 |
USA Edition | Today Is Sunday, May 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
| Browsing Materials Tagged newsroom magazine content | Organized In Date Order | [ 8 items ] | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First Item | Earlier | Middle Item | Last Item | ||
The result is all to often drug related stories that seek to project law enforcement success, which is entirely proper, even as they are far more revelatory of a troubled social compact exploiting an impotent national drug policy. Every drug interdiction and arrest story relies on, promotes, or seeks to justify juking the stats by way of citing the weight of captured contraband — or its potential street value — as if the government planned to sell their mounting stash to reduce the federal deficit.
Robert Butche
Inside The Beltway
Q: Who wants to read all this government propaganda and endless puffery? Besides, what’s the point of so much ‘official content’ in what has otherwise proven to be an excellent online source of responsible news and information?
Q: Can you explain why it is you so often fail to add analysis, foundation or explanatory materials to so much of what you publish?
Q: Don’t you know you’re only publishing government’s side of things? Is that your idea of what’s relevant, credible and probative?
A: First, let me set the record straight. Nearly all of the official government documents, transcripts and news releases we choose are to some degree propaganda and almost always instruments of puffery. That these documents are flawed is not very important journalistically, for as the questions above make clear, the highly educated, sophisticated and demanding audience we reach understands exactly what they’re getting.
That said, there remains substantial news value, credible information and policy development support in what we choose to publish.
On average, Newsroom Magazine uses about 1.8% of what is proffered by federal government sources, agencies, institutions and officials. Being probative, relevant and credible are rarely the purpose of government documents, statements and press releases. What benefits government, or makes it sound efficient, effective or heroic is the most likely content to be proffered to the press.
Thus drug smuggling, interdiction and street value stories, from a wide range of law enforcement agencies, have the feel of cookie-cutter news releases whose sole purpose is to juke the stats to demonstrate earnest efforts to staunch the flow while avoiding any mention of effectiveness, appropriateness, or cost.
The result is all to often drug related stories that seek to project law enforcement success, which is entirely proper, even as they are far more revelatory of a troubled social compact exploiting an impotent national drug policy. Every drug interdiction and arrest story relies on, promotes, or seeks to justify juking the stats by way of citing the weight of captured contraband — or its potential street value — as if the government planned to sell their mounting stash to reduce the federal deficit.
Conversely, the gang round-up stories we’ve published recently are substantially more revelatory of sophisticated and competent law enfrocement activities that too often go without substantive national press coverage.
For the most part, it’s what’s not said in government reports and announcements that are most telling — as for example the ongoing stream of Ponzi scheme prosecutions by a wide range of departments and agencies. Taken as a whole, the sheer volume and repetitive nature of these stories go far beyond revealing bad guys being caught red-handed.
Only when one is exposed to Ponzi story after Ponzi story is the fuller picture of our shared cultural and civil behavior revealed. And only when one is exposed to an avalanche of drug bust, delivery interdiction, and/or confiscation stories is the reality of a failed drug policy all the more clear.
No matter that some of the individual Ponzi Scheme stories and press releases were mundane, or puffery, or a one-sided view, what becomes clear is the degree to which ordinary Americans believe they are exempt from the constraints of reality, responsibility and accountability. Thus we focus on what matters most.
What’s substantive, what’s revelatory and what’s timely. Sometimes, as for example, the speeches and written testimony of Rose Gottemoeller concerning the substance and history of the New START treaty, or the full transcript of public argument concerning Citizens-United before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The point is that the range of documents, reports, statements, interviews, press conferences and news releases we publish vary substantially in their credibility, probativity and accuracy.
Some of what we publish is evidence of excellence in government and the best of American values and ideals. Most does not, while some, sad to say, reeks of incompetence and bureaucratic puffery.
Our job is to apply responsible news judgment to the subjects and the news value of what is proffered by government to filter out what’s most worthy of being published. The result is there for all to see whether it be evidence of governmental excellence, bumbling, or buffoonery.
Robert Butche
Publisher
Newsroom Magazine