Q&A #8: Question Two

My second question this week is partially in response to two blog posts I saw related to the issue of when critical thinking. It seems that one must admit as Avery stated, that every degree of knowledge is based off of some basic assumptions. For example one cannot have a discussion analyzing the effects the bacteria on human organ tissue without admitting that the principles of cellular biology are accurate. In philosophical arguments many authors work from certain axiomatic points which provides a framework for the discussion at hand. This is the difference between being a critical thinker who is able to recognize inconsistencies in evidence provided in given circumstance, and being a radical skeptic who denies the validity of any claim. I also agree with Tommy that in some cases we need not be critical thinkers, in his example he uses the bible as an instructional piece for moral behavior. I agree that we can agree the bible is a flawed work when analyzed by contemporary global citizens, however a critical thinker I believe would be able to recognize the danger is using the Bible as justification for a given argument, but would still be able to disseminate the valuable lessons found within scripture.