Mnemonic wrote on Apr 15
th, 2013 at 12:48am:
I think of intellectuals as people who have read deeply about a topic and have examined a large portion of the literature associated with it. They know all the concepts and they know how other people have explored it. The "intellectual" and "academic" aspect has to do with knowing the history of the topic, having explored a large portion of the literature and being able to make their own contribution to the topic by forming their own ideas. I think that's what "intellectualism" and "academia" is. It's being one of the best people "professing" on a particular subject and contributing to its evolution and its "library" of ideas.
Okay, yes. Good.
But then there's this comment of yours:
Quote:I don't think being intellectual means not being biased. Everybody is going to have their biases. "Intellectuals" are just better at articulating why they take a particular stance on an issue because they have examined the "melting pot" of ideas in depth.
This relates to the point above Freediver and I mentioned in regards to positive/is statements and normative/ought statements. At what point should an intellectual go from an is to an ought, and do they often conflate the two?
My alarm bells start ringing whenever I read an academic because they have the tools to manipulate far beyond the average person.
Quote:As for "critical thinking," I see that term mentioned often but I've never really been given a satisfactory explanation of what it is. The best way I can think of understanding what it means is remembering my physics education. In physics, a "critical value," is the value at which the behaviour of an object, entity, substance or process changes. Some examples are the melting and boiling points of substances and the angle of total internal reflection in a medium.
Critical thinking is simply the task of pulling an argument apart and seeing how it's constructed. What is it trying to say? How does it say it? What is its context? What is its evidence/arguments? Is the evidence/argument valid? Are the sources credible?