that need to be shared because they are educated and who are the ones with less education that need this insightful information? I want to know what makes the information we receive from whoever you are saying has thought about these things based on their education creditable? A who is the one delivering this information? B who are you saying are less educated? Make it less nebulous. Are you saying your vision of how things should be are the correct ones and how others think are incorrect?
Apparently you can't see that the reasoning you exhibit in this post is anti-critical in itself. You want a system to deem something credible and valid instead of thinking things out for yourself based on the information you have until you reach a point of being satisfied with you own critical mind's ability to reach conviction. When you serve on a jury, whose authority tells you that the verdict you reach is correct? When your authority is supposed to be decisive, how do you rely on other authorities to decide?