"Critical thinking is the formation of logical inferences"- Simon and Kapplan, 1989. I think this definition applies to hypertext because in designing a webpage, determining which links are the most important, and how to put them together, one is certainly forming logical inferences (what leads to what? how are they connected?). For example, in my own website, I was conflicted on how to arrange my pages-- should I include the physical abuse and the psychological abuse of workers on the same page? What about the psychological abuse and the effects of that abuse on the workers self esteem? In addition, when you read about cases of extraordinary abuse, you then are faced with the question, why aren't people responding better to help end these sweatshops? Once you think about that, you realize that it may be due to the fact that there is still a great deal of classism, racism, and anit immigrant sentiments in America. Stringing these connections together is my definition of critical thinking.
Another definition that strikes me is: "The purpose of critical thinking is, therefore, to achieve understanding, evaluate view points, and solve problems." In my own website making experience, I realized that the first task was to gain knowledge about whichever subject I was discussing. In the case of my hypertext essay 2, I am learning about garment workers, but also how global capitalism effects different groups of people so differently. Then, once you understand the situation, you can look at different perspectives, and see where people agree and disagree, and also which portion of the problem they chose to focus on. For example, some of my resources focused on the strides of the garment workers themselves, whereas others looked at the widening class and racial gaps within the Los Angeles garment industry. Only when you understand the problem and the view points can you even attempt to solve the problem. After you evaluate other people's viewpoints (some say that sweatshops are inevitable because of the high supply of immigrant labor) you make you own judgements (I would agrue that a large immigrant population is by no means a justification for treating people like dirt), and work on solving the problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree that there is a lot of background research needed to solve the problem. First, how do we define the problem? When you look at it from different perspectives, the issue could look like a solution to somebody (eg, the sweatshop owners or even the people who buy the cheap clothing at K-Mart). But then you have to go back and reevaluate, designate a problem and then propose several different solutions because most likely only one in ten will end up working for everyone. In fact, it may be more like one in a hundred.
i like how your topis is a text book example of how a better informed population at large could improve the lives of so many. Many of the topics being covered in class are clear from the get go as "bad," the problem within that "badness" is not just getting the word out but figuring logistics to improve the situation as well. the problem of sweatshop labor is fairly simple and, if we are to believe humans are inherently good, easy to solve by simple allowing the well informed public's outrage to solve the problem.
Post a Comment