Virtuous Thinking

I hold to my own, not very well thought through, version of intellectual virtues (technically known as virtue epistemology). The implication here is twofold: thinking is a moral act, and it takes work to develop a style of thinking that is praiseworthy as opposed to blameworthy. Some possible thinking oppositions might include:

• Open vs Closed Minded
• Listening to vs Ignoring Others
• Seeker vs unshakable opinions 
• Creativity vs Inflexibility
• Rigorous Investigation vs Easy Believism
• Honest vs Dishonest Motives 

Other ways we think about thinking include: 

• attitude
• motive
• perseverance
• courage
• humility
• etc.

The performance of thinking is also the performance of self. So people who self-identify as conservatives or liberals might adopt certain thinking habits which conform to community standards. It's rational to think in ways that support your position in a community. And let us not forget about Internet trolls. They play a specific role in the online community. In fact, one might say that trolls exhibit all the negative qualities of our thinking oppositions. 

If one wants to become a better thinker then working on the virtues of the mind would be the way to go.

One way to become a better thinker: 

Keep a Surprise Journal

Here's a great article about 

The Virtue of Scientific Thinking 

(from which I go the picture at the top of this post)

You might also enjoy this article on 

Developing a Teachable Attitude

Thinking in slow motion

Philosophy is thinking in slow motion.  It breaks down, describes and assesses moves we ordinarily make at great speed - to do with our natural motivations and beliefs. It then becomes evident that alternatives are possible. (John Campbell)

His definition describes philosophy as a skill rather than a set of facts. As a skill that involves thinking, philosophy is applicable to every area of life. Campbell's definition reminds me of Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking, Fast and Slow. 

Kahneman basically says that fast thinking are those heuristics (also called gut instincts) we use automatically when we do things like run from danger. If a bear is charging down the hill in your direction you don't want to spend too much time deliberating about the probability that you will be killed or doing some sort of cost benefit analysis of your various options. You want to decide fast and move fast. Slow thinking, on the other hand, does all those things Campbell points out. It helps us to analyze our situation so we can uncover the biases that lead us astray. 

Overcoming biases in our thinking is also the goal of science. Science, too, is thinking in slow motion. But science is also observation in slow motion -- being careful and writing down what we observe. Scientists need to keep good notes, but they also need to analyze their data carefully (something philosophical training can help with).  

In fact, there is a whole area of study in philosophy called logic which delves quite deeply into uncovering how our thinking works and what are the best ways of making arguments and avoiding mistakes in our thinking. 

How could a baby fall out of a twenty-story building onto the ground and live?

(See #4 for Solution)

Or, if you would rather, here are some

philosophical puzzles 

to slow you down and get you thinking.

No Proof

In his article, Where's the Proof in Science? There is none, Geraint Lewis compares science to a courtroom:

So, science is like an ongoing courtroom drama, with a continual stream of evidence being presented to the jury. But there is no single suspect and new suspects regularly wheeled in. In light of the growing evidence, the jury is constantly updating its view of who is responsible for the data.

Sure, there's evidence, but that is not the same as proof. As the statistical probability grows, we grow more confident in our beliefs, but we never reach that magical 100% certainty that we all desire. 

The one person who was sure that he had reached this state of 100% certainty was Rene Descartes. He is famous for saying, "I think, therefore I am." And yet, his certainty is today an easy target even for Intro to Philosophy students. Descartes sought a sure foundation on which he could built the whole edifice of knowledge. If you build your structure on such shaky ground it's sure to come falling down. 

If you want 100 Proof, you'll probably have to turn to Vodka, not science.

I Don't Know

Voltaire wrote in The Philosophical Dictionary under the entry "Limits of the Human Mind"

"SOMEONE asked Newton one day why he walked when he wanted to, and how his arm and his hand moved at his will. He answered manfully that he had no idea. 'But at least,' his interlocutor said to him, 'you who understand so well the gravitation of the planets will tell me why they turn in one direction rather than in another!' And he again confessed that he had no idea." 

Voltaire's point: we should find where the limits of our knowledge stops and then refuse to go further. Instead of offering some intuitively appealing, but unproven explanation, Newton is willing to just say, "I don't know." 

This is the difference between empirical science and speculative explanations of all sorts from astrology, to ancient aliens, to conspiracy theories.

No Explanation