This is quite concerning

  • snekerpimp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    We should teach critical thinking and logic skill from month one. There will be so much propaganda and misinformation from this point on, being able to spot it, most of the time with common sense, would nip most of this crap in the butt.

    • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      In before 5 yo

      Mommy, “because I say so” is an appeal to authority, I will not abide by such logical fallacy. Please provide me with a systematic review of relevant double blind studies to convince me that I should eat my greens."

      • Usernameblankface@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I try to use “because I said so” as little as possible. It’s a lot more work, but they know why they’re doing most of what they need to do, and they know why they’re avoiding what they should not do.

        Edit: I’ve noticed that making an effort to avoid “because I said so” has built up a habit of thinking about why I’m telling them to do something before I say it out loud. Often times, this changes what I’m about to tell them to do.

      • Gabu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        That would be the ideal world. There is plentiful research to show that eating vegetables is good for you. If you can’t figure that little out, why are you a parent?

        • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          I guess 99% of parents would not be able to look for this research and will rely on “common sense” instead (also a fallacy), it doesn’t make them bad parents. I was not being serious anyways.

    • IndiBrony@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Come on, you know those who have the influence over this don’t want it. Remember: Donald Trump loves the uneducated 👍

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think the issue is more that people like propaganda and misinformation as long as they agree with it.

      There just seems to be something about seeing your own opinions coming out of a man in a tie or printed in a large serif font that gives people the same feeling as a cat having its neck scratched.

      And of course, once you hear one of your opinions come out of them, it’s easier to agree with the other ones as well.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        im ok with propaganda as long as its clear that it’s propaganda.

        You know, much like how criminals understand that committing crime is bad, and yet they continue to commit crime. Seems like a rather apt solution IMO.

    • Gsus4@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      And still it would not be enough. You need to trust some core institutions and delegate on some people who know more than you, you can’t be an expert on everything. Even smart people can be deeply wrong if they trust the wrong people or if they think their expertise makes them an expert on everything. You also need a little intellectual humility.

      • 5C5C5C@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        This is why the position I take is that when there is any room for doubt, lean into whichever belief would lead to the most compassionate outcome.

        There will always be uncertainty, always facts that you can’t know, but the compassionate choice is pretty much never wrong, at worst it might be inefficient, but that’s okay. Anyone who’s trying to convince you that something that harms or dehumanizes anyone is necessary probably has an ulterior motive and is profiting somehow off of the harm and dehumanization.

    • kahdbrixk@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      You do know that this comment could be posted word for word on a right wing post and everybody would agree with it just as well? The term “critical thinking” alone is so worthless, not to mention “common sense”. Some people justify ancient aliens with that phrasing. I don’t mean to criticize you, I just have this thought so often when scrolling through this polarized world… And I really don’t know what to do about it. Everything feels so lost.

      • Gabu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        The term “critical thinking” alone is so worthless

        No, it’s not. There’s a very specific definition - to think critically, i.e. to not accept any idea without first investigating it and analysing its merit. That’s the absolute basis of all philosophy and science.

      • snekerpimp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        Critical thinking and common sense are not even close to being the same. Perhaps finding the definition of critical thinking would be a prudent thing before dismissing it as a buzz word.

        • kahdbrixk@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Talking on the internet is such a weird thing. Where did I say that those two things are the same? Did you not hear my cry for help in the statement above? Instead of going for the attack?

      • daltotron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        I have this thought a lot too when people discuss things like teaching “media literacy”. I dunno. I’ve seen enough people completely abuse logical fallacies that I really wonder whether or not we’re all logically consistent conscious beings, or if we’re all just kind of flying by the emotionally charged pants seats, and making shit up later to retroactively justify it. People cry strawman, red herring, goalpost moving, when realistically people are just changing the subject to something that they think they know more on, because things aren’t formalized into a rigorous debate where everything is organized and structured and we all actually know what the definitions of things are supposed to be. It’s hard enough to get people to even agree on a definition, because people are so insulated to their little bubbles. Getting past that semantic difference and into the actual debate seems more to me like a structural problem, where people are arguing with the wrong people, than like, a problem you could solve with just raw education. Seems like a structural problem related to the death of the monoculture, and the rapid propagation of regional cultures, even regional cultures online.

        • kahdbrixk@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          At least one person seems to get my dilemma. Thank you. I’m really looking for help on this one. Just to find a way to solve this riddle for better understanding.