Objective thinking

[Real McCoy]

@coffee_rules Since you put it there, I want to ask the question again that you have not answered. I don't want to take that farmer thread on a tangent. So I'm asking you here.

 

What is objective thinking according to you? And how do you determine if something is objective

[coffee_rules]

Opinions based on facts, get all the facts and then come to a conclusion. If you start with a conclusion, all facts can be ridiculed and muddled. Hence, my disdain for conspiracy theories. Hard to establish some of them with some basic logical scientific reasoning.

[Real McCoy]

@coffee_rules If facts are readily available, there is no need for objective thinking as facts are already there and one can just put 2 and 2 together to come up with 4. Facts need digging to find and especially in legal documents where its confusing for the common man who doesnt understand legalese. Legal documents these days are made in such a way so that a loophole is already created that the concerned party can take advantage of while normal people don't see it. Example is that FRDI bill. The first try had the bail in clause which was blatant and was rejected. The FM is trying to reword it in such a way that the bail in is still there but not blatant. Why is the FRDI bill being pushed on us in the first place and why are they not giving it up even after failing in the first place. They knew the bail in clause was there. How can the FM try to pass such an immoral bill which steals from the middle class for the benefit of Nriav Modi and Mallya.

I said BJP opposed aadhar but then made it mandatory when it came to power. you said bjp tried a flip flop on this issue. So how can you trust a party that does flip flops on an important privacy issue such as aadhar. Thats why I made the statement about Bush and Obama doing the same thing to which you said I lack in objective thinking. This is absurd. I have been reseraching these topics for more than a decade. So don't give me a sermon on objective thinking ok. I came to the conclusion that both parties are in on it while your fav party may give you something, it will also deny a bunch of things that you have to accept. When both parties do it, it means you have to settle for a substandard state of living which is not that different from slavery. Earlier in history, slavery is physical. Now its mental.

Edited January 8, 2021 by Real McCoy

[ravishingravi]

Thé point it switches from facts to conjecture and propaganda. 
 

« How can the FM try to pass such an immoral bill which steals from the middle class for the benefit of Nriav Modi and Mallya. »

 

Objective rational approach would require you to link specific clauses in bill to specific instances associated with this bill. 
 

in case of farm bill, objective thinking would involve going clause by clause and addressing each one. 

[Yoda-esque]

Thé point it switches from facts to conjecture and propaganda. 
 
« How can the FM try to pass such an immoral bill which steals from the middle class for the benefit of Nriav Modi and Mallya. »
 
Objective rational approach would require you to link specific clauses in bill to specific instances associated with this bill. 
 
in case of farm bill, objective thinking would involve going clause by clause and addressing each one. 

Haha, good one

[urbestfriend]

7 hours ago, ravishingravi said:

Thé point it switches from facts to conjecture and propaganda. 
 

« How can the FM try to pass such an immoral bill which steals from the middle class for the benefit of Nriav Modi and Mallya. »

 

Objective rational approach would require you to link specific clauses in bill to specific instances associated with this bill. 
 

in case of farm bill, objective thinking would involve going clause by clause and addressing each one. 

Exactly! OP doesnt have to look anywhere else to understand what is objective thinking as long as he is able to identify what is a fact and what is a propoganda.

[Mariyam]

On 1/8/2021 at 7:56 PM, coffee_rules said:

Opinions based on facts, get all the facts and then come to a conclusion. If you start with a conclusion, all facts can be ridiculed and muddled. Hence, my disdain for conspiracy theories. Hard to establish some of them with some basic logical scientific reasoning.

On a very philosophical level: Is thinking an opinion or a judgement?

 

Notice that I don't want to use the qualifier 'objective' here.

When a certain rationale is used to reach to a particular judgement/ bias it is thinking. The validity of the rationale is a moot point. But it is a judgement you reach after due consideration and after due 'thought' using the 'facts' you have. Opinion on the other hands may not involve any such rationale/logic.

 

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, Mariyam said:

On a very philosophical level: Is thinking an opinion or a judgement?

 

Notice that I don't want to use the qualifier 'objective' here.

When a certain rationale is used to reach to a particular judgement/ bias it is thinking. The validity of the rationale is a moot point. But it is a judgement you reach after due consideration and after due 'thought' using the 'facts' you have. Opinion on the other hands may not involve any such rationale/logic.

 

Since you are jumping into the thread without the pretext, I didn’t choose the heading.
 

Opinion is based on how you have come to a judgment based on facts. What are called OpEds then?  They present a rational of your thought given the presumption of agreed well known facts. Objective thought is no assumption of opinions, but how you come to a judgement of an issue based on facts. I argued that it was not objective thinking to come to an opinion without any rationale and he took it personally, hence the thread.