Suchergebnisse

The study argues for the claim that a correct argumentation, i.e. a non-fallacious or good reasoning, should be the essential part of the education process, which is not always the case. The bad argumentation makes human standards and interpersonal relationships worse, and leads to the growth of social conflicts and an instable society. If the legislature, executive and judiciary branches of power did not listen to good arguments, our lives would not be as good as they are since the state might pass bad, dangerous and unjust laws. A person trained in critical thinking starting in their youth would be able to tell a difference between good and bad arguments and recognize the fact that accepting the former and dropping the latter is the only way to avoid the above mentioned negative characteristics of a society. By teaching pupils how to employ the prescribed standards of a correct argumentation using everyday examples helps them to avoid adopting certain views on the ground of their popularity, affections produced in observers, their popularity etc., which are classic examples of logical fallacies. An early training in critical thinking could make obvious the fact that, a democracy consisting among other things also in a social, racial and gender equality, after all, does not mean that sometimes left arguments win and sometimes the right ones, and that there is no difference between them in the long run.

This chapter seeks to demonstrate that investigations in positive economics rely on ethical perspectives and practices, and further, that critical thinking requires a wider ethical viewpoint than normative economics generally permits. Positive economics generally relies, for example, on the unsung virtues of the investigator who demonstrates honesty and transparency in the search for truth. Ethical failures in this regard are not uncommon (DeMartino, 2011). But another unstated ethical perspective appears in the worldview from which a researcher sets out to model behavior. Modelers almost always assume that rationality requires that an economic actor undertake an action in pursuit of a goal or end. Hence, positive economics is said to be the analysis of outcomes based on a theoretical understanding of causal relationships (if action X is taken, outcome Y will result). This broad analytical approach is termed consequentialism.

The text deals with the term "critical thinking", so popular in today's educational theories and even amongst philosophers. If a critic should be radical, they should be consistent, in this case, meaning that one who insist on critical thinking should subject the critical thinking itself to criticism. The hypothesis is that this term is logically inconsistent but also problematic in a broader philosophical, metaphysical, and anthropological context. Namely, we will try to show that this currently fashionable term "critical thinking "is the result of an overarching "scientism" dominant in the interpretation of the world and especially in the interpretation of human and social phenomena. The notion of "critical thinking ", in our opinion, is a direct result of today's predominant scientific culture derived from the capitalist, economic logic that reduces the world to statistics and thus a human being to an exclusively rational being. Human nature is far more complex than a rational calculus needed just to improve productivity in economic processes. This reductionist logic, unfortunately, also became omnipresent in today's philosophical culture.

Less than it is an individual ability or skill, critical thinking is a dialogic practice people engage in and commit to, initially interactively and then in interiorized form with the other only implicit. An argument depends for its meaning on how others respond. In advancing arguments, well-practiced thinkers anticipate their defeasibility as a consequence of others' objections, in addition to envisioning their own potential rebuttals. Whether in external or interiorized form, the dialogic process creates something new, while itself undergoing development. This perspective may be useful in sharpening the definition of the construct of critical thinking and in so doing help to bring together the largely separate strands of work examining it as a theoretical construct, a measurable skill, and an educational objective. Implications for education follow. How might critical thinking as a shared practice be engaged within educational settings in ways that will best support its development? One step is to privilege frequent practice of direct peer-to-peer discourse. A second is to take advantage of the leveraging power of dialogue as a bridge to individual argument – one affording students' argumentative writing a well-envisioned audience and purpose. Illustrations of this bridging power are presented. Finally, implications for assessment of critical thinking are noted and a case made for the value of commitment to a high standard of critical thinking as a shared and interactive practice.

Education being a lifetime process is dynamic and vulnerable to social, political and cultural positioning of its system. This nature in not a very distinctive manner, is also found in human beings, and is rather an imperative feature of human evolution. The propensity of education in its real sense goes far beyond acquisition of certain facts or a degree and has effects to the formation and changes brought about in human nature and personality. Critical thinking in the this paper is presented as an approach which is important for both the pedagogue, to be equipped with while transacting the curriculum and also for learners to engage in a broader perspective of things and be discriminative of their environment, both in negative and positive ways, even neutral when needed. The paper concludes with a proposal for reformation in the very aims, nature and process of examination system in the country in order to mark an eventual cessation to the practices like regurgitating and unreasoned articulation.

'In diesem Beitrag werden die drei kritischen Methodologien Dekonstruktion, Rekonstruktion, Konstruktion für eine Analyse des Beitrags von Keupp et al. angewendet. Es wird kritisiert, dass der Zusammenhang von Gesellschaft und Individuum als Kernfrage gesellschaftstheoretischer Reflexion nicht mehr begriffen und der Mangel an Abstraktion durch eine Inflation von Metaphern abgedeckt wird. In diesem Sinne wird der kritisierte Beitrag auch als ein Beispiel für den Paradigmawechsel kritischer Psychologie gesehen. Dieser Wandel wird sozialhistorisch und auf dem Hintergrund von Entwicklungen deutschsprachiger Gesellschaft, Kultur und Psychologie gedeutet.' (Autorenreferat)