Friday, May 11, 2018
“Astute reasoning” is my preferred rubric for what’s normally called “critical thinking” in education. Monday, May 7, I decided to do a commentary on Stanley Fish’s NYTimes article “‘Transparency’ Is the Mother of Fake News.” But doing that became more elaborate than I anticipated, now being the development a project with several sections. Discussing that article is no longer my aim; rather, just a later section. So, parts of this little project have been made separate postings (listed below), as the project continues. I expect to finish by Wednesday, May 23.
At the Times article, I indicated in a “comment” the importance of Habermas, and the comment linked to this posting’s first version, in terms of a short description of Habermas’s career and relevant sense of communicative rationality. That couple of paragraphs is now at the bottom of this posting, Section 5.
Wednesday, May 9, 2018
This is Section 2 of a commentary project titled “astute reasoning and ‘fake news’.” But it’s independent of that project.
The easiest way into this is the curricular notion of “critical thinking.” But I shy away from ‘critical’ because it’s commonly (in academic humanities) associated with a negative sense of being critical, which isn’t salient in curricular notions of “thinking skills,” which have become integral for the systematic educational development of reasoning.
Tuesday, May 8, 2018
This is Section 1 of a commentary project titled “astute reasoning and ‘fake news’.” But it’s independent of that project.
The antidote to unwanted fakery by others is persons who expect genuine action and can tell the difference.
Disappointedly calling something or someone a fake is a folkism for discerning extreme ungenuineness. But we don’t ordinarily say “it’s ungenuine” or “you’re ungenuine” (though we do say that sometimes—particularly in formal situations of evaluation). Yet being genuine with others is usually as important for a relationship as are shared values and innocent realism.