LSAT

@kennethamy,

What is the point of this thread? Ken, are you suggesting that some (or many?) members here are not capable of thinking? You suggest that some may not even have the skill since it something "well worth acquiring." Random comments are probably more appropriate elsewhere than as first posts of new threads--especially when they are demeaning to "some" members of the forum.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;122048 wrote:

What is the point of this thread? Ken, are you suggesting that some (or many?) members here are not capable of thinking? You suggest that some may not even have the skill since it something "well worth acquiring." Random comments are probably more appropriate elsewhere than as first posts of new threads--especially when they are demeaning to "some" members of the forum.

You are far too sensitive. I was suggesting only that some posters might be encouraged to think better than they do. You really should not take it personally. Several posters are good thinkers. But some could improve- a lot. Would you disagree with that?

@kennethamy,

I think we can all agree that thinking is a skill worth having, and needs to be constantly honed in order to stay fresh, sharp, and competitive. In my own case, I have the memory of a house fly, so I need to constantly refresh myself every now and again as well as read up more on how to improve what can be further improved. I would also say that everyone on this forum are great thinkers in their own right, and we all come together in a great amalgamation of styles and philosophically have at it (highlander style).

As far as the LSAT (Law School Admissions Test) symposia is concerned, the test is designed in such a way where it demands that the test taker (would that be a testee LOL!) not only be able to use logical reasoning and deduction, but do it in a quick, efficient, and correct way. Of course there are other ways, this is just one way to consider and, if anything, pick and choose what you feel is useful to you. Also, the LSAT is not a quantifier of intelligence or skill per se, but really how much you studied and became familiar with the material. Simply, the test tests how you take tests. I believe everyone on the forum, no matter who they are, possess the skill of deduction in one form or another and deserve credit for their own respective levels. Further, everyone is bright in their own way. But honestly, in my own case, my skills are far from perfect. However, with certain methodologies and formulas, I can cut down the time I need to think about a given thing and assume it to be correct and greatly speed up my process of deduction... like Sherlock Holmes?but not as bad ass. Seriously, Robert Downey Jr. saved England from a fake magic douche-bag using deduction, so clearly, deduction is awesome. (sorry?just saw the movie) Perhaps this is why I like formal propositional logic so much? because I am so lazy to the point where I just want to use inference and replacement rules. LOL!

The thread (and series) are there to help those who want to learn an efficient methodology of deduction, whether they want to take the test or not. If anything, the test questions are neat little games you can play that are not only fun in their own sadistic way, but beneficial as well. I hope people want to take part in it because it really is as fun as Sudoku (assuming we think Sudoku is fun LOL!) once you get used to it.

This is the link to the first LSAT thread for any who are interested. I'm just about finished with logic games, which is a really fun thing to do on its own.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/community-forums/social-groups/pre-law-group/7397-lsat-symposia-1-intro-mastering-logic.html#post122013

Also, this is the link to the just completed Logic games section;

http://www.philosophyforum.com/community-forums/social-groups/pre-law-group/7402-lsat-symposia-2-logic-games-part-1-a.html#post122065

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon;122057 wrote:

I think we can all agree that thinking is a skill worth having, and needs to be constantly honed in order to stay fresh, sharp, and competitive. In my own case, I have the memory of a house fly, so I need to constantly refresh myself every now and again as well as read up more on how to improve what can be further improved. I would also say that everyone on this forum are great thinkers in their own right, and we all come together in a great amalgamation of styles and philosophically have at it (highlander style).

As far as the LSAT (Law School Admissions Test) symposia is concerned, the test is designed in such a way where it demands that the test taker (would that be a testee LOL!) not only be able to use logical reasoning and deduction, but do it in a quick, efficient, and correct way. Of course there are other ways, this is just one way to consider and, if anything, pick and choose what you feel is useful to you. Also, the LSAT is not a quantifier of intelligence or skill per se, but really how much you studied and became familiar with the material. Simply, the test tests how you take tests. I believe everyone on the forum, no matter who they are, possess the skill of deduction in one form or another and deserve credit for their own respective levels. Further, everyone is bright in their own way. But honestly, in my own case, my skills are far from perfect. However, with certain methodologies and formulas, I can cut down the time I need to think about a given thing and assume it to be correct and greatly speed up my process of deduction... like Sherlock Holmes?but not as bad ass. Seriously, Robert Downey Jr. saved England from a fake magic douche-bag using deduction, so clearly, deduction is awesome. (sorry?just saw the movie) Perhaps this is why I like formal propositional logic so much? because I am so lazy to the point where I just want to use inference and replacement rules. LOL!

The thread (and series) are there to help those who want to learn an efficient methodology of deduction, whether they want to take the test or not. If anything, the test questions are neat little games you can play that are not only fun in their own sadistic way, but beneficial as well. I hope people want to take part in it because it really is as fun as Sudoku (assuming we think Sudoku is fun LOL!) once you get used to it.

This is the link to the first LSAT thread for any who are interested. I'm just about finished with logic games, which is a really fun thing to do on its own.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/community-forums/social-groups/pre-law-group/7397-lsat-symposia-1-intro-mastering-logic.html#post122013

Also, this is the link to the just completed Logic games section;

http://www.philosophyforum.com/community-forums/social-groups/pre-law-group/7402-lsat-symposia-2-logic-games-part-1-a.html#post122065

I would also say that everyone on this forum are great thinkers in their own right,

I would not disagree with you unless I knew what you meant. And I have no idea what you mean. Or what the test for whether this is true is. How do you decide whether someone is a great thinker "in his own right"? Or is everyone so by definition?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122073 wrote:

I would also say that everyone on this forum are great thinkers in their own right,

I would not disagree with you unless I knew what you meant. And I have no idea what you mean. Or what the test for whether this is true is. How do you decide whether someone is a great thinker "in his own right"? Or is everyone so by definition?

You are just putting too much thought into the whole idea. Everyone that comes here and participates in the forum are great thinkers in their own right. They are attempting to do what most people couldn't care less about. No matter who they are, at least they are trying in their own right.

kennethamy;122055 wrote:

You are far too sensitive. I was suggesting only that some posters might be encouraged to think better than they do. You really should not take it personally. Several posters are good thinkers. But some could improve- a lot. Would you disagree with that?

I am not too sensitive, but what you said in your OP is enough to offend many people that you interact with on the forum. Had you said what you did now, I may not even had posted, but the way you put it the first time, it seemed to suggest that many people around here need to learn the skill of basic thinking.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122073 wrote:

I would also say that everyone on this forum are great thinkers in their own right,

I would not disagree with you unless I knew what you meant. And I have no idea what you mean. Or what the test for whether this is true is. How do you decide whether someone is a great thinker "in his own right"? Or is everyone so by definition?

Seems pretty self explanatory in my opinion. Everyone has their own respective capabilities and skills that they have fostered (or allowed to devolve) over the course of their lives. We all have relative ways of thinking and, unto ourselves, we should be great thinkers? unless we think otherwise. It's a matter of personal opinion I suppose. Simply? I don't decide who is a great thinker because that should be a conclusion the person in question should come to in their own right. Even more simply, if I were to ask myself, "Vide? do you think you are a great thinker?", I would reply, "That's a good question Vide. I think I am a good thinker because I think I am." I would also ask myself, "Vide? How would you decide someone was a great thinker?" I would reply, "Another fantastic question Vide. I would say what makes a person a great thinker is whatever the person thinks makes them a good thinker. We all have our own capabilities and so on, so a great thinker is a relative thing." I would then also ask myself, "Vide? Do you think that people can be great thinkers by definition?" I would say, "Vide, you know better than to inject something as immaterial and irrelevant to the discussion as definition into a relative perspective unless it were adequately enforced with substantial premises."

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;122077 wrote:

You are just putting too much thought into the whole idea. Everyone that comes here and participates in the forum are great thinkers in their own right. They are attempting to do what most people couldn't care less about. No matter who they are, at least they are trying in their own right.

.

Why are they "great". Is that an A for effort?

There are degrees of improvement needed in thinking skills, don't you think? John Locke wrote that God did give Man two legs to walk with, and then left it to Aristotle to make them rational. And that, of course, is true. But, although every person has some minimum degree of rationality, after that they differ a lot. That is illustrated every day on this forum.

@kennethamy,

While all humans are capable of, broadly speaking, thinking, isn't it important to distinguish between thinking as an art, and thinking as a science? The former seems to be a natural ability extended to a few lucky people, the latter acquired by effort and learning.

To encourage everyone to improve their thinking through both study and practice seems to me important to say, especially here.

@jgweed,

jgweed;122143 wrote:

While all humans are capable of, broadly speaking, thinking, isn't it important to distinguish between thinking as an art, and thinking as a science? The former seems to be a natural ability extended to a few lucky people, the latter acquired by effort and learning.

To encourage everyone to improve their thinking through both study and practice seems to me important to say, especially here.

I would add only that some people could use a lot of improvement.

Philosophy Forum

LSAT

Quick Links

My Account

able2know