What degree promotes critical thinking the best?

[Virtual ghost]

you can do that with philosophy.

and you'd be hard-pressed to find a biologist who could use his/her training in biology to dissect the omniscient third-person-first-person narrative of Joyce in "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man"...

In my opinion, one just has to work REALLY REALLY had at whatever subject it is one is doing and one's brainpower will be focused enough to tackle most subjects... all that is required is that one stays in touch with the basics of other disciplines... so a chemist shouldn't stop reading fiction entirely, or visiting art museums, or he'll be a doofus when it comes to talking about human emotion in an intellectual or hyperanalytical setting (unless he makes up for it somewhere else, which won't be in chemistry)... and a literature major should try to keep him/herself abreast of developments in AI and physics, or he/she'll look like a dope for assuming atoms are the be-all and end-all of existence and relying on lame analogies to Lucretius when people are busy talking about multiple dimensions and quarks.

You are right to some degree about philosophy but here we are talking about a professional degree.

Philosophy can't change that many things because it si not critical enough but degree of changes that hard science can create is far more larger and deeper then what philosophy can offer.
I really don't want to sound like a smartass but if you didn't study hard science for years this is a hard to grasp.

Also who is doing the majority of progress in modern society?
I am sorry but degree in philosophy is simply too hollow to be number one in this.Today science is advancing so fast and it has become so abstract that the only one who can do philosophical research about it are those scientist who know that sub,sub,sub part of some scientific discipline.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

You are right to some degree about philosophy but here we are talking about a professional degree.

Philosophy can't change that many things because it si not critical enough but degree of changes that hard science can create is far more larger.
I really don't want to sound like a smartass but if you didn't study hard science for years this is a hard to grasp.

Also who is doing the majority of progress in modern society?
I am sorry but degree in philosophy is simply too hollow to be number one in this.Today science is advancing so fast and it has become so abstract that the only one who can do philosophical research about it are those scientist who know that sub,sub,sub part of some scientific discipline.

you forget that philosophical thinking often contributes to scientific advancements... mach influenced Einstein, amongst others...

but anyway... what kind of advancement are you talking about? Human beings are, for all we know, just as if not more miserable than they were several hundreds of years ago.

it seems science is barely able to keep pace with the destruction we wreak upon the world...

____________________________________________________________________

Plus... we're not talking about which discipline furthers technological advancement... we're talking about which discipline furthers critical thinking, and the problem with sciences is that in this age of hyper-specialization we tend to lose sight of the bigger picture if our science studies aren't counterbalanced by reading and thinking in the liberal arts.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

I guarantee you someone who never read a bit about science, and only about liberal arts, would be far more world-wise and trustworthy than someone who never read a bit about liberal arts but only about science.

(these are idealized subjects)

 

[Orangey]

You are right to some degree about philosophy but here we are talking about a professional degree.

Philosophy can't change that many things because it si not critical enough but degree of changes that hard science can create is far more larger and deeper then what philosophy can offer.
I really don't want to sound like a smartass but if you didn't study hard science for years this is a hard to grasp.

Also who is doing the majority of progress in modern society?
I am sorry but degree in philosophy is simply too hollow to be number one in this.Today science is advancing so fast and it has become so abstract that the only one who can do philosophical research about it are those scientist who know that sub,sub,sub part of some scientific discipline.

Unless you plan on going on into a PhD program and doing lifelong research for some hard science, then you probably won't be using your knowledge to change much of anything. Your question asked about critical thinking. The key word is thinking. There doesn't need to be an attendant action.

 

[Zergling]

The thread is getting a bit more abrasive than it needs to be to get the points across. Please avoid comments about the worth in general of people with various degrees, unless talking about something that directly effects critical thinking.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Unless you plan on going on into a PhD program and doing lifelong research for some hard science, then you probably won't be using your knowledge to change much of anything. Your question asked about critical thinking. The key word is thinking. There doesn't need to be an attendant action.

Yes Ph.D and research is exactly what I want to do whit my life.
I say that philosophy is not actually that much of a critical thinking because it goes in a circles. That becuse it is very limited whit human mind.

Todays philosopher must be also a scientist so he/she could lead thoward new frontiers what is the purpose of critical thinking.
But today good scientific education lasts for 40 years and it is hard to be both.

Whitout scientific knowledge you can't od anything becuse you don't know facts.

 

[Virtual ghost]

you forget that philosophical thinking often contributes to scientific advancements... mach influenced Einstein, amongst others...

but anyway... what kind of advancement are you talking about? Human beings are, for all we know, just as if not more miserable than they were several hundreds of years ago.

it seems science is barely able to keep pace with the destruction we wreak upon the world...

____________________________________________________________________

Plus... we're not talking about which discipline furthers technological advancement... we're talking about which discipline furthers critical thinking, and the problem with sciences is that in this age of hyper-specialization we tend to lose sight of the bigger picture if our science studies aren't counterbalanced by reading and thinking in the liberal arts.

Yes but the Einstein thing was very very long time ago when two disciplines were much more connected.

Science knows exactly what is happening to the planet but the ones who can't keep up in this are politics and general public.

I am saying that critical thinking is very closely connected with tehnological advancement. Because tehnological advancement is advancing critical thinking.

I guarantee you someone who never read a bit about science, and only about liberal arts, would be far more world-wise and trustworthy than someone who never read a bit about liberal arts but only about science.

(these are idealized subjects)

Sorry but I have to ask you: Do you have something against science?
Because I have that impresion and if answer is yes, I am interested in why do you have something against science.

 

[Orangey]

Yes Ph.D and research is exactly what I want to do whit my life.
I say that philosophy is not actually that much of a critical thinking because it goes in a circles. That becuse it is very limited whit human mind.

Todays philosopher must be also a scientist so he/she could lead thoward new frontiers what is the purpose of critical thinking.
But today good scientific education lasts for 40 years and it is hard to be both.

Whitout scientific knowledge you can't od anything becuse you don't know facts.

That's great that you want to do scientific research as a career . BTW what field is it that you are interested in?

But back to the topic:

Critical thinking is the ability to analyze information using normative standards of reasoning. One need not be an expert in a particular field to be able to discern logical fallacies in information that is being presented. In fact, I believe that the whole point of critical thinking is to allow people who are not experts to be able to know if they are being fed bullshit. There is a reason that courses titled "critical thinking" are usually found in philosophy departments. Critical thinking has nothing to do with making scientific or technological advancements.

There are subfields of philosophy dedicated to the philosophy of science. However, that is not the only subfield, nor is it any more or less important than, say, ethics, metaphysics, philosophy of language, or logic (there are more as well).