Putting aside for the moment my concern about critical thinking skills, I must confess to deriving considerable pleasure out of the latest ad calling into question Tim Hudak's plans should he win the October Ontario election. Enjoy!
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Developing Critical Thinking Skills – Travelling A Road That Never Ends
Even though I consider myself reasonably-well-educated and reasonably well-read, one truth I have come to realize is that the journey toward critical thinking never ends – it is always a work in progress, if I may mix my metaphors. I very much doubt that any of us can say that we have become the consummate analyzer of facts and information, dispassionately assessing information for its objective truth. No, because we are human, our values, our passions, and our prejudices will always be factors in how we process the information that bombards us daily. However, I think we are making real progress when we can recognize the role those factors play in our lives, and even just occasionally are able to stand outside of them and give another viewpoint some respect and consideration.
I mentioned in my previous post the ingredients I believe are necessary in this journey toward better thinking. Today I'd like to address one of those requirements, the need to read widely, something that I realize is a problem for many people. During my working life, I would always try to read a couple of papers, one local and one national, but otherwise the bulk of my reading, both fiction and non-fiction, was confined to bedtime and weekends. I know that for many, because of such time constraints, reading is not a priority. Yet there can be no substitute. It is surely an irony of the times that we have access to more information than any previous epoch, yet have so little time to consider it.
With that in mind, I would like to recommend a book that I recently read: The Trouble with Billionaires, by Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks.
Now, the reactionary (one with whom I associate a reluctance to think widely and honestly) would immediately and simply reject considering such a work because Linda McQuaig is a 'leftie.' A more open-minded person would see the opportunity to learn new things or see issues from a new perspective. And that is precisely what this book enabled me to do on a number of issues including progressive taxation, corporate donations, the disproportionate influence the wealthy have exerted on government policy both historically and contemporaneously, and the problem of rising inequality in North America.
One small illustration from the book will serve to exemplify its value in widening one's perspective. Increasingly, corporate donations are being pursued and relied upon by universities. However, beyond the obvious danger that over-reliance on such funding sources can pose for program development and content, the authors reveal something that I have never considered:
The public also has an inflated sense of how much financing wealthy donors actually provide through philanthropy. For instance, there was much celebration in April 2010 when it was announced that a new $35 million donation from Peter Munk would enable the University of Toronto to establish a school of global studies. The new Munk School of Global Affairs (incorporating the existing Munk Centre for International Studies) is to be housed in a century-old stone building on fashionable Bloor Street West, and feature an elevated pixel board flashing the latest world news headlines.
But, although it wasn’t mentioned in the announcement, Munk will receive a $16 million tax reduction for his $35 million contribution, reducing his actual personal contribution to $19 million. So he will really be paying just a little more than half the cost of his contribution, while the government (Canadian taxpayers) will be paying just a little under half. For that matter, if Munk made his donation in the form of shares in publicly traded companies — as most donors do — then his tax savings will be considerably larger (possibly by millions of dollars) and his personal contribution far smaller than $19 million.
The Ontario and federal governments also announced that they would each contribute $25 million to the new Munk school, bringing the total contribution of Canadian taxpayers to at least $66 million. But when it came to naming the building, the taxpayers’ $66 million simply disappeared; only Munk’s $19 million (or less) counted.
The authors then go on to talk about the influence Mr. Munk will have on the sorts of programs offered there. For example, is an examination of the role of multi-nationals and their sometimes nefarious behaviour in African gold extraction likely to be welcomed by Mr. Munk, head of Barrick gold?
I know that I have come no closer to answering the questions originally posed by fellow-blogger Orwell, but I will return with more thoughts on the development of critical thinking skills soon.
I mentioned in my previous post the ingredients I believe are necessary in this journey toward better thinking. Today I'd like to address one of those requirements, the need to read widely, something that I realize is a problem for many people. During my working life, I would always try to read a couple of papers, one local and one national, but otherwise the bulk of my reading, both fiction and non-fiction, was confined to bedtime and weekends. I know that for many, because of such time constraints, reading is not a priority. Yet there can be no substitute. It is surely an irony of the times that we have access to more information than any previous epoch, yet have so little time to consider it.
With that in mind, I would like to recommend a book that I recently read: The Trouble with Billionaires, by Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks.
Now, the reactionary (one with whom I associate a reluctance to think widely and honestly) would immediately and simply reject considering such a work because Linda McQuaig is a 'leftie.' A more open-minded person would see the opportunity to learn new things or see issues from a new perspective. And that is precisely what this book enabled me to do on a number of issues including progressive taxation, corporate donations, the disproportionate influence the wealthy have exerted on government policy both historically and contemporaneously, and the problem of rising inequality in North America.
One small illustration from the book will serve to exemplify its value in widening one's perspective. Increasingly, corporate donations are being pursued and relied upon by universities. However, beyond the obvious danger that over-reliance on such funding sources can pose for program development and content, the authors reveal something that I have never considered:
The public also has an inflated sense of how much financing wealthy donors actually provide through philanthropy. For instance, there was much celebration in April 2010 when it was announced that a new $35 million donation from Peter Munk would enable the University of Toronto to establish a school of global studies. The new Munk School of Global Affairs (incorporating the existing Munk Centre for International Studies) is to be housed in a century-old stone building on fashionable Bloor Street West, and feature an elevated pixel board flashing the latest world news headlines.
But, although it wasn’t mentioned in the announcement, Munk will receive a $16 million tax reduction for his $35 million contribution, reducing his actual personal contribution to $19 million. So he will really be paying just a little more than half the cost of his contribution, while the government (Canadian taxpayers) will be paying just a little under half. For that matter, if Munk made his donation in the form of shares in publicly traded companies — as most donors do — then his tax savings will be considerably larger (possibly by millions of dollars) and his personal contribution far smaller than $19 million.
The Ontario and federal governments also announced that they would each contribute $25 million to the new Munk school, bringing the total contribution of Canadian taxpayers to at least $66 million. But when it came to naming the building, the taxpayers’ $66 million simply disappeared; only Munk’s $19 million (or less) counted.
The authors then go on to talk about the influence Mr. Munk will have on the sorts of programs offered there. For example, is an examination of the role of multi-nationals and their sometimes nefarious behaviour in African gold extraction likely to be welcomed by Mr. Munk, head of Barrick gold?
I know that I have come no closer to answering the questions originally posed by fellow-blogger Orwell, but I will return with more thoughts on the development of critical thinking skills soon.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
The Problem And The Power Of Critical Thinking
Fellow blogger Orwell recently wrote a post entitled The capacity for critical thought – how do we build it? In it, he was challenging readers to brainstorm ways in which this vital ability can be inculcated.
I posted the following as a comment:
While I am glad you asked the question, how to inculcate critical thinking skills is a tall order, one that I have wrestled with for several years.
I am convinced that one of the absolute necessities that by no means guarantees success is a broad-based education, not merely the skills-training that often passes for education today. In that objective, both high schools and universities fail more than they succeed. Most provinces, I believe, require only one secondary school course in history, usually Canadian, and that is wholly inadequate for providing the kind of contextual knowledge that is needed in making critical assessments.
One also has to have the time and willingness to read widely, refusing to allow only that which appeals to our values and prejudices to determine what we expose ourselves to. That in itself is a tall order.
There are, to be sure, methods to help us analyze arguments. To become familiar with and on the lookout for common fallacies of reasoning can help us detect b.s. more readily, whether the b.s. is based on absolutism, ad hominems, or straw man arguments, to name three common fallacies.
I look forward to reading what others have to say, and wish you luck in this noble quest.
As a teacher in my former life, I realized a long time ago that most of us are inclined to what might be called 'lazy thinking;' the act of simply accepting and regurgitating what one has been taught or told is much easier than actually having to think about and analyze situations. Let's face it, real thinking is hard work, forcing us to consider a variety of sources of information, the biases of those who produced that information, the role that our own values and prejudices play in interpreting that information, being open to alternative views, etc.
Yet what is the alternative? To be manipulated and ruled by those who talk and rant the loudest? (Think Fox News or Sun News.)
Inspired by my blogger colleague Orwell, I would like to examine some aspects of critical thinking in upcoming posts. Some will be original, while others adaptations of articles I wrote in the past on my other blog.
As always, all comments and suggestions are welcome.
I posted the following as a comment:
While I am glad you asked the question, how to inculcate critical thinking skills is a tall order, one that I have wrestled with for several years.
I am convinced that one of the absolute necessities that by no means guarantees success is a broad-based education, not merely the skills-training that often passes for education today. In that objective, both high schools and universities fail more than they succeed. Most provinces, I believe, require only one secondary school course in history, usually Canadian, and that is wholly inadequate for providing the kind of contextual knowledge that is needed in making critical assessments.
One also has to have the time and willingness to read widely, refusing to allow only that which appeals to our values and prejudices to determine what we expose ourselves to. That in itself is a tall order.
There are, to be sure, methods to help us analyze arguments. To become familiar with and on the lookout for common fallacies of reasoning can help us detect b.s. more readily, whether the b.s. is based on absolutism, ad hominems, or straw man arguments, to name three common fallacies.
I look forward to reading what others have to say, and wish you luck in this noble quest.
As a teacher in my former life, I realized a long time ago that most of us are inclined to what might be called 'lazy thinking;' the act of simply accepting and regurgitating what one has been taught or told is much easier than actually having to think about and analyze situations. Let's face it, real thinking is hard work, forcing us to consider a variety of sources of information, the biases of those who produced that information, the role that our own values and prejudices play in interpreting that information, being open to alternative views, etc.
Yet what is the alternative? To be manipulated and ruled by those who talk and rant the loudest? (Think Fox News or Sun News.)
Inspired by my blogger colleague Orwell, I would like to examine some aspects of critical thinking in upcoming posts. Some will be original, while others adaptations of articles I wrote in the past on my other blog.
As always, all comments and suggestions are welcome.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
The Right - Rarely Gracious, Even When In Power
One thing that I have noticed about the far right, and I think this applies both to those in the United States and in Canada, is that they have a winner-take-all attitude that rarely permits them a moment of serenity or grace. For example, even though they have largely won the battle of the airwaves, Fox News and their rabid supporters frequently grow almost apoplectic when any of their views are challenged. An examination of almost any Bill O'Reilly interview or utterance from the likes of the witless Ann Coulter offers ample confirmation of my contention.
That this affliction of spirit has permeated the Canadian political landscape is undeniable. The latest manifestation is found in Toronto City Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti who, like a prudish class monitor, videotaped the Dyke Parade this past weekend during which signs critical of Israel's treatment of Palestinians appeared. The witchhunt is now on, and, as reported in today's Star, Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday wants to examine the possibility of rescinding funding for Pride activities, and also opens the door to scrutinizing the funding of arts groups:
Holyday said art grant recipients — which are paid out of the same city fund as Pride — will also need to be scrutinized, but he isn’t sure the same rule should apply to them.
“I do think it extends to all communities, but I’d need to think a little bit more about that,” he said.
Quite an interesting position of outrage to take, given that no city official that I am aware of even raised a whimper of objection over the Islamic conference also held this past weekend which, although not publicly subsidized, saw two speakers talk about how gays would be killed in Islamic countries for their orientation.
It seems like freedom of expression in the Ford administration extends only to those whose views do not offend or threaten their personal beliefs. Or is that too harsh?
That this affliction of spirit has permeated the Canadian political landscape is undeniable. The latest manifestation is found in Toronto City Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti who, like a prudish class monitor, videotaped the Dyke Parade this past weekend during which signs critical of Israel's treatment of Palestinians appeared. The witchhunt is now on, and, as reported in today's Star, Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday wants to examine the possibility of rescinding funding for Pride activities, and also opens the door to scrutinizing the funding of arts groups:
Holyday said art grant recipients — which are paid out of the same city fund as Pride — will also need to be scrutinized, but he isn’t sure the same rule should apply to them.
“I do think it extends to all communities, but I’d need to think a little bit more about that,” he said.
Quite an interesting position of outrage to take, given that no city official that I am aware of even raised a whimper of objection over the Islamic conference also held this past weekend which, although not publicly subsidized, saw two speakers talk about how gays would be killed in Islamic countries for their orientation.
It seems like freedom of expression in the Ford administration extends only to those whose views do not offend or threaten their personal beliefs. Or is that too harsh?
Monday, July 4, 2011
Toronto Star Readers Speak Out On Police Abuses
I have written before about how much we are enjoying our subscription to The Toronto Star, one of the few newspapers that still seems to be doing the job that the press traditionally performed: keeping the public well-informed and reminding the powers-that-be of ongoing scrutiny, functions vital to the maintenance of a healthy democracy. While much of the mainstream press has largely abandoned these roles in deference to their corporate masters, The Star, as they say, 'keeps on truckin.'
Part of that mission is well-fulfilled in the publication of readers' letters, something that reassures those of us in the progressive blogosphere that we are not alone in our thirst for societal fairness and justice. Three letters in today's paper, critical of the Toronto Police and the judiciary that treats them so differently from others, are well-worth reading.
Part of that mission is well-fulfilled in the publication of readers' letters, something that reassures those of us in the progressive blogosphere that we are not alone in our thirst for societal fairness and justice. Three letters in today's paper, critical of the Toronto Police and the judiciary that treats them so differently from others, are well-worth reading.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Exploding the Myth: Conservatives as Able Managers of the Economy
Well, we have confirmation by Thomas Walkom in today's Star of two facts about Conservatives:
a) They are ideologically opposed to government being in the business of business
b) They are inept managers of the economy.
Both facts are evident in Walkom: AECL saga shows Conservatives have no business being in government, whereby the veteran journalist reveals how, in their haste to dispose of Atomic Energy Canada, they have concocted a sweetheart deal for their corporate sector friends at SNC-Lavilin Inc. that other 'free-enterprisers' can only dream about: in exchange for the $15 million purchase price for $1.1 billion in assets, Mr. Harper and the gang are paying SNC-Lavilin $75 million and placing AEC's $4.5 billion in liabilities solely on the shoulders of taxpayers.
Reminiscent of the time that other paragon of financial rectitude, former Ontario Premier Mike Harris, gave away for a pittance to a German Consortium Highway 407.
No doubt, to the true believers, such deals make sense. The rest of us can only ponder the truths revealed.
a) They are ideologically opposed to government being in the business of business
b) They are inept managers of the economy.
Both facts are evident in Walkom: AECL saga shows Conservatives have no business being in government, whereby the veteran journalist reveals how, in their haste to dispose of Atomic Energy Canada, they have concocted a sweetheart deal for their corporate sector friends at SNC-Lavilin Inc. that other 'free-enterprisers' can only dream about: in exchange for the $15 million purchase price for $1.1 billion in assets, Mr. Harper and the gang are paying SNC-Lavilin $75 million and placing AEC's $4.5 billion in liabilities solely on the shoulders of taxpayers.
Reminiscent of the time that other paragon of financial rectitude, former Ontario Premier Mike Harris, gave away for a pittance to a German Consortium Highway 407.
No doubt, to the true believers, such deals make sense. The rest of us can only ponder the truths revealed.
Friday, July 1, 2011
To Vote Or Not To Vote
Next to Stephen Harper achieving a majority government, for me the deepest disappointment in the recent federal election was the relatively poor voter turnout. Despite some really creative efforts to mobilize young people to become participants in the process, and despite warnings from pundits that the key to Harper's fate lay in the Conservative ability to mobilize their cadre of supporters, less than 60% of eligible voters turned out.
I mention these facts because of a thought-provoking column by Tim Harper in today's Star in which he poses the question of whether or not we have become a conservative country. His analysis is well worth reading on this Canada Day.
I mention these facts because of a thought-provoking column by Tim Harper in today's Star in which he poses the question of whether or not we have become a conservative country. His analysis is well worth reading on this Canada Day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)