We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.
7

I think it is very insightful of you to want to learn to be a better critical thinker. That action in and of itself makes me think you are already more of a critical thinker than many others -- as merely a freshman you are carefully thinking about and planning what will best help you in the future. Not the Answer You're Looking For Unfortunately, philosophy ...


7

We use zero to represent a piece of information: that is, that there is zero of some collection. Nothing is not "a thing", but it is usually a state of affairs which is distinguishable from something. In the same vein, in computer science, we denote the value of a bit usually by either 0 or 1; but here '0' doesn't mean 'nothing' nor does 1 mean 'one thing', ...


5

Indeed, as jobermark noted, you started backward (implicitly) from the assumption that God does not exist and then proceeded to make your point. As a rule of thumb, you can say any type of question on StackOverflow about arguments to "demonstrate" the existence or non-existence of God is likely to be a fallacy. The reason is very simple: questions such as "...


4

There are some features where he is hard to understand, but I don't think they are primarily translation-related. For instance, the symmetry with the categories leads to some pretty strained groupings at times. Also, there are some places where his arguments seem to most Kant scholars just plain wrong or where there are big gaps (in modern work we would say "...


4

There is no universally accepted reason to believe that our level represents, or is close to, a hard upper limit on "intelligence" (a notoriously difficult concept to give an uncontroversial definition of, by the way). Furthermore, it's trivially true that we don't know what we don't know --meaning that we cannot define the limits of our ignorance. There's ...


3

It says a great deal. Take for instance Platos criticism of writing in the Phaedrus: If men learn this it will implant forgetfulness in the soul because they will rely on that which is written calling things to remembrence that which no longer lies within themselves, but by means of external marks. This goes even more so today when the Net & social ...


3

I highly recommend taking philosophy courses --I entered college planning on majoring in engineering, and left as a philosophy major. Please be aware, however, that philosophy courses vary widely based on the teacher and the school (because there is no universal consensus on which philosophical approaches are correct and important). With that in mind, you ...


3

I found it. It was Clark paraphrasing him, in (at least) two articles: Magic Words: How Language Augments Human Computation (1998): http://www.philosophy.ed.ac.uk/people/clark/pubs/magic.pdf Linguistic Anchors in the Sea of Thought (1996): http://www.philosophy.ed.ac.uk/people/clark/pubs/linguist.pdf As Rex Kerr suggested, it was indeed from Consciousness ...


2

When you ask, "Is there a logical methodology to classify things?" the answer is a resounding yes, there are many classification systems developed throughout history that attempted to follow a common, and logical, methodology. However, when you ask if there is "any established logical methodology", the answer is much less clear. Most of these classification ...


2

You are looking for the Dewey Decimal Classification System


2

You seem to've answered your own question, rhetorically speaking. Is that a question of how we define words? If so, then what is the difference between data and knowledge? The simple answer to the former is "yes". To the latter... you've already fitted them to the same definition by the way you framed your question. You began by proposing two ...


2

It is generally accepted that (as you say) Kant was a horrible writer. I have heard of native German speakers reading Kant in English translation for clarity. I think you have hit upon something that is not merely a problem of translation but a fundamental weakness of Kant -- just what is it that he's talking about? I would approach this as a fundamental ...


2

Mostly, I'm not convinced there is a category of "non-representational routines." Any of the above could be highly symbolic and loaded with meaning. E.g., I cook an egg for you seems quite representational. Or I go on a bike ride and in doing so break the promise that I had made to you to only ride my bike with you. There's two reasons to think the ...


2

I wouldn't say that the concept of ontology is necessarily different between philosophy and computer science, only that the latter have developed more sophisticated and explicit domain models in order to drive applications. Philosophers have often wanted to focus on the "top level". Aristotle's categories were an early attempt to classify everything in the ...


2

Welcome, Iva I think the best help will come from texts on critical thinking. I suggest any of the following: Colin Swatridge, Oxford Guide to Effective Argument and Critical Thinking (Oxford Guides). ISBN 10: 0199671729 / ISBN 13: 9780199671724. Kemp, Gary, Bowell, Tracey, Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide. Published by Routledge, 2005. ISBN 10: ...


2

First, allow me to point out that critical thinking is not so much learned as it is developed. There's an analogy here to the physical body. Newborn infants have (more-or-less) the same muscular and skeletal components as full-grown adults, but the muscles and skeletons of adults have changed over time in response to all sorts of factors — diet, hormones, ...


1

'Not all knowledge is wisdom' ▻ WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE ARE CATEGORICALLY DIFFERENT By this I mean that, as I understand 'wisdom' and as I think it is generally understood, wisdom is a synthesis or combination of intelligence and sound judgement. There is no direct link with knowledge. I'd accept that sound judgement depends to some extent on knowledge; you ...


1

When I explain things, I try to put myself in the listener's situation. It is important to know the background of the listeners, their level of understanding the subject. Try to identify their misunderstandings. I think there is not a better way of understanding than confronting your own misconceptions. A good explanation is an explanation that is ...


1

From a Lacanian (or any less physicalist idealist) point of view, ideas are the only place knowledge can arise. Whether you are imagining the phone of the future, or guessing where your cat is hiding, you are imagining possible scenarios, and the two things are not really different except in their degree of 'futurity'. You will or will not succeed at ...


1

If you stick with the classical JTB definition of knowledge, then ideas cannot be justified in a clear sense- so ideas cannot be knowledge. Moreover, ideas in general do not have to be true. For example, you may have the 'idea' that people want a triangular iphone, which is obviously false. More importantly, including ideas in the definition of knowledge ...


1

All three of your questions make the implicit assumption that those positions which can be argued using logic and reasoning are arrived at by this method. Most Cognitive scientists and a good proportion of social psychology experiments would indicate that this is unlikely to be the case for most people (see any of the Dual-Process models of cognition, ...


1

There is a very large difference between "cannot productively argue" and "refuse to believe." It is absolutely reasonable to state that an individual can believe in something and be unable to argue it conclusively. In fact, one might even argue that its good to be able to do so in many fields. As an arbitrary mathematical example, many assert the Riemann ...


1

No, agnosticism is still a position. And a final answer to something that has no answer is not logical. There is a difference between an unsolvable problem and one that has been rendered independent of the domain. No position is obligatory on something logically independent of your domain. To go for a math analogy, the existence of God is to philosophy ...


1

Your first argument is the fallacy of Bulverism. The second is a false equivalency between the existence of God and the existence of some version of God already explained by someone. So no, as philosophical arguments, these do not cut the mustard. As to the feeling, we could stop at any point and decide that since we keep finding gaps between our physics ...


1

As Price acknowledges in Expressivism, Pragmatism and Representationalism, "expression" and "expressivism" are misnomers, simply used to label (multiple) alternatives to representationalism, "the assumption that the linguistic items in question 'stand for' or 'represent' something non-linguistic". This requires some sort of unmediated propositional access to ...


1

Knowledge representation is a model of a certain domain of the real world. These models are composed from objecttypes (entity, surrogate) and the relations between objecttypes. Such models are named "ontologies" and can be formalized as "Entity-relationship-models". Ontologies are used e.g., in business-administration to model a certain business domain....


1

Here is an excellent article on the subject. It points out how the writing should be structured and gives some very useful examples. It summarizes with the following points: Writing and the Scientific Process We began this article by arguing that complex thoughts expressed in impenetrable prose can be rendered accessible and clear without minimizing ...


1

Both state and process are important in science: Isn't evolution a process? Big-Bang cosmology is paradigmatically a process; especially when considered against Hoyles steady-state universe. Quantum Mechanics is theorised as Quantum States and an Equation of Evolution. Category Theory focuses on process (morphisms) against the state (sets)


1

I recommend looking at the SEP article on "Knowledge How" here. It gives a great overview of the distinction between the three kinds of knowledge you are asking about. As a followup, the bibliography at the end has several excellent papers on the subject. Lastly, you might want to look at the Knowledge Argument against Physicalism here. It turns out that the ...


1

There is quite a tradition in philosophy concerning the setting aside of various beliefs about the world, with the aim of getting a better understanding. It stretches back at least as far as ancient Greece, and continues today. However, the idea of setting aside certain beliefs about the world is not in conflict with having knowledge. In fact, without ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible