 |
USA Edition | Today Is Wednesday, May 22, 2013 |
|---|
Socratic Warning
Newsroom Magazine
May Challenge
Or Demand
Critical Thinking
|
|---|
|
|
The intellectual roots of critical thinking date back to the Greek philosophers.
Socrates discovered, by means of probing questions, that in the exchange of competing ideas, people sometimes make confident claims based on unreliable assumptions or failed logic.
Such arguments, he discovered, were either erroneous in fact, absent sufficient foundation, or failing in logic. Instead, most arguments were based on confused meanings, inadequate evidence, or contradictory beliefs.
Socrates' contributions to critical thinking were many -- for he established new ways to think about contentious issues in terms of the quality of assumptions, facts and logic.
Thus Socrates demonstrated that persons may have passion, or power or high position but yet be deeply confused and irrational.
Good journalism, like compelling debate, is based on a clear understanding of facts and the logical construction of one's argument. And that is what the Socratic Method and The Sophist Tradition is all about.
Evidentiary Approach
The Socratic Method is the preferred way to examine issues.In the Socratic mode of questioning, postulations, ideas or arguments are examined for their clarity and logical consistency by systematic analysis of facts, assumptions and logical methodology to support a conclusion.
Socratic analysis is accomplished by means of a series of probing questions that systematically examine the quality of an argument or conclusion.
Understanding the quality of information, argument or one's conclusions, is fundamental to critical thinking -- and the goal of critical editing.
Historical Foundation
Socrates’ practice was followed by the critical thinking of Plato (who recorded Socrates’ thought), Aristotle, and the Greek skeptics, all of whom emphasized that things are often very different from what they appear to be.Only the trained mind is prepared to see through the way things look to us on the surface (delusive appearances) to the way they really are beneath the surface (the deeper realities of life.)
From this ancient Greek tradition emerged the need, for anyone who aspired to understand the deeper realities, to think systematically, to trace implications broadly and deeply; for only thinking that is comprehensive, well-reasoned, and responsive to objections can take us beyond the surface.
Means Of Analysis
The common denominators of Critical Thinking requires, for example, the systematic monitoring of thought; that thinking, to be critical, must not be accepted at face value, but must be analyzed and assessed for its clarity, accuracy, relevance, depth, breadth, and logical validity. All reasoning occurs within points of view and frames of reference.All reasoning proceeds from some goals, objectives, and has an informational base. All data, when used in reasoning, must be interpreted. That interpretation involves concepts, that concepts entail assumptions, and that all basic inferences in thought have implications, and each of these dimensions of thinking need to be monitored where problems of thinking can occur.
Questioning Chain
The result of the collective contribution of the history of critical thought is that the basic questions of Socrates can now be much more powerfully and focally framed.In every domain of human thought, and within every use of reasoning within any domain, it is now possible to question:
• ends and objectives
• the status and wording of questions
• the sources of information and fact
• the method and quality of information collection
• the mode of judgment and reasoning used
• the concepts that make that reasoning possible
• the assumptions that underlie concepts in use
• the implications that follow from their use
• the point of view or frame of reference within which reasoning takes place
Jeffrey Slee
Logician
| Second Term Or Second Thoughts? | Browse All Content | IMF Announces $33.8 Billion Credit Line For Poland | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Previous In Section | Browse Defense Department Section |
Next In Section |
The convening authority, who is responsible for determining whether specific charges should be referred to trial by military commission, declined to withdraw the charge of conspiracy, noting that Congress included conspiracy as a chargeable offense in the Military Commissions Acts of 2006 and 2009, and that two Presidents had signed those Acts into law.
Washington
Convening Authority for Military Commissions Declines to Withdraw Conspiracy Charge Against Alleged 9/11 Co-Conspirators Pending Appellate Ruling
January 18, 2013
The Department of Defense announced today that the convening authority for military commissions declined to withdraw and dismiss the conspiracy charge in the case of United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin ‘Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, as requested by the chief prosecutor, Brig. Gen. Mark Martins. In declining to withdraw the conspiracy charge, the convening authority noted that dismissal at this time would be premature, as the viability of conspiracy as a chargeable offense in trials by military commission is still pending appellate review.
In addition to conspiracy, the accused are also charged with attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, murder in violation of the law of war, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, hijacking aircraft, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, and terrorism.
Last October, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the 2008 military commission conviction of Salim Ahmed Hamdan on charges of providing material support for terrorism. The appellate court ruled that the material support charge — involving actions by Hamdan as Usama bin Laden’s driver and bodyguard prior to November 2001 — was not “an international-law war crime” that Congress had enforced “at the time Hamdan engaged in the relevant conduct.” Hamdan, whose sentence to confinement has been completed, was returned to his home country of Yemen before the decision overturning his conviction was announced.
Based on the reasoning of the court in that case, chief prosecutor Brig. Gen. Mark Martins determined that there was substantial uncertainty about whether the courts would reach a similar conclusion as to the permissibility of charging conspiracy as a stand-alone offense involving pre-2006 conduct. He therefore recommended its withdrawal and dismissal from the case U.S. v. Muhammad, et al, in a memorandum sent to the convening authority.
The convening authority, who is responsible for determining whether specific charges should be referred to trial by military commission, declined to withdraw the charge of conspiracy, noting that Congress included conspiracy as a chargeable offense in the Military Commissions Acts of 2006 and 2009, and that two Presidents had signed those Acts into law. The convening authority also noted that the Department of Justice maintains that conspiracy is a cognizable offense in trials by military commission in the case Al Bahlul v. United States, which is currently pending appeal. The convening authority informed the chief prosecutor that, because the issue has not been finally decided, he believed it would be premature to withdraw and dismiss the conspiracy charge in the case U.S. v. Muhammad, et al, at this time.
The charges are only allegations that the five accused have committed offenses punishable under the Military Commissions Act of 2009 and the law of war, and each accused is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Pursuant to the reforms in that Act, each accused has been provided defense counsel with specialized knowledge and experience in death penalty cases