 |
USA Edition | Today Is Wednesday, June 19, 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
| Justice Determines T-Mobile/MetroPCS Combination Unlikely To Harm Consumers | Browse All Content | James Clapper To Congress: Terror Threat Is Still Potent | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Previous In Section | Browse International Monetary Fund Section |
Next In Section |
Panama’s growth performance continues to exceed expectations, buoyed by the Panama Canal expansion and large public infrastructure projects. Annual real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth averaged about 9 percent over the past five years, the highest in Latin America.
Washington
IMF Executive Board Concludes 2012 Article IV Consultation With Panama
March 13, 2013
On January 25, 2013, the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) concluded the Article IV consultation with Panama.[1][1]
Background
Panama’s growth performance continues to exceed expectations, buoyed by the Panama Canal expansion and large public infrastructure projects. Annual real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth averaged about 9 percent over the past five years, the highest in Latin America. Unemployment is at historic lows, and the output gap has closed. Rapid economic growth and stronger social safety nets have helped reduce poverty. Over the medium-term, recent and forthcoming Free-Trade Agreements with major trading partners are expected to boost trade in services and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). The recent creation of a Sovereign Wealth Fund to save additional revenue from the expanded Canal aims at further strengthening the economy’s resilience to external shocks.
Panama’s economy expanded by 10.6 percent in 2011, and continued to grow at the same pace in the first three quarters of 2012. Construction, commerce, and transportation, storage and communications have been the most dynamic sectors. Canal traffic and activity in the Colón Free Zone have been supported by strong demand from South America and emerging Asia. Rising world commodity prices and domestic demand pressures have kept inflation at relatively high levels through 2011 and most of 2012. Headline and core inflation started declining in the third quarter, mostly owing to lower food and domestic services price pressures, with inflation in 2012 projected at 5 percent (year-on-year). Panama’s financial sector remains well-prepared to absorb even large external shocks; banks remain well-capitalized, liquid and profitable. After widening to 12.8 percent of GDP in 2011, the current account deficit improved somewhat in the first nine months of 2012. A sharp improvement in the goods and services balances was almost offset by a deterioration in the income balance, associated with a 56 percent increase in FDI flows.
Panama’s baseline outlook is positive, with broadly balanced risks. Implementation of large public infrastructure projects and strong domestic demand in the context of loose imported monetary conditions are expected to continue to support growth and domestic demand. Overheating pressures would moderate as public investment unwinds. At the same time, the global economy remains weak, and downside risks have intensified. Panama’s trade and financial openness increases the country’s vulnerability to external shocks, though strong domestic fundamentals would mitigate their impact. A key medium-term challenge is to ensure the transition to more sustainable and inclusive growth, including through further improvements in education and training.
Executive Board Assessment
The Executive Directors commended Panama’s impressive economic performance over the past decade, underpinned by strong fundamentals and sound policies. Large public investments are expected to continue to drive growth this year, despite a weak external environment. Directors encouraged the authorities to take advantage of the favorable conjuncture to strengthen policies and buffers. They agreed that, in the near term, policies need to be geared toward building up fiscal space and enhancing crisis prevention tools. Going forward, a key challenge will be to foster sustained and more inclusive growth.
Directors saw merit in a tighter fiscal stance for 2013–14 to forestall overheating and recommended keeping overall deficits below the revised ceilings. Further improvements in tax administration and expenditure management could support the needed adjustment. More broadly, Directors agreed that frequent revisions to the legal deficit ceilings could undermine the credibility of the fiscal framework. They also agreed that the recently-established sovereign wealth fund would help reduce policy pro?cyclicality and further shield the economy from shocks going forward.
Considering Panama’s extensive financial linkages, Directors emphasized the importance of further strengthening the financial safety net. They welcomed the progress in implementing the recommendations from the 2011 Financial Sector Assessment Program, including the plans to establish a facility for emergency liquidity assistance. Directors also acknowledged recent steps to enhance the monitoring of systemic risks and noted the importance of closing existing data gaps. Improving the supervision of non?banks, strengthening the mandate of the Council of Supervisors, and further developing macroprudential tools remain important policy priorities. Directors also welcomed the ongoing efforts to upgrade tax transparency and the legal framework for combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism.
Directors welcomed recent and prospective trade agreements between Panama and its major trading partners that should help support inward foreign direct investment and ensure sustained growth as large public projects unwind. Directors took note of the staff’s assessment that the projected current account deficit and external debt paths are consistent with medium?term external sustainability but that further appreciation of the real exchange rate could undermine recent gains in external competitiveness.
Directors underscored the importance of continued efforts to reduce poverty and inequality, and to tackle youth unemployment. In this context, ongoing training and education reforms should help alleviate skills mismatches, while targeted assistance to the poorest through conditional cash transfers should improve living standards in rural and indigenous areas.
[1][1] Under Article IV of the IMF’s Articles of Agreement, the IMF holds bilateral discussions with members, usually every year. A staff team visits the country, collects economic and financial information, and discusses with officials the country’s economic developments and policies. On return to headquarters, the staff prepares a report, which forms the basis for discussion by the Executive Board. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Managing Director, as Chairman of the Board, summarizes the views of Executive Directors, and this summary is transmitted to the country’s authorities. An explanation of any qualifiers used in summings up can be found here: http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/misc/qualifiers.htm.
