What is the difference between logic and critical thinking?
550365
Logic is A=B, B=C, therefore A=C. (sees the steps in a process, understands cause and effect, etc)\n\nCritical thinking says.... "okay, that is true, but why? and what can I do with that knowledge? and how will affect/effect me now and in the future?"
205662
Aaaaaah, let us see. Both are a way of conveying thoughts. Both are a form introspection. Both are a round about way of saying a very simple thing\n:)
167323
a contradiction ;) logic isn't arbitrary, especially if it serves a function, ja?\n\ni mean, even things that are logic-based but could largely be considered arbitrary, such as a sence of fashion, serve a purpose. i.e. survival, namely in society, is pretty much just fitting in. knowing how to dress acceptably, therefor, helps to ensure your survival. i think the same could be argued for any logic function, but it's all personal opinion.
707646
A benefit of being critical in thinking is that your typically detailed oriented and analytical in thought process. The down side is that your often mean to people.
175305
One is thinking and one is doing?\nLook at the modules in the course and see if one has more theory or maths than the other.
494182
to put it simply there are two types of arguments a priori arguments which are based purely on logic, and can be developed simply in the mind eg Descartes Ontological argument...and then there are a posteriori arguments which are based on our experience of the world, such as the design argument
578514
This is a hard question to answer because there are different forms of intelligence.  There are people who are book smart, people who are good with electronics, philosophical people etc.  \n\nHowever, I think people who can form an opinion based on a reasonable thought process and can still honestly consider other points of view (even if they still don't change their own opinion) are pretty intelligent.  Closed minds are small minds but if you open your mind it is free to grow as large as it wants to.
1171671
Reading the comments defending  the lies  of the republicans (who control both houses of congress, JAY) is to be shielded from responsibility for the results of these lies. Also, critical thinking involves weighing both sides of an issue neutrally and then applying logic to separate the false from the true. I have yet to see this applied by republicans who come into an argument already convinced of the outcome. \nFor some people the idea of being wrong cannot be tolerated by their world view. You can identify most of these people by the way they respond to attacks on this world view. They attack the person they are arguing with instead of the facts. This is called an ad homonym logical fallacy and it is the most favored attack of republicans of all stripes.
904548
A law has been proven and can never be broken. It can be bent but not broken. A theory is an idea that suphices for the phenomena at hand. it would be the most logical of explanations to date until another theory which may be more precise is thought up. Theories cannot normally be tested because they sometimes have to do with concepts that cannot be tested without super enhanced technology.
430488
To begin with we need to look at the question and the language used to ask for answers. First is "logic". A simple definition is provided by Wikipedia which states:\n\n"Logic, from Classical Greek λόγος (logos), originally meaning the word, or what is spoken, (but coming to mean thought or reason) is most often said to be the study of criteria for the evaluation of arguments, although the exact definition of logic is a matter of controversy among philosophers. However the subject is grounded, the task of the logician is the same: to advance an account of valid and fallacious inference to allow one to distinguish good from bad arguments.\n\nTraditionally, logic is studied as a branch of philosophy. Since the mid-nineteenth century logic has been commonly studied in mathematics, and, even more recently, in computer science. As a formal science, logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. The scope of logic can therefore be very large, ranging from core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, to specialist analyses of reasoning such as probably correct reasoning and arguments involving causality."\n\nSecond, we must look at the word "truth". It is important to note that the word is not capitalized so we can avoid metaphysical theory or definitions based on cultist beliefs, such as christianity or other god-dependent or deity dependent definitions. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is quoted as proposing that truth is:\n\nA preliminary issue, although somewhat subsidiary, is to decide what sorts of things can be true. Is truth a property of sentences (which are linguistic entities in some language or other), or is truth a property of propositions (nonlinguistic, abstract and timeless entities)? The principal issue is: What is truth? It is the problem of being clear about what you are saying when you say some claim or other is true. The most important theories of truth are the Correspondence Theory, the Semantic Theory, the Deflationary Theory, the Coherence Theory, and the Pragmatic Theory. Whichever theory of truth is advanced to settle the principal issue, there are a number of additional issues to be addressed: \n     1. Can claims about the future be true now? \n     2. Can there be some algorithm for finding truth –        some recipe or procedure for deciding, for any claim in the system of, say, arithmetic, whether the claim is true? \n     3. Can the predicate "is true" be completely defined in other terms so that it can be eliminated, without loss of meaning, from any context in which it occurs? \n     4. To what extent do theories of truth avoid paradox? \n     5. Is the goal of scientific research to achieve truth? \n\nLogic is one form of epistemological approach to ascertaining knowledge. It is the "how we know what we know and the limitations of that knowledge". Logic is a tool for explanation of the ideas, observations, and experiences. It could also be said that logic is sometimes used poorly to acertain truth. Most clearly in areas of theology. Logical fallacies and faulty logic come most readily to mind. But that is another question for another time.
783053
To a great extent it has to do with personal choice.  Mathmatics, physics, and hard sciences are all majors that require logical and critical thinking.  Journalism, liberal arts, and arts degrees can be achieved without such logical abilities.  So while a logical thinker could excel in any of these programs, they are more likely to find frustration being surrounded by those without their abilities.  Those without the capacity for logical thought cannot excel in the sciences.  I am sure I am going to get a lot of thumbs down for this from those unable to follow the simple logic.
225408
Check with college students (put this question in the "Educational" heading)\n\nI work for a major University and we have a professor that teaches a Critical Thinking course. They harrass and fail Christians with the statement "You need to drop this class now.  There is no way you can pass a class in Critical Thinking if you are a closed minded Religious Zealot!"
51370
Critical Ethics thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning .......\n\nIt require the utmost care in their specification and design to avoid errors in their implementation, using state of the art techniques in a responsible manner. \n\nTo do otherwise is at best unprofessional and at worst can lead to disastrous consequences. An inappropriate approach could lead to loss of life, and will almost certainly result in financial penalties in the long run, whether because of loss of business or because of the imposition of fines. \n\nLegislation and standards impose external pressures, but education and ethical considerations should help provide more self-imposed guidelines for all those involved in the production of safety-critical systems. This paper considers some of the issues involved, with pointers to material providing greater depth in particular areas, especially with respect to the use of formal methods.
477298
What we are interested in, what drives us, what we enjoy and find important, are very rarely logical.  If we lived by logic alone, I doubt we would ever have made it down from the trees, let alone out of the caves.  Humans are driven to learn, for no really logical reason other than instinctive drive- Logic requires quantifiable results for definable problems.  Where is the logic in eating?  To stay alive?  Where is the logic in living?  There isnt any-we live because we want to, we have kids and love them because we want to, are driven to...we use logic to get us what we want-Logic is only one tool that slavishly serves our mindless and beautiful passions.  One of those passions is to learn and explore, so yes, its imminently logical.
259386
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
825958
Wisdom is much more complicated than knowledge. Knowledge is merely an understanding of the nature of things but wisdom involves a vast array of character attributes that predispose to prudent behavior.
941849
My views ar based on logic and the data that I can find. If I discover new data that contradicts a view I've had, then I change my view. If I find a mistake, then I change my view.\n\nMany do not, and continue to ardently support what they believe in even if all the data show that the belief is wrong. This is the main reason why I feel belief is a dangerous thing to have.\n\nWhen you use belief as a basis for judgement, it doesn't matter if your belief is true or not. It makes it "right". From there, anything goes. For an example, see terrorists and Iraq.\n\nThe key here should be that people should use critical thinking skills to formulate a logical conclusion based on available facts.\n\nBut it's just too easy to use belief and emotion.\n\n~X~