How to think, not what to think | Jesse Richardson | TEDxBrisbane
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2024
- This talk was given at a local TEDx event, produced independently of the TED Conferences. Jesse is the founder of www.schoolofth... an online fully immersive learning environment that will be free for students, teachers and universities all over the world. He believes the key to engaging future generations is to teach them how, and not what, to think.
Jesse Richardson is a creative director with over 15 years industry experience, and around 20 years experience arguing with people on the internet. He’s responsible for three major international viral campaigns, two and a bit kids, and an ungrateful, overweight cat.
About TEDx, x = independently organized event In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
conclusion:
think critically and creatively
1.think creativity:making new connection
how to innovate to solve problem
2.never trust your brain
question things vigorously
Fa Fa ••••••
Did this guy mention that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence? ••••
"And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth."
-Anthony Collins, "A Discourse of Free Thinking", (1713), taken from the first page of "Thinking to Some Purpose", by L. Susan Stebbing, (1939) ••••••••••
Absolutely 💯
I love these type of comments.
@@williamspringer9447 What do you mean by *_solid_* evidence? To me, how solid the evidence is depends largely on the source of the evidence. I trust raw data measurements I make over measurements I am given. If I can't take the measurements directly, I trust data and evidence that are from experts in the associated field more than knowledgeable people who are experts in a different domain. Finally, if a random third party provides evidence, I am more likely to trust the evidence if it is provided with a direct source from a subject matter expert (that I can review myself) rather than an unlisted source or pointing to a source that itself either doesn't list a source or indirectly links to the source. If someone is unwilling to provide direct sources, it makes me wonder how accurate their evidence is (especially if they challenge me to do the research instead of providing the sources to the evidence they claim supports their position).
How solid the evidence is also depends on how well the evidence presented matches the sourced evidence. It doesn't matter what someone quotes if the quote is taken out of context, especially if (like indicated above) they do not include the source of the quote.
But those are just some of the factors I use to determine the quality of evidence presented, what do you use?
I've been teaching for 15 years and this guy is spot on. You are doing good work. Thank you.
Do you have any suggested books resources etc?
@@PrivatePrivate-do2on Depends what you're going to use it for, but I love Think Like a Freak for a good and accessible way into this type of thinking and I am a fan of the podcasts You Are Not So Smart and Hidden Brain.
@@Prometheusjr14 thanks 🥰
"Never trust a brain, especially our own" Nailed it!
just trust evidence not some brain
@@UnlimitlesslyFunnyDude Even 'evidence' is subject to Confirmation Bias. 2 people with different believes can look at the same data and see 2 different outcomes.
@@chrisklugh you have point out right ...
we need to have scientific evidence so no one can prove it wrong.
even scientists usually victum to comfirmation bias.
So,
->we need to ask some question to come out from comfirmation bias :
-Which parts did I automatically agree with?
-Which parts did I ignore or skim over without realizing?
-How did I react to the points which I agreed or disagreed with?
-Did this post confirm any ideas I already had? Why?
-What if I thought the opposite of those ideas?
@@UnlimitlesslyFunnyDude Exactly. The hard part is is going though and questioning everything all the time. Time consuming and energy intensive. Its why we have a need to trust 'experts'. But the sad part is these 'experts' seem to skip this step too. And if the 'experts' can get away with it, and ultimately they will think or go along with whatever narrative that benefits them most. Usually that could come in the form of some financial incentive, that means 'experts' can be bought. There is no accountability anywhere. Everything is Politics. And Money.
So knowing 'Textbook Systems' that could help us, but not implement them, kinda puts the whole world in one messy place. Can't trust anything, except you can trust everything to be a lie. Lovely world we live on when everything is a lie.
To think about that as a problem and decide to solve it is thinking critically.
I have always felt so trapped in my mind and thought that there was something blocking my "entire brain" as i put it and now i figured it out...i was never taught critical thinking. I need to unlock this....
Erica ••••
This guy hid key elements/principles of logical reasoning from you .. The science of logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
I homeschooled my kids and I taught them first to think, then to do.
Both of them are really something😂
And now, listening to the tapes of our conversation are so cute- not because they are my kids, but because kids are so interesting thinkers.
Surprisingly, I gave them the same toys and they played in completely different ways and put the attention on complete different areas❤
Good creativity is born from good thinking. Ask any farmer. I need to eat, my tractor's broke, how do I fix it with a hammer? Start your kids playing Legos and Lincoln logs, teach them to play chess. Have them get busy building things: car engines, go-karts, lawn mowers, tree houses, robots...let them talk with a detective and an inventor. Help them start a small business. Teach them to diagram and mind map. Mate hard projects to these logical principles and you'll have a good thinker.
Steve McC Make sure they're having fun?
ɖaռҡstʊʄʄ 101 Better than letting them gaze at their screens most of the time and lay on the side of their bed with a tub of Ben and Jerry’s binging the latest Netflix show for the next 9 hours.
I will direct everyone to 4:38
Lol checkmated
@@lilboom7565 lol thats most parents idea of parental supervision, watching the kids netflix to ensure it all above board xD
Steve McC ••••
Why not teach your children the science of Logic? Answer: The science of logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century, so nobody knows anything about it .The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
"How do you know what you know?" is a core question. This makes a lot of people really angry.
"Oh, actually I don't know anything at all.
I am just experiencing 'It'." -
Apply it to the globular earth concept
I think we are taught how to think logically somewhat. when you study math you see the logic in it. when you study literature you start learning how to comment logically on it.
Also because of the environment which we were brought up
You're implying that you were taught to care about these things as well. thats the big hurdle for many people I think.
Teach thinking as a course. I like this!
nattyphysicist•••••
This guy didn't even mention the first law of the science of Logic. Why ? Read The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto , and you'll know why he taught virtually nothing useful about the science of Logic.
Thank you ! I've always wondered why It's hard for me to have an opinion. I'm learning more and more about critical thinking now.
Orista Primadewa ••••
The science of logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century, precisely in order to prevent us from forming logical opinions . The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
How did you overcome it? I am riding in the same boat. Always hard to have an opinion
i wish this was the main focus in education system.
In our modern disposal for competition we've created a biased, expensive, and fruitless academic system where only grades matter. The administration almost disavows the principles of learning and intellectual/scholarly expansion.
When you read the title its so very meaningful and you can imagine the deepest lesson you might learn, the speaker captured every audience wants to hear, but i've already heard this topic from various philosophies around the world talkers should create authentic message and deliverance to wonder much more the viewers but thanks anyway for this its really helpful or my current situation.
canner samson ••••
What this guy didn't say is much more important than what he did . And he definitely mislead his audience regarding government sponsored criminal conspiracies and our State controlled public schools.
Thank You, Jesse Richardson for not only talking about a great idea but for having taken the time to begin to put this idea into action. (I'll check out the site after done here). I have long thought about this "Problem in the manner we teach Our children" ... a problem because the manner in which (most children) are taught not only begins to suppress their own natural desire to learn ... but adds in the development of bias (saying ... this is important to learn while this is not ... without us ever given evidence of any truth in that ... and only much later do we (or at least some of us) realize that much of what we fought so hard to learn truly was a waist of time and effort. But we need to be careful even when teaching "How to think" because we can still be prone to favor our own focus ... much diverse manners of thinking need to be available for our children to compare. Love & Peace to All
This is a great TED I think. This is helpful and inspirational.
'How to think, not what to think'. Well, one radio presenter used it numerous times including one in 2011, the year of the UK riots whether parents should discipline children.
I don't live in the UK, I didn't do such riots, and even if people make excuses with whatever book or vague quote one is still responsible as an individual for what they do. Your point is?
Finally! We are talking about this :)
peggy nigro••••
This guy very carefully taught us next to nothing about how to reason logically . You're not going to get the truth on this subject from t Ed talk , I know that for sure.
Yeah well I was a philosophy major (undergraduate) and I became so good at the "dialectic" that I could never make up my mind or take a stand on ANYTHING. Too good at seeing the other side and began to believe that I couldn't say or think "that," whatever "that" was at the particular time because I couldn't take a moral stand or just believe that something is, to me, in fact right or wrong regardless of the sound arguements that could be made for the other side.
Sophistry became the highest art form, and if you wee good enough at it you could argue against gravity, infanticide, you name it. It does open your mind, but if the toilets stopped up etc., give me a good plumber,or electrician, etc.
+Daniel Thaler haha, touche .
.
Daniel Thaler •••••
It sounds like your professors had some fun with you . Here s little info about the science of Logic that you may find useful: ••••
"Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831)
("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) ••••••••••
"Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. "
-"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" ••••••••••
"Infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ..."
-"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" ••••••••••
"For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic", (1935) ••••••••••
"We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is".
-Aristotle, "Posterior Analytics" ••••••••••
"We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts."
-Aristotle, "Rhetoric" ••••••••••
"Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one"
-Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) ••••••••••
"Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently."
-Howard Kahane, "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric", (1976), second edition ••••••••••
"The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded."
-John Stuart Mill, "A System of Logic", (1843) •••••••••
"And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth."
-Anthony Collins, "A Discourse of Free Thinking", (1713), taken from the first page of "Thinking to Some Purpose", by L. Susan Stebbing, (1939) ••••••••••
"Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831) ••••••••••
"The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains."
-Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) ••••••••••
"A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based upon the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind."
-L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••
He's truly reached nirvana, heaven, enlightenment, adept hood, mental clarity, results are results. This man will create rifts in reality that will alter humanities course of action, subjectively, for the better! "The ideas we hold are not us"
Well presented presentation and extremely brilliant idea that has the power to challenge the current education system. We need more ideas like this to help educate future generations. Well done.
My self-awareness actually did come from school, albeit a tad indirectly. I was assigned Fahrenheit 451 in a high school English class, and it was quite the eye-opening experience. I started to question literally everything about my life, particularly why I like the things I do or go about things the way I do. Maybe there was a crossed wire in my brain somewhere, but I ended up having to basically reassemble my entire worldview from the ground up. And a lot of the conclusions I came do didn't exactly line up with what I was "raised" to think.
hey, ive just started with that book!
Nice lecture on how to think, and creative and critical thinking. Thanks.
brilliant.when ideas give birth with so much energy that u can no longer keep it for urself.
Rose Varghese •••••
Why didn't he explain the first law of the science of Logic to the audience ?
This is really something that is thought provoking. As a trainee teacher I was struggling with a student and they had been unable to look into an article. I was trying to get him to do some critical thought, he just seemed to be repeating the article and when I asked him why did he agree he gave me a confused look. There is definitely a lack of encouraging critical thought from a young age.
ah, I also work as a teacher but in a senior role in a high-security education wing at a boarding school for violent youth offenders so I'll share but your experiences & mileage may vary. I suffered a similar case a couple years back, from this experience may I suggest perhaps he might be an undercover down-syndrome. (common symptoms include; rolling up tongue and folding it up into his mouth on the sly etc., being in disguise etc.)
he likely would look very normal, almost like a regular child.
may I recommend you try slapping him upside the head when he isn't looking (look for the tongue reflex ~ it should pop straight out like an extremely violent fold-up/pop-up tent.).
thanks OP. your post was very thought-provoking.
We are never taught how to use our mind, how to think, understanding thoughts and how they come go, how to process, understand, and think about our emotions. These are things you don't usually learn until half your life is over or longer. This is what needs to be taught when each person finds themselves high school. I'm over 30 and just recently realizing how out of control my thinking and emotions have always been, never learning or realizing how critical to life these things are, more so than memorizing history or knowing biology.
Why does this not have 5m+ views? Utterly deserving.
I graduated in 2016... I'm now pursuing my UA-cam career & I can honestly say I'm more than happy to finally enjoy life. High school was full of test up to their standards of what they think is "smart." I'm so happy this is being spoken about.
Cassandra Francois •••••
Are you trying to say that no one taught you the science of Logic in high school ? That's hard to believe
School at all levels seems to be primarily about regurgitating facts and factoids examd. Is there more to intelligence? ...how about spatial, critical, and other aspects?
I'm a teacher, so I know exactly why much of what is advocated for in this video does not exist in documented curricula. Quite frankly, teaching secular philosophy is going to be a no-go in almost every country on Earth, because it would be fatal to religion, and religion still has enough sway to prevent this from happening. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it shouldn't happen. But don't just blame the teachers or the school system or whatever. Teachers and school systems must bow to pressure from parents and politicians alike, and too many of both of those groups are much too invested in religion to allow something like this to happen in most classrooms around the world.
I do not believe that to teach children to think you need society to somehow become even more secular. I would say that I personally know quite a few teachers in, of all places, religious education that promote children thinking and have no problem with it at all. I also personally know quite a few public school teachers and have never heard this come up as a complaint at all. Most LOVE the fact that parents are involved, and wish more were. Yes there are some that cause problems, but they are very rare and to be completely honest they are almost always from the secular parent(s). I can only imagine teaching creative thinking is even easier in science, history and math classes. I would also argue that as our society had moved more secular (it is changing back), that our children's ability to think for themselves has deteriorated.
Honestly, it sounds like you really just want to push your personal agenda in the classroom and are focused in on religion. I say this because of part of your statement: "are much too invested in religion". I find it odd that you used that, but take solace in the fact that enough parents are involved with their childrens education to challenge teachers like you.
Lastly, it is statements like yours that I will use to help promote vouchers in our country (U.S.A.). What a wonderful place it would be if we the parents can choose where to send our children, based off of our own "thinking" and not because of where they live.
Critical thinking classes would lead to questions like 'why is this right or wrong', and problems like the Euthyphro Dilemma which demonstrates that religion is irrelevant to ethical problems. It would also lead to concepts like burden of proof, Occam's Razor, the non-falsifiability principle, the law of unnecessary postulation, etc, which would indicate that belief in the supernatural is irrational. Parents in theory are totally keen on having kids learn how to think, but in practice all it takes is one little Johnny going home and saying 'Why does everyone believe in God when there's absolutely no reason to?' and being able to lay out the philosophical case for why that is so and suddenly 'teaching kids how to think' doesn't seem like such a great idea to many people. And it's so easy to say that separation of church and state means not only that kids shouldn't be taught religion in schools, but that kids also should not be taught how and why religion is wrong in schools. Hell even teaching scientific consensus on evolution is getting challenged by religious zealots.
The world and a lot of believe systems are being tested to their limits as we speak and as the consequences of our believes, emotions, feelings and actions are slowly but surely removing the veils we might have a change to brake the spell. As Lao Tze said "change before you have too". That is individual change. It means physical action in who I am and what I teach my children. I have to be accountable for that point and cannot hide behind what I 'believe' or do not know! Education is flawed and that means it's my responsibility as a parent and teacher to act, investigate and show my children what they participate within. Yes it's fucked up but it's reality and they are the only ones that can start with changing themselves as their physical behavior by standing up and share what they see.
Mike Lammers
Nic Hautamaki Not to mention the null hypothesis!
2:20 why to think and question
4:00 art:design AS filter:Threading
5:00 its good not to trust yourself sometimes somewhere
This was absolutely brilliant. I can't wait to see how this project turns out. Ill spread this for you guys.
Wow! I have used the website for a while now, and it's awesome to hear from the guy behind it.
Really wonderful Jesse - Virtually everything I have been advocating for some years - The most important aspect of human life is thinking yet in educating our children this has never been taught - To me it’s a bit like giving a teenager all the road rules without any instruction on how to drive any motor vehicle - Philosophy, which the majority of people don’t realise is largely about Thinking particularly logical & critical thinking must become a standard subject in all school systems from I’d suggest from age 7 years this along with basic Psychology- All life on this planet can only benefit from the implementation of this predominantly ‘how to think rather than what to think’ program - It will inevitably accelerate human evolutionary progress because it has been established by way of neuroscience that how & what we think actually brings about physiological changes in the brain in the way of significant expansion of neural network connections
Awesome speech. Kinda reminded me of George Carlin and Hannah Arendt for some reason. Keep up the good work.
praneel tupe •••••
It would have been nice if he actually taught us something useful about how to reason logically .
@@williamspringer9447 Lmao...True. Carlin's stand up was focused more towards pointing out hypocrisy in regular social constructs people assume to be true without thinking for themselves imo. And like most stand up his target audience was the masses. Plenty has been written about critical analysis and logical reasoning by academics already but it's impact in actually making people question their ideology is not even close to that of Carlin's. Academia serves a purpose but it is the job of artists to make that material accessible to the masses.
I actually remember quite a few lessons that involved us learning how to learn, and teaching us how to think critically; how to evaluate a source, how to reason through problems in social studies, and so on.
I actually remember a lot of lessons centered on teaching us how to think. I just don't think everyone pays attention to those lessons when they're being taught.
Tarq's Picks •••••
The science of logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto.
What do you remember that you're taught about the science of Logic ?
@@williamspringer9447 are you really seeking a summary list of every lesson in logic, evidence and critical thinking that I learned in a classroom? Does that seem like a reasonable request to you?
Tarq's Picks ••••
I doubt very seriously that you were honestly taught to logically evaluate an argument in State controlled public school.
All of the great lies of the State , from the supposed Moon landing to the false flag terror of 9/11, are only possible because the masses have not been taught to logically evaluate an argument .
@@williamspringer9447doubt all you want. Be ridiculous all you want.
Not just how to think, but also what to think by giving them a comprehensive introduction to subjects & sub-subjects. And how about how to learn!
Here's the thing, this guy's the real deal and I love and respect his ideology. However, the issue comes that those in power will never let this happen. Education Admin (School Boards) are the most corrupt, evil, and nasty people ever. If we are to make any educational change, it has to start with changing the school admins. Teachers, however, are absolutely wonderful and fantastic.
They'll let it happen if it benefits them.
If videos as informative as this become mainstream then I'd expect those people in power to get very nervous.
duvy1234 ooo
He'd have to come up with his own school, like the Montessori schools. If his school reaped results then it would get the general public's attention. He would need investors who could be pursued through talks like this. Would be nice if a Bill Gates - or Bill Gates, himself - would get on board. People are home schooling all over - he could start with them. Today's public education system is only getting worse by the day. Their only concern now is propaganda, the exact opposite direction. This is why there's a home schooling boom, with legions of other distressed parents looking for answers in the same direction. There are also a lot of teachers who would like to get back to teaching, instead of babysitting.
some teachers are. some make anything they find interesting just as interesting to the students. magical people in love with the pursuit of knowledge with a sideline of humour and a large portion of charisma. BUT then for every 1 of these fellows, there are 100s of people who should NEVER have been teachers. boring, hate their own lives. straight out of education and back again with no other life experiences. people who project their own unhappy school lives past on their students and literally BULLY those that remind them of people who were '' mean to them' or 'remind them of the cool kids'', power-tripping jerks, people who are uneducated or just plain wrong in what they are teaching.
y'know the type ~ people who have given up long ago, and I've met so many and so many are unprecedently ill equipt to deal with a classroom of young minds going through the teenage maturing/ageing process.
its a formative time and having more of these good teachers would help us build a better future with more engaging and intelligent maximized young elite all thoroughly captivated by the pursuit of knowledge and instead of being burnt out and disheartened and disillusioned with the idea of education, the arts, sciences and histories of olde.
if all these great teachers could form a collective and become more widespread in their methods, perhaps the method of presentation and a charismatic figure working alongside the more plain and boring yet highly educated gentlemen, so learning can become entertainment, and interacting with subjects and concepts becomes fun and engaging.
perhaps one teacher per classroom becomes less the norm and less an absolute rule in order to create a more engaging and interactive learning experience. this would, in my opinion, open the doors to a golden generation of newage people who have been actually given the opportunity to be able to get the absolute most they could out of education and drastically increase their chances of maxxing out on their innate acedemic/intellectual limits
the bad teachers do the exact opposite and minimize if not extinguish the desire to learn entirely, for many people, for good.
duvy1234 •••••
No master in his right mind is going to teach hundreds of millions of armed slaves to reason properly.. That why this guy didn't even mention the first law of logical reasoning . And why the science of Logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
In year two i remember being introduced to estimation. The teacher asked us all to guess how many sheep were in a picture without actually counting. The only reason i remember this is because one kid thought i counted the sheep and was lying about it, which made me wonder why people make assumptions.
There may be hope for mankind. If this person is projected to the fore of our education systems across the entire world.
Totally agree, amazing! thank you.
Outofmycastle •••
This guy didn't even mention the first law of the science of Logic. He's part of the problem .
ñ
Thank you... learning about critical thinking
What year is 19 - dickety - two? I haven't been taught how to think
@@dr.jackdempsey8712 Or you could not understand a joke.
@@dr.jackdempsey8712 ok mama. It's a joke.
The ideas we hold are not us.
born in 1970 - was never taught how, only what. thankfully schooling has changed a lot in the past 2 decades+
My schooling tried exceptional hard to quench my curiosity - I failed badly at school (well I walked through it half asleep being top in class across the board but useless at parrot fashioning exams) but I have a tyrannosaurus like appetite for knowledge so at least the "schooling" didn't fully succeed.
Turk ••••
The science of logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto. Why do you suppose that is ?
Introspection and knowledge in its own absence releases the desire for truth
If its to grant answers to your convenience or for clarity is entirely, ultimately up to you and you alone.
Excellent video, relevant now (2017) more than ever. In today's information age/ misinformation age, it is critical to be wary and be able to recognize "alternative facts". Keeping ideas and beliefs separate from 'who we are' is a great take away from this video. In history, progress has always been outlined by challenging ideas and beliefs. It's real easy to sit back with folded arms, wearing a grimace, claiming personal offense to such challenges. If we are to move forward as a species, it is crucial for everyone to hone their critical thinking skills regardless of their level of education, career type, religion or any other discriminatory factor. It's to our own benefit really, communally and individually.
Akash Shetty •••
This guy didn't teach his audience the first thing about how to use the science of Logic to understand deception . Why is that ?
I like the video and fine it infatuated and I like how the school set up and saying the children need to be talked and how they can learn critical thinking.
We need to think about why to think before how and how to think about why
Naceer Amine ••••
We need to make sure that we have sufficient reliable evidence to support an argument before we believe it .This guy forgot to tell you that.
Too good and informative presentation sir
Creative thinking is necessary in every area...
Great video.
yooo great speech very good information i definitely think like this. learn new skills every day, dont stop.. we will be 80 one day and look back on our life. its never too late make your dreams come true its all possible.. it all starts will believing that you can do it. you will be proud. peace to all.
Compilation Wizard ••••
Masters don't teach slaves to reason properly . It s bad for business .
@@williamspringer9447 The aware ones like us are becoming the masters and need to guide the slaves to mastery.
This video needs more comments.
Gold. I just sent emails to primary schools. How much GB's is all the information we learn to our kids, on primary school? My mom is a teacher, she might help..
Greatest talk i saw so far
If the school system is to be changed such as he suggests, teachers would need to undergo a new training program, or be fired and hire new ones. This creates another problem altogether we also need to focus on.
so systematic laziness across the board is better right?
why get rid of old schools at all, keep them until every kid y7-11 leaves. start new schools with upgrades. when all kids have left the older version schools to repurpose them as upgraded schools or knockdown or w.e
lazy minded people like you shouldn't be allowed to vote imho, as you'd vote against this very overdue and extremely necessary "education reform" concept (imaginary bill/act) cos "it's impossible"...& "impractical". when it's both possible & also it wouldn't even change or affect the older schools as they are being phased out entirely. this is because logic dictates that the old&new schools would be run as entirely different entities throughout the entire transition, only merging and assimilating the old into the new once the final y7 at the start of the transition period leaves y11 at the end of the transition period. at which point the old school buildings would be upgraded and assimilated or be demolished!
you have like no bigger picture thinking at all.
in fact, you seemingly went the opposite way and saw the concept of ;
old school --> new school - to be taking place over the scope of all of 1 building.
1 building that must be replaced along with all the staff to make way for the new school, staff and training...
what you are suggesting is like the old school needs to be destroyed and not exist anymore (for some reason?) for it to make way for a new school. a new school in the exact same space. no thoughts at all as to how this all scales up at all. & most alarmingly of all; no transition period.
you are ignoring other locations they would/could build, logistically speaking for this to work both the older schools (being phased out) and the newer schools (to be phased in) both would absolutely require independence from each other, meaning not only could both exist independently of each other but practicality dictates they must do so in order for it to be possible to phase out the old and in with the new...
Very nice presentation and information
when saying we are all deluded, what is meant is: the degree to which we do not employ and properly execute critical thinking is the degree to which we are inevitably subject to delusional thoughts and beliefs and other thought failings.
Know thyself.
One step toward actually learning how to think, it's recognizing Language is a machine, not the real thing. We as a species can't avoid thinking: we have brains, brains think. This and many guys like him, should be completely honest and say "Learn how to think", where "to think" actually means "the way we believe it is to think in an Aristotelian-descent logical structure". But that it's just one form...
Very Excellent video Thank you sir
Eye opening. This type of critical thinking has been taught randomly throughout the school system in the US since the 1970's but it keeps getting side tracked due to bureaucratic programs that school funding is based upon. Until we incorporate these essential thinking skills into the school funding model they will continue to get marginalized. The question is - What will it take to make thinking mainstream?
Using ridicule to immediately dismiss a group of people who have been labeled as conspiracy theorists in order to encourage an automatic dismissal is the antithesis to critical thought.
A conspiracy theory may be true or false but to dismiss outright it because we give it the taboo label of conspiracy theory is asking people not to think. Way to be a hypocrite.
And let's not forget about all of the conspiracy theories that have turned out to be true.
*****
Good point!
Thanks Jeremy.."Conspiracy theory " means "Two or more people meeting in secret to plot and execute Crimes"....hey well we all know that never happens ...80% of all crimes are Conspiracy's
The conspiracy theories that turned out to be true are still the minority and the majority actually hates logical thinking. I cant see how dismissing ignorance would ask people not to think. Thats a contradiction in itself.
Jeremy Brooks the point is to get real evidence first is all, nobody said dismiss it.
Jeremy Brooks right!
Thanks! I have been using your poster on logical fallacy in my design thinking class.
Amazing Thank you
I am glad to come here in 12 th class .
Important session. Thank you sir
Interested to know the reasons of dislikes for this video.. is it because he has monetary interests.. I think he has excellent points. our educational system is terrible.
I think he has excellent points too; but I do think it's a shame he didn't quite have the speaking ability we generally associate with TED speakers, so perhaps he did not quite do them justice. But as grownups, I reckon we should be able to benefit from content regardless of whether the packaging is shiny and free of imperfections ... perhaps the 'dislikers' couldn't make this leap.
Gottenhimfella
MisterSir ••••
Well, he deceived his audience regarding State sponsored criminal conspiracies and why our schools do not teach the science of Logic.
And, he failed to teach his audience even the most basic and essential law of the science of Logic .
Logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence.
i have just printed the poster! thank you!
ŕbn cv
.
Samir Bernardes ••••
His lecture was next to worthless . He didn't even mention the first law of the science of Logic. I'm sure that his poster is must as deceptive .
@@williamspringer9447 Can you say more? Genuinely interested
sixteenstringjack •••
The science of logic was created by Aristotle during the fourth century B.C., as a systematic method of evaluating arguments in order to determine if they are properly reasoned. In his book "The Underground History of American Education" historian John Gatto argues very persuasively that though the science of Logic is taught in expensive private schools in the US , it hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. There are good reasons for this. It is very hard to deceive people who know how to logically evaluate an argument. Due to our schools, even the vast majority of the elderly in our population have no effective understanding of the science of Logic or the art of rhetoric. •••
"Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831)
("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) ••••••••••
"Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. "
-"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" ••••••••••
"Infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ..."
-"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" ••••••••••
"For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic", (1935) ••••••••••
"We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is".
-Aristotle, "Posterior Analytics" ••••••••••
"We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts."
-Aristotle, "Rhetoric" ••••••••••
"Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one"
-Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) ••••••••••
"Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently."
-Howard Kahane, "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric", (1976), second edition ••••••••••
"The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded."
-John Stuart Mill, "A System of Logic", (1843) •••••••••
"And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth."
-Anthony Collins, "A Discourse of Free Thinking", (1713), taken from the first page of "Thinking to Some Purpose", by L. Susan Stebbing, (1939) ••••••••••
"Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831) ••••••••••
"The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains."
-Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) ••••••••••
"A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based upon the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind."
-L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••
Very nice presentation sir
🎉 thank you
My only issue with this is that I think if we have too many problem solvers and not enough artists, we’ll become unbalanced as a species. We need the romantics sipping on wine and moaning about the woes of existence because they add flavour to the mechanisms that the problem solvers initiate and develop
Yes. That is what we do at our college. You are wisecracking at every turn of phrase. It is difficult to stay focussed on whether you have a different take on a common theme.
Never realised that website was you! I bought a glossy poster because I love it.
afxinfinitee•••••
I wonder if his poster is as deceptive as this t Ed talk was ? This guy didn't even explain the first law of the science of Logic.
In public schools education is based on the Prussian education system, the private schools use the trivium. Understanding the difference between the to is the best place to start educating yourself. Then learn general semantics, logic, ethics, rhetoric, thinking skills, logical fallacies and cognitive biases, systems thinking, computer science and discrete mathematics,
what is the difference ? elaborate pls?? (':
Boa noite!
Thank you for this wonderful and informative session
😮You're the guy? I have that pdf.😊I downloaded it years ago while looking for references about logical fallacies.
The powers that be simply do not want people to think critically.
Nice presentation sir
I love this
dugruos ••••
Read The Art of Controversy by Schopenhauer, or Thinking to Some Purpose by Stebbing
I think playing through Zelda Ocarina of time at 6 years old assisted me in becoming a critical thinker lol.
School of thought
Nice analysis
Awesome talk, thank you .
Wisdom Wisdom ••••
This guy gave you no wisdom . He lied about supposed conspiracy theories and why the school system doesn't teach the science of logic. He didn't even explain the first and most important principle of logical reasoning .
He is a tool.
@@williamspringer9447 Dude get a life replied to at least 15 comments on one video mainly consisting of how this guy doesn’t know what he is talking about. Chill buddy. Why do u care it’s a Ted talk that is like 15 minutes long. Why would u expect him to explain the nuances of logical fallacies. Ted talks are easily digestible bare bone ideas for the general public
Also John Taylor Gatto is rather interesting due to the fact that the few video I’ve seen from UA-cam videos by him seem very rhetorically right wing and has a fair amount of dog whistles to his base. Yet seems to be himself from my perspective more of a libertarian. Just curious am I understanding him correctly
What a legend!
Nice to hear from you that how creative the power of thinking
hay this talk was really worth the time but i am really having some trouble getting to the official site as he said would like to learn more on it
How To Think, Not What To Think. The first time I heard of the phrase was a former LBC presenter who used it in one of the phone-ins, one of them about discipline.
Good information
all of these is just facts, but HOW? How to teach everyone in such short amount of time?
iRapplexD •••••
The most essential elements of the science of Logic can be taught in must a few minutes .•••
Here's some info that you may find useful : •••
"Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831)
("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) ••••••••••
"Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. "
-"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" ••••••••••
"Infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ..."
-"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" ••••••••••
"For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic", (1935) ••••••••••
"We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is".
-Aristotle, "Posterior Analytics" ••••••••••
"We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts."
-Aristotle, "Rhetoric" ••••••••••
"Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one"
-Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) ••••••••••
"Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently."
-Howard Kahane, "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric", (1976), second edition ••••••••••
"The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded."
-John Stuart Mill, "A System of Logic", (1843) •••••••••
"And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth."
-Anthony Collins, "A Discourse of Free Thinking", (1713), taken from the first page of "Thinking to Some Purpose", by L. Susan Stebbing, (1939) ••••••••••
"Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831) ••••••••••
"The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains."
-Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) ••••••••••
"A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based upon the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind."
-L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••
what amount of time do you think we have?
Wow. The logical fallacy site is fantastic.
So useful when having an argument with someone. Specially stupid ones ( yes the youtube comment section )
Devesh Sawant••••
This guy failed to explain the most basic and essential elements of logical reasoning in his talk . I'm pretty sure his sight is must as deceptive .
OK BAMAN
@@williamspringer9447 youre commenting all over this video and you keep saying this but you never mentioned the “thing” itself you just point to a book you want us to read. are you selling this book or what?
Knowledge about logical fallacies is valuable, but what I've found is most people assume an illogical argument must have a false conclusion. This is certainly not the case (and it's a logical fallacy in itself)
Did you know that a non-sequitur argument can have a true conclusion? Here's a simple example: Apples grow on trees and Airplanes fly in the sky, therefore Paris is a city in France. The argument is a non-sequitur, but the conclusion is true.
So logic is good and we ought to know when our arguments are "weak" or "strong", but truth is usually a different matter altogether.
That's true, but if some person for example didn't believe that "Paris was a city in France", using the premises "Apples grow on trees and Airplanes fly in the sky" isn't going to convince them of the truth and that's probably the person's own fault for badly presenting the information even though they are correct.
so great, thanks for these resources
mmk1095 ••••
What did this guy teach you that you can actually use ? The Science of logic is thousands of years old, and the masses have virtually no effective knowledge of it . Why?
Thank You sir
As an individual grow up in third world I'm very sure I'm not articulated enough because of conspiracy reasons
A practice worth adopting
Nice presentation
Your video and speech very good.thank you
this just sounded like one big advertisement for his homepage.
Want to be educated? Here's the secret. Ask why about something until you can no longer find an answer. Then pose a question, test it, record your results and repeat. If its repeatable, work on refining it.
Great...
Sent here from coursera
Yes!! This! 100% this!