The goals are to understand how epistemology works, correct logical errors in the status quo, have a practical method for making decisions and judging ideas, be able to resolve conflicts between ideas without compromising (this includes both conflicts between alternative ideas and conflicts between an idea and a criticism of that idea), know how to learn effectively (including inventing new ideas, not just learning existing ideas), and know how to use mental resources efficiently. These skills are important to basically all the rest of your life. They’re general purpose issues like rationality and critical thinking that are used in every other field where ideas matter, which is all of them.
Rationality and critical thinking are also useful in cases where many people think they’re not useful like dealing with emotions.
From the third paragraph of the article:
The most central issue in CF is how to judge ideas. Critical Rationalism (CR) has ideas about that, and Theory of Constraints (TOC) provides additional insight.
additional insight about how to judge ideas?
I know that TOC talks about constraints so that may be about how ideas work or how judging ideas work idk
The quote below is from the third paragraph:
Objectivism (Oism) helps explain aspects of learning omitted from CR or TOC.
The aspects of learning could be ommitted from just CR or just TOC or both or none.
Where should you start learning? With the core principles and concepts. The other parts are built around those.
The other parts are listed in an earlier paragraph: They’re methods of doing things and secondary implications. Maybe also abstract theory and practical advice?
I didn’t think the principles and concepts came first. Like I thought you should learn the methods to get interested and see how beneficial CF could be for you.
The quote below is from the paragraph taking about Critical Rationalism’s big ideas:
We learn by an evolutionary process of conjectures and refutations, trial and error, guesses and criticism, brainstorming and searching for mistakes.
Another way of saying the above quote:
The evolutionary process is made of conjectures and refutations, trial and error, guesses and criticism, and brainstorming and searching for mistakes
The quote below is from the paragraph talking about Oism’s big ideas:
Progress comes from combining (integrating) parts (ideas) into a greater whole (higher level ideas), which takes less attention than the parts did.
I didn’t think the greater whole took less attention than the parts did. I thought you had to think about many ideas at once so it becomes a whole. It seems you have to combine them first
Edit: Oh yeah I wanted to add the discussion tree I made while reading the article:
Learning Critical Fallibilism discussion tree.pdf (36.9 KB)
I want to try grouping nodes now but idk how to yet. i want to group them by what paragraph they’re in from the article.
yes
There’s more than one way to do it. This article offers an opinion and a valid approach but other ways can work too.
If you try to think about the alphabet as 26 individual parts, and hold them all in your mind at once, it’s hard. But the concept of the alphabet is easy to think of. You combined/grouped them into one concept/thing/unit that you can use without having to think about all the individual letters.
I’ve been practicing writing essays in MLA format, and I’ve made some broken body paragraphs about this article to show. They don’t have a topic sentence or a transition or link to a thesis:
Critical Fallibilism (CF) is primarily a set of ideas about how to think. Thinking includes coming up with ideas, evaluating ideas, learning, making decisions, and taking actions guided by ideas.
Critical Fallibilism talks about how thinking works(Temple). For example, it talks about the process of learning(Temple). Temple here equates learning to thinking. Since he is talking about how thinking works and provides an example of learning as thinking, he is saying that learning is another way to think. Therefore, Critical Falliblism talks about the way learning works.
Critical Fallibilism is a philosophy that talks about how learning works(Temple). For example, it talks about the processes of learning, making decisions, and coming up with new ideas(Temple). These examples are provided not only to show what thinking includes but also the forms of thinking that Critical Fallibilism addresses.
Critical Fallibilism is a philosophy that talks about the way we think(Temple). Thinking is a process that includes actions such as coming up with ideas, making a decision, or learning a new skill(Temple). I.E. thinking is learning, thinking is coming up with a new idea, and thinking is making decisions.
Edit: I meant to saying “thinking” in the first sentence of the second body paragraph. Not “learning”
No, I said learning was included within thinking. It’s a type or subset of thinking.
Equating things means saying they’re the same.
If my bedding includes a pillow, that doesn’t make my bedding equal to a pillow. My bedding also includes a blanket. My pillow is a subset of my bedding.
yeah, that’s one idea. For example, the alphabet or im talking about the abc’s or im thinking about the alphabet. It seems that concept may be different than idea. Like, I’m thinking about the concept of the alphabet or the concept of numbers. I gotta look up concept cuz I think about an idea as a sentence.
That makes sense intuitively, like when I say let’s recite the alphabet, people will know I’m talking about the 26 letters and not have to think about the 26 individual letters all at once.