Unit 1 Portfolio SRF 2023 PDF

Dentistry SRF Portfolio U1 U1. Introduction. Science and religion: unravelling myths 1. Developing critical though: “The Myt...

Dentistry SRF Portfolio U1 U1. Introduction. Science and religion: unravelling myths 1. Developing critical though: “The Myth of the Cave” (Plato’s methaphore): Life among shadows a) To investigate: What is the meaning of each part? -Cave: -Prisioners: -Shadows: -People who projects: -The way out of the cave: -The sunlight reality: b) Analize the phrase: “A perfect dictatorship would have the appearance of a democracy, but it would basically be a prison without walls from which the prisoners would not even dream of escaping. It would essentially be a system of slavery in which, thanks to consumption and entertainment, the slaves would love their servitude.” (A. Huxley, Brave New World). 1  Dentistry SRF Portfolio U1 c) Problem: 1. Explain the manipulation problem with a current and real example where the myth of the cave is represented and give arguments explaining why it is a problem. 2. Offer a solution or improvement proposal for the problem (“how could we leave the cave?”... if possible, from your field of work). Text*: LÓPEZ, T., “Retos de la psicología ante el diseño de una nueva naturaleza humana”, Murillo, I. (Ed.), Conocer y pensar la realidad humana, Diálogo Filosófico, Publicación Actas Jornada 11, Madrid: Colmenar Viejo, 2023, pp. 51-56. 60-64. 2  Dentistry SRF Portfolio U1 2. Ravelling our own knowledge and opinion a) Questionnaire Write reasons a person may have for believing and reasons for not believing. Reasons to believe Reasons not to believe Define in your own words: -Reason: -Science: -Religion: -Faith: 3  Dentistry SRF Portfolio U1 b) Read, take notes of the main ideas and complete the self-assesment text*: Michel –Yves Bolloré y Oliver Bonnassies, “What do scientist bealive in?”, God, the science, the evidence,… (*Self-assesment) 4  Dentistry SRF Portfolio U1 3. Is the conflict inherent to science and religion? a) To investigate: Are science and religion opposing views of the world? Why? Answer explaining reasons and real facts about the compatibility between the two disciplines. Where does the conflict arise from? Answer the question explaining the Galileo’s case shown in the text or any real case you know. (*Follow the scheme) Text: ZANOTTI, G., “Faith and science: no more reasons for conflict”, Fe y Libertad, Vol. 1, nº2, 2018. b) Analyze: “‘One of the world’s leading atheists has come to believe in God, based on scientific evidence.’ This was the headline of an Associated Press story on December 9, 2004.” Can these reasons really be “scientific”?, can reason precede assertions related to faith? 5  Dentistry SRF Portfolio U1 c) Causes of the opposition between science and religion Activity: “The false impression is generated that the reflective debate on God is already closed, and that the only thing that remains is an obscure irrational religious inertia in the face of the rational clarity of atheism. And it is difficult to exaggerate the potential for secularist fanaticism that such an approach holds.” (Foreword by Soler, F.J., to the work of FLEW, A. (2013), God exists, pp.19 and 21.) Find definitions and situations narrated in texts that explain non-critical ways of argumentation and understanding reality. Texts*: - God, the science, the evidence (op. cit.) pp. 27-29 (“Acceptance of the truth is often hindered by our own personal and professional passions”) -A. Flew, God exists, Trotta, Madrid, 2013, (“Prefacio” by R. Abraham Varghese, pp. 23-35). 4. Critical thinking Define what “critical thinking” is and what is not after reading the text. Analyze the socio-cultural obstacles to developing critical thinking and offers a solution or proposal for improvement (*Follow the scheme). 6  Dentistry SRF Portfolio U1 Critical thinking: skill or attitude? There are several pedagogical ways of approaching concepts about which we need clarity. Two of them are the etymological way and the “negative way”. As for the etymology of the word “critical”, coming from the Greek κριτικóς, it refers to “aptitude to judge” […] With a play on words, the following interpretation could be valid: the ability to judge is comparable to […] separates what is useful from what is useless, separates what is good from what is bad. To obtain what is valuable we need a sifter or a tool, that is, some suitable criterion -value the redundancy. As for the negative way, that is, what is not being critical, it implies a simpler elaboration: stagnant thinking, incapable of contrasting, that does not investigate further, that does not ask questions, that does not dialogue with those who think differently, that its epistemic beliefs are not based on arguments but on axioms or dogmas, etc. As for the broad and positively described concept, Facione (1990) takes up the now classic division of components: CT is a harmonious set of skills and dispositions. The American Philosophical Association pointed out six skills (interpretation, analysis, inference and explanation abilities and self-regulation), and 19 dispositions or habits. Regarding the latter: The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquiring, well- informed, relies on reason, open-minded, flexible, impartial in evaluation, honest in confronting personal biases, prudent in making decisions, willing to reconsider, clear about problems, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in selecting criteria, [etc.] (Facione, 1990, p. 2) (Facione, 1990, p. 2). However, it seems that the tendency among university teachers is to conceive critical thinking as that set of student competencies, more related to the previous skills. […] most teachers define critical thinking with the operations of “Analyze/Organize” and “Reason/Argument” (52.3%) and few (3.5%) go so far as to include “Act/Commit” in the definition (p. 105). […] There is no doubt that these [reasoning habilities] can be better quantified, but the problem would be to directly relate CT only to the set of skills. Certainly we need reasoning, comparison and analysis skills; however, an algorithm can perform historical or theoretical comparison tasks faster than our brain processes. Likewise, there are people whose high logical and analytical abilities allow them to speculate to the end about the consequences of any given option; but they do not decide on any of them as the best option, or they remain impassive […]. This could not be described as critical reflection, but rather as analytical capacity or mere skepticism. What then makes the difference? Part of the answer lies in the counter-narratives to the concept of CT offered by the APA […] “a more robust style of critique that allows students to question foundational aspects of the social systems they inhabit” (p.4). […]. Attitudes interweave the skills. What perhaps gives the character of sufficiency to CT may be: the aspiration to obtain the best possible evaluation of the reality of a particular subject. Its consequence, therefore, is to position oneself ethically on the matter to be reflected upon when the opportunity arises. Martínez M., S.; Risco, L. A., “El desarrollo del pensamiento crítico como actitud en la enseñanza universitaria: el texto b)literario Thecomoproblems that recurso”, (pp. science 967-968), cannot Revista “solve” Complutense de Educación, (Julio 2022), https://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rced.86937. 7  Dentistry SRF Portfolio U1 - REVIEW OF KEY CONCEPTS U1- 8