Imminent FulfillmentImmortality,  Safety, Empowerment, Equality, KnowledgeUnity, Society

Should not intelligent, reasonable men of good will be able to agree on all things that matter?

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to
  one who is striking at the root."
- Henry David Thoreau
Site Sections, Subject List, Article Synopses and other features

Introduction Material
Introduction Articles
Word Definitions
Human Condition

Christianity Material
Bible/Canon Issues
Christendom Analyzed

Jesus Material
Jesus' Teachings
Aspects of Jesus
5 Gospels Canon

Philosophy Material
Academic Education
Paradigm Material
Philosophers of Note
Philosophical Issues
Philosophy Metaphysics
Psychological Issues
Religious Miscellaneous
Sociological Material
Theological Basics
Theological Issues
Theological Misc

Theological Skeptical

Cosmology, Creation,
Geophysical Material

Cosmology Material
Creation Issues
Geophysical Material

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Chronology Revision
Golden Age Themes
History Revision
Misc Ancient Myth Material
Modern Mythology Material
Psycho-Catastrophe Articles
Saturn-Jupiter Material
Saturnian Reconstruction
Symbol Development
Venus-Mars Material
1994 Velikovsky Symposium

Miscellaneous Material
Book Critiques Links
Misc Biology Links
Misc Issues/Conclusions
Poetry & Fun Material
PDF Download Files
Lecture & Video Links
Site Features Links
Site article checklist
Spiritual Products online store

“A great majority of the so-called educated people do not think logically and scientifically. Even the press, the classroom, the platform, and the pulpit in many instances do not give us objective and unbiased truths. To save man from the morass of propaganda, in my opinion, is one of the chief aims of education. Education must enable one to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false, the real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction. The function of education, therefore, is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically.” - Martin Luther King Jr., 1947

Critical and Purposive Thinking
Updated: 05/30/2021

Critical thinking. What is it? Well, it is not dreaming or fantasizing. It must perforce involve analysis and synthesis. Analysis involves looking from all angles for pertinent aspects and identifying them seeing them as distinct features or pieces. Synthesis nvolves putting these together in the paradigm to form a meaningful picture or composite, which in itself may be a segment or part of a bigger picture.

Doing this for an important reason is purposive thinking. Such as understanding a significant problem or understanding an important or crucial issue

Martin Luther King Jr. said above, “The function of education...is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically.”

Although I am not really disagreeing so much, anyone who could REALLY think critically to the next level wouldn’t have said that! Let me explain.

As a child prodigy, I had the innate intelligence and potential to think critically, but my intellectual/psychological/social environment did NOT encourage it, and my religious environment and indoctrination suppressed it.. I literally was afraid to use it. I remember vividly asking certain profound questions in my late pre-teen years starting around the age of nine years. A couple of these were left hanging because they weren’t TOO critical, but my mind looked at the other issues and said to itself, “Don’t go there.” I was literally AFRAID–for a complex variety of religion related social and psychological reasons–to think critically to the point of violating my religious programming.

So, “education” cannot “teach” that which has been winnowed out, it cannot overcome the propensity to reject one LOL falsity and replace it with another equally as bad. In my opinion, it cannot be “taught” but needs to be stimulated, nurtured, protected, kept alive, cultured, and ultimately MOTIVATED AND INSPIRED, BECAUSE doing so will threaten those around you, especially the charismatic leader types like Martin Luther King.

Given all the social, religious downside, what would be the motivation? Does doing so make you more friends” Obviously not! Does it initially make you more adjusted, more secure, and more “hip”? Obviously not! Does it attract women? I wish I could tell you yes on that one. Does it make you happier, or more fulfilled? Obviously not! What is the payoff for critical thinking and thinking intensively? I can probably do better in most value schemes by focusing on becoming a better competitor and investor, generating more wealth!

I had to be inspired to DO IT ANYWAY! Even at the risk of “GOD” NOT LIKING IT. I literally had to go against the whole crowd that thinks that the key to salvation is to surrender. I had to reject the thinking that the ultimate sin was to think independently. I had to eschew the temptation to “go along to get along”. I had to fly in the face of repeated accusations of, “Michael, your problem is that you think too MUCH!” or “Michael, you have made an idol of your own mind, and worship it.” I had to spurn those that suggest reason and logic are the real enemy, and that we should let our “hearts” rule over them and our lives, etc., ad nauseam.

So, I completely had to leave that life behind. I essentially lost everything and everyone except my mother, brother, and son. And even THEY were concerned and worried.

Who is it that will protect the budding critical thinker from the educators? From the family and friends that discourage it? I had a maverick great-uncle, who everyone in the family gossiped about in terms of being “TOUCHED”, a little crazy, and a little dangerous, who was naturally isolated as a man, and made passes at my gorgeous divorced mother. My great-aunt was a harridan, and he tried to travel or be gone all the time. She remained “in the flock” while he developed his own private religion. He was characterized as slightly degenerate and off the reservation, but was still an integral part of the family and was interesting to me. He naturally was interested in me,  and during my early years occasionally took me aside and artfully challenged my thinking.

Through the 7th grade, I was educated in a parochial country one-room school. Great advantages, as well as some downsides. In the 7th grade, one day the teacher started a school-wide discussion and asked a significant question that quieted everyone in the room except me. It was an issue that I had thought about, and I stood up and gave my opinion. The teacher engaged me with arguments, distracting perspectives, etc., until I had changed my mind. Whereupon, he stopped and practically shouted at me, “MICHAEL! You were right in the first place, yet you caved under my pressure. Don’t EVER do that again. Stick to your guns when you are right!”

Well, with that approbation yet rather more so an affirmation, that challenge, that inspiration I determined that I never again would cave in when I am convinced in my own mind!

Wonderful! you say? Not so much! That’s practically a formula for being perverse, stubborn, and intransigent. Because, given how ignorant we are of pertinent information and lack of alternatives, how do we KNOW when we are right? We’ve all been wrong so many times in the past, we have all mis-remembered, misunderstood, misconstrued, etc., so how can we ever have any confidence, much less ultimate confidence?

The Paradigm IS Paramount

Critical thinking very quickly becomes intimately associated with a paradigm, or happens within a paradigm, belief system or world view. At some point the critical thinker understands that it is the paradigm that is paramount. You then realize that the major effort should be directed at getting the paradigm right, because the paradigm affects and even effects the interpretation of all the information.

At this point one is tempted to being so daunted by the extensiveness of doing this and its unknown endpoint that you want to give up. You have a sense that this is not only an enormous undertaking fraught with opposition, but that it will seriously affect your life, its focus, its pattern, its relationships, its direction, and its outcome. However, the serious believer in and seeker of truth WILL DO IT ANYWAY!

Now, I wouldn't change or trade the results of this in me for ANYTHING!

Some Critical Thinking on the Differences between Paranormal
Claims, Scientific Theories and Historical Reconstructions.

First, a little fundamental philosophy: the essence of all perceivable and–to my mind–conceivable reality involves some combination of change, limits, discontinuity, definition,

To be confused about what is different and what is
not, is to be confused about everything.
 - David Bohm

contrast, and irreversibility.  We experience, perceive or apprehend the differences of things–tangible and intangible.  For instance, if every tangible thing that we cast our eyes upon was the same color and shade, we would see nothing.  If there were only one unvarying sound or tone of the same intensity, we would hear nothing.  So it would be with the senses of smell, taste and tactile feeling.  We rely upon our five physical senses to perceive the changes or discontinuities of the physical realm to give us our experience of physical reality.

And so it is in the intangible, intellectual (spiritual) realm.  If we do not apprehend and appreciate the differences in various aspects of our intellectual or non-material reality, our thinking will be foggy, muddled or lacking in clarity so that we can be confused to the point of thinking or concluding inaccurately.  As a significant example, a discipline in our modern world known as Information Theory made important and useful distinctions between data, facts, information, and knowledge.

There are also important and basic differences between paranormal claims, scientific theories, historical reconstructions, and philosophical paradigms; and there are critical differences between the criteria that necessarily be applied to the reasonable evaluation of their validity or correctness.  We will be at sea if we do not realize these differences and deal with them accordingly.

The above types of proposals are so much blather, hot air–are meaningless–until it somehow becomes IMPORTANT to evaluate them to the point of accepting or rejecting their correctness and thereby necessarily relying on the correctness of our acceptance or rejection.  And, if we accept any such proposal to the point of relying on it in any important way, we have essentially added that particular understanding to our "knowledge."

In understanding the differences in our proposal trio, it is useful to  recognize that there are primarily five categories or types of knowledge that pertain to these issues.  These can be listed as:

1)  Intrinsic:  Intrinsic knowledge is a kind of "hard wired" or intuitive knowledge that can still be further developed as time goes on.  Intrinsic knowledge shows up in rationality and the application of logic, allows us to know how to learn.  Intrinsic knowledge is internal, and is the most reliable or trustworthy knowledge that we have.

2)  Sensory  Sensory knowledge is simple perception which comes directly from the five senses that we don't normally question.  Sensory knowledge is personal, dependent upon intrinsic knowledge, and takes a minimum of interpretation.

3)  Evidential:  Evidential knowledge is composed of personally experienced evidence which implies conclusions reached beyond a reasonable doubt.  With this type of knowledge we sense or address the evidence directly but not the thing itself, and this knowledge is less reliable than that based on experience because it overwhelmingly relies upon interpretation. Evidential knowledge has an external source, and is significantly less reliable than intrinsic or sensory knowledge.

4)  Experiential:  Experiential knowledge is composed of perhaps prolonged personal life experiences that have come in a series of learning situations.  It is always a personal mix of beliefs and other knowledge that takes a maximum of interpretation, yet it can be the most meaningful knowledge that we have.  The validity of this knowledge is conditional on the validity of the personal interpretation.

5)  Consentual:  Consentual knowledge is composed of knowledge that others have shared that we consent to hold because we trust (rightly or wrongly) in the person or source passing on this externally derived knowledge.  Often the consent is given based purely on the lack of any reason not to trust and should always be held with skepticism.  Consentual knowledge can be broken down further into three meaningful categories:

  1. That based on other's intrinsic, sensory, evidential, and experiential knowledge and interpretation.
  2. That based on other's consentual knowledge.
  3. That based on other's beliefs, opinions, estimations, imaginations, misinterpretations, fantasies, falsities, misunderstandings, neuroses, and psychoses.

Consentual knowledge is the most prevalent and voluminous in our  knowledge base but the least reliable, and it is staggering to realize to what extent we have incorporated consentual knowledge by what may be uncritical consent.  There would be a lot more humility and much less acrimony if the popularizers and promoters of scientific dogma were aware of the proportion of the consentual component in their "knowledge base."

A paranormal claim is considered paranormal precisely because there is a normal or reasonable doubt as to whether the phenomenon actually happened, happens, or can happen.  A para-normal claim is not the same as a para-normal explanation for an event or phenomenon that is not in doubt.  Let us remember that any situation or event that is on the extremes of the normal distribution curve looks para-normal and can invite a "paranormal" explanation."

A "scientific" theory, if it is not going to morph into a philosophical paradigm, must restrict itself to an explanation of observable phenomena.  A Black Hole is not an observable phenomenon, it is just one among other explanations for observable phenomena.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity is not so much a scientific theory as it is a materialistic or "scientific" paradigm. But it has elements that violate our most basic logic.  Roger Penrose's Tensor Theory and David Bohm's Holographic Universe are examples of other scientific or philosophical paradigms.

Knowledge specifications

In the realm of knowledge, scientific theories, paranormal claims and historical reconstructions–hereinafter called proposals–should be subject to what the acronym FLIPPERS stands for.

Falsifiability - It must be possible to conceive that the proposal could prove to be false.  If it cannot be conceived as false then the proposal is not saying anything significant or meaningful.  Furthermore, it must be possible to devise ways to test the validity of the proposal before it can be considered worthwhile to consider it.

Logicality - Any argument offered in support of a proposal must be logically sound.

Integrity - The critical data or evidence offered in support of a proposal must be factual or true and complete, while the selection of the evidence must be honest, open and unprejudiced, i.e., non-fudged.

Predictability - Any proposal must offer some implied and inferred predictions, which can be checked.  Extraordinary predictions which are verified are generally considered as having substantial weight in an evaluation of the premise.

Productivity - Any valid proposal must have an aspect of productivity or meaningfulness to it, in that some implied and inferred benefit or usefulness would construe in its adoption.

Extensiveness - The evidence offered in support of any proposal must be exhaustive–that is, all of the significant available evidence must be  included for consideration with none deliberately left out.

Replicability - Any experimental results garnered under replicable conditions and offered in support of the proposal must be replicable.  Furthermore, empirical data and evidence gathered from one situation or locale should be consistent with or buttressed by other comparable data and evidence gathered from a different situation or locale.  Except for historical reconstructions, total reliance upon historical or non-replicable evidence at least tends to reduce the worth or validity of the proposal.

Sufficiency - The evidence offered in support of any premise must be adequate to establish the validity beyond an agreed upon reasonable doubt, with these stipulations:

(1)  The burden of proof for any proposal should rest primarily on the claimant(s).

(2)  Extraordinary proposals demand extraordinary evidence.

(3)  Proposed evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is ALWAYS  inadequate by itself, and must be considered as supportive rather than indicative.

If the premise or proposal being offered cannot meet or satisfy the above criteria, it must be considered to be either invalid, or inadequate, or at least primarily in the realm of dogma, opinion or an unsubstantiated possibility instead of being useful or in the realm of knowledge.

Home   Site Sections   Article Map   Contact   Store   Contributions   Survey