Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.
I agree that philosophy is worthwhile, and perhaps even that critical thinking can be taught successfully.
I just think there's a problem with the analogy to mathematics. Mathematics is so rigorous that it's possible to find general agreement on what is correct and what is erroneous.
Philosophy is different. I think even eminent philosophers are prone to making blunders, reasoning by fallacy, and then being blind to their mistakes (I think you would see Plantinga as such a person, for instance, while I would agree and add Searle).
As such, while I think professional mathematicians are necessarily very good at math, I'm far from convinced the same is true of professional philosophers and philosophy.
Philosophical training is perhaps only mildly effective as a safeguard against flawed thinking, while it certainly does help to rationalise flawed positions.
I've got doubts about the wisdom of trying to teach critical thinking directly as a separate subject. Apart from questions about effectiveness, there is the problem of ideological bias.
John Dewey, for example, whom many advocates of teaching critical thinking appeal to, was very ideological in his social and educational thinking.
On the other hand, some people do exhibit a greater capacity for critical thinking than others, and it is reasonable to assume that formal education has played a role in this.
My view is that critical thinking is best taught in high school in an indirect and 'distributed' way – as an element of English (comprehension exercises, essay writing, debating, etc.), English or other literatures (critical analyses of texts), as an element of the various sciences (method etc.), statistics, and so on.
Likewise at university, where the more reflective and philosophical dimensions of particular disciplines can be opened up for scrutiny. Any discipline worth its salt has this reflective or critical or philosophical dimension.
My main point is that critical thinking is both multifaceted and contextual, and that trying to isolate it necessarily oversimplifies, decontextualizes and distorts.
I don't think you can ever get away from bias but critical thinking at least gives you tools to help you to detect it in yourself and others. As for people like John Dewey having an ideological bias, that doesn't mean that he advocated his particularly ideological bias should be taught uncritically (unless off course you think teaching critical thinking itself is an ideological bias)
As for not teaching critical thinking separately such as having a dedicated philosophy class, that is what our education system already does and this strategy has not accomplished the goal of having people generally think critically. Moreover, there is the problem of transfer of critical thinking skills (and other thinking tools) when they are taught with specific subject matters rather than first taught as a specific way of thinking that can apply to all subject matters.
I personally think we need more philosophy and critical thinking classes that not only focus on set procedures but also to hit on people's motivations to be critical thinkers. For that, I think you need a dedicated course rather than hope that students will pick it up when you embed it into content based courses (which is also necessary but not sufficient IMO).
>I don't think you can ever get away from bias but critical thinking at least gives you tools to help you to detect it in yourself and others.<
Being aware of bias is a large part of what critical thinking is. When you say that critical thinking gives you tools for detecting it you really mean 'classes in critical thinking' and I am denying we need such classes and suggesting other ways habits of critical thinking can be encouraged.
>As for people like John Dewey having an ideological bias, that doesn't mean that he advocated his particularly ideological bias should be taught uncritically (unless of course you think teaching critical thinking itself is an ideological bias).<
It's obvious from my comment that I believe that critical thinking is a good thing (and ideological bias a potentially dangerous thing). My point is that such courses can become a vehicle for those with ideological agendas (and if the developers of such courses rely on or appeal to sources biased in a particular direction then this is a danger signal).
>As for not teaching critical thinking separately such as having a dedicated philosophy class, that is what our education system already does and this strategy has not accomplished the goal of having people generally think critically.<
This is bad thinking. As if you could ever accomplish 'the goal of having people generally think critically'! It is a matter of gradation, more or less, not yes or no. (Unless of course you have totalitarian tendencies!)
>Moreover, there is the problem of transfer of critical thinking skills (and other thinking tools) when they are taught with specific subject matters rather than first taught as a specific way of thinking that can apply to all subject matters.<
There are perhaps some general principles but they arise naturally out of thinking about specific subject matters, I would say.
>I personally think we need more philosophy and critical thinking classes that not only focus on set procedures but also to hit on people's motivations to be critical thinkers.<
I know you don't mean it like this but what you say could be interpreted in a totalitarian way – 'reeducation' and all that.
But, seriously, there is no reason why my approach could not also 'hit on people's motivations to be critical thinkers'. A good science course or a good English course or a good history course will do this, surely.
One other quick point: advocates of critical thinking classes need to face the opportunity cost issue.
That's another issue but, briefly, my first reaction was to say that everyone can think critically to some extent, whereas not everyone can think creatively. If you define it broadly, however, you could plausibly see creativity as a universal element in human thinking.
On another note entirely, your reference to creative thinking leads me to wonder whether maybe we could have separate courses for critical thinking, creative thinking, humane thinking, radical thinking, aggressive thinking, deviant thinking, etc. – and dispense with content-based subjects altogether.
>These are interesting comments, but there's perhaps only an indirect reference in Mark's comments to what "creative" thinking might be. The interplay of critical and creative thinking would perhaps make an interesting piece<
I’m not sure what you mean. I was not commenting on creative thinking nor was Mark. That’s an interesting but separate topic.
>say that critical thinking gives you tools for detecting it you really mean 'classes in critical thinking' and I am denying we need such classes and suggesting other ways habits of critical thinking can be encouraged.<
I know your denying it. I’m just saying I don’t think it’s a particularly effective strategy as that is what the education system (at least in the US) has been doing without much success. Off course ultimately this is an empirical question, one I intend to answer in the near future with some studies I’ll be running.
>It's obvious from my comment that I believe that critical thinking is a good thing (and ideological bias a potentially dangerous thing). My point is that such courses can become a vehicle for those with ideological agendas (and if the developers of such courses rely on or appeal to sources biased in a particular direction then this is a danger signal).<
I’m sure they can become vehicles for ideological agenda but the same is true for other subjects. I would even argue it’s easier for other courses such as history to fall for that trap where specific content is being discussed without much critical evaluation. Teachers in K-12 education don’t have much leeway to critically discuss the content.
In a philosophy or critical thinking class, you can at least directly address things like logic, thinking for yourself, being skeptical of claims, including the views the teacher holds. You can teach facts about human biases and help students understand and identify logical fallacies. These are not topics that are really covered in any other content-based course.
>This is bad thinking. As if you could ever accomplish 'the goal of having people generally think critically'! It is a matter of gradation, more or less, not yes or no. (Unless of course you have totalitarian tendencies!)<
I didn’t mean that there is a dichotomy of either thinking critically or not thinking critically even though I can see how you can get that from what I wrote (bad writing on my part). However, what I meant was that people are very low on the scale of critical thinking abilities and don’t make the type of gains and improvements in their critical thinking skills that would be expected from so many years of education. I think we can both agree that the level of critical thinking is society is far from ideal.
>There are perhaps some general principles but they arise naturally out of thinking about specific subject matters, I would say.<
Well there is plenty of research in cognitive science that disagrees with that assumption, you have the problem of transfer of skills from subject to subject matter unless the skills are first explicitly taught and than generalized (explicitly) to show how they apply to multiple subject areas.
That is why I think you need both, at some point you need to very explicitly teach critical thinking on it’s own but also embed it into different subject classes to make sure students generalize those skills. Ideally this would be done through bringing back philosophy courses into K-12 education.
>I know you don't mean it like this but what you say could be interpreted in a totalitarian way – 'reeducation' and all that.<
This strikes me as a rather bizarre interpretation of my statement that we need to teach motivation to be critical thinkers along with teaching the thinking skills. I’m not sure how you can take the idea of motivating everyone to be critical thinkers to mean it’s a program about “reeducation” or “brain washing” people. Do you think Massimo is trying to be a totalitarian when he encourages critical thinking on his blog? Encouraging critical thinking is the very opposite of what a totalitarian would want to do.
That aside, the topic of developing motivation for critical thinking is a large topic in the cognitive science literature as researchers have realized that simply teaching things like logic and other thinking skills doesn’t lead people to actually apply the skills in their life or be skeptical of claims outside of class.
>But, seriously, there is no reason why my approach could not also 'hit on people's motivations to be critical thinkers'. A good science course or a good English course or a good history course will do this, surely.<
I would agree but only in part. I obviously think you need the combination of the two. I’m just saying that we have tried the approach of only embedding critical thinking into specific subjects, including science classes and it hasn’t worked out very well. I’ve even seen people in college and graduate school who are very good at what they do in science and can think critically about the subject matter of interest but either are not motivated or simply don’t know how to apply critical thinking in other subject matters or other parts of their life.
>One other quick point: advocates of critical thinking classes need to face the opportunity cost issue.<
Care to elaborate what those are? As far as I know, in education the more explicit focus on critical thinking went away due to pressure towards fitting in other content (that focuses more on teaching content and not process of thinking) and political pressure due to the nature of critical thinking (people don’t necessarily want to teach students to be critical thinkers, some of the biggest advocates against critical thinking classes have been parents and school administrators)
>In a philosophy or critical thinking class, you can at least directly address things like logic, thinking for yourself, being skeptical of claims, including the views the teacher holds.<
Fair point.
>You can teach facts about human biases and help students understand and identify logical fallacies. These are not topics that are really covered in any other content-based course.<
What about psychology? Statistics?
>I’m not sure how you can take the idea of motivating everyone to be critical thinkers to mean it’s a program about “reeducation” or “brain washing” people. Do you think Massimo is trying to be a totalitarian when he encourages critical thinking on his blog? Encouraging critical thinking is the very opposite of what a totalitarian would want to do.<
I hope so! But writing a blog is very different from working with a young, captive audience in a formal education setting.
I indicated (via the subsequent 'But seriously...') that I was not totally serious about the reeducation point. Nonetheless there are dangers in your approach. There is a thin line between encouraging critical thinking in a responsible way and incorporating partisan or ideological elements into the program.
You obviously have an image of how people should think, and a very low opinion of how they do think. I value skepticism and critical thinking just as highly as you do, I suspect, but am more wary of social or educational programs that seek to make wholesale changes.
I also have just a little bit more respect for the way ordinary people think. Often they are more rational and skeptical than one thinks because they don't really believe what they might say they believe. Our minds work in strange ways and we can't live without illusions of various kinds. Logic plays a basic but only a minor role in practical and social thinking.
>... you have the problem of transfer of skills from subject to subject matter unless the skills are first explicitly taught and then generalized (explicitly) to show how they apply to multiple subject areas. That is why I think you need both, at some point you need to very explicitly teach critical thinking on it’s own…<
There is a problem with transfering skills from one area to another, but it is simply false to claim that if we do not teach critical thinking skills separately and explicitly people won't think critically in a general way. Traditional forms of education in Western countries have been successfully producing critical thinkers for centuries!
You asked me to elaborate on the opportunity cost issue. Well, obviously, if you have a special critical thinking course you are going to have to drop a particular content-based course – and what about the other possibilities which we forego?
Would we not benefit also if people graduated from high school or college with a better knowledge of history (not just US or modern), other languages and cultures, higher levels of competence in mathematics etc.?
Hi Massimo,
ReplyDeleteI agree that philosophy is worthwhile, and perhaps even that critical thinking can be taught successfully.
I just think there's a problem with the analogy to mathematics. Mathematics is so rigorous that it's possible to find general agreement on what is correct and what is erroneous.
Philosophy is different. I think even eminent philosophers are prone to making blunders, reasoning by fallacy, and then being blind to their mistakes (I think you would see Plantinga as such a person, for instance, while I would agree and add Searle).
As such, while I think professional mathematicians are necessarily very good at math, I'm far from convinced the same is true of professional philosophers and philosophy.
Philosophical training is perhaps only mildly effective as a safeguard against flawed thinking, while it certainly does help to rationalise flawed positions.
DM, we are talking about pretty basic philosophy. I doubt you'll find many philosophers who disagree about modus tollens...
DeleteHumans are the argumentative animal.
ReplyDeleteHumans are the rationalizing tribalist animal!
DeleteI've got doubts about the wisdom of trying to teach critical thinking directly as a separate subject. Apart from questions about effectiveness, there is the problem of ideological bias.
ReplyDeleteJohn Dewey, for example, whom many advocates of teaching critical thinking appeal to, was very ideological in his social and educational thinking.
On the other hand, some people do exhibit a greater capacity for critical thinking than others, and it is reasonable to assume that formal education has played a role in this.
My view is that critical thinking is best taught in high school in an indirect and 'distributed' way – as an element of English (comprehension exercises, essay writing, debating, etc.), English or other literatures (critical analyses of texts), as an element of the various sciences (method etc.), statistics, and so on.
Likewise at university, where the more reflective and philosophical dimensions of particular disciplines can be opened up for scrutiny. Any discipline worth its salt has this reflective or critical or philosophical dimension.
My main point is that critical thinking is both multifaceted and contextual, and that trying to isolate it necessarily oversimplifies, decontextualizes and distorts.
I don't think you can ever get away from bias but critical thinking at least gives you tools to help you to detect it in yourself and others. As for people like John Dewey having an ideological bias, that doesn't mean that he advocated his particularly ideological bias should be taught uncritically (unless off course you think teaching critical thinking itself is an ideological bias)
DeleteAs for not teaching critical thinking separately such as having a dedicated philosophy class, that is what our education system already does and this strategy has not accomplished the goal of having people generally think critically. Moreover, there is the problem of transfer of critical thinking skills (and other thinking tools) when they are taught with specific subject matters rather than first taught as a specific way of thinking that can apply to all subject matters.
I personally think we need more philosophy and critical thinking classes that not only focus on set procedures but also to hit on people's motivations to be critical thinkers. For that, I think you need a dedicated course rather than hope that students will pick it up when you embed it into content based courses (which is also necessary but not sufficient IMO).
Imad.
Delete>I don't think you can ever get away from bias but critical thinking at least gives you tools to help you to detect it in yourself and others.<
Being aware of bias is a large part of what critical thinking is. When you say that critical thinking gives you tools for detecting it you really mean 'classes in critical thinking' and I am denying we need such classes and suggesting other ways habits of critical thinking can be encouraged.
>As for people like John Dewey having an ideological bias, that doesn't mean that he advocated his particularly ideological bias should be taught uncritically (unless of course you think teaching critical thinking itself is an ideological bias).<
It's obvious from my comment that I believe that critical thinking is a good thing (and ideological bias a potentially dangerous thing). My point is that such courses can become a vehicle for those with ideological agendas (and if the developers of such courses rely on or appeal to sources biased in a particular direction then this is a danger signal).
>As for not teaching critical thinking separately such as having a dedicated philosophy class, that is what our education system already does and this strategy has not accomplished the goal of having people generally think critically.<
This is bad thinking. As if you could ever accomplish 'the goal of having people generally think critically'! It is a matter of gradation, more or less, not yes or no. (Unless of course you have totalitarian tendencies!)
>Moreover, there is the problem of transfer of critical thinking skills (and other thinking tools) when they are taught with specific subject matters rather than first taught as a specific way of thinking that can apply to all subject matters.<
There are perhaps some general principles but they arise naturally out of thinking about specific subject matters, I would say.
>I personally think we need more philosophy and critical thinking classes that not only focus on set procedures but also to hit on people's motivations to be critical thinkers.<
I know you don't mean it like this but what you say could be interpreted in a totalitarian way – 'reeducation' and all that.
But, seriously, there is no reason why my approach could not also 'hit on people's motivations to be critical thinkers'. A good science course or a good English course or a good history course will do this, surely.
One other quick point: advocates of critical thinking classes need to face the opportunity cost issue.
Thomas
DeleteThat's another issue but, briefly, my first reaction was to say that everyone can think critically to some extent, whereas not everyone can think creatively. If you define it broadly, however, you could plausibly see creativity as a universal element in human thinking.
On another note entirely, your reference to creative thinking leads me to wonder whether maybe we could have separate courses for critical thinking, creative thinking, humane thinking, radical thinking, aggressive thinking, deviant thinking, etc. – and dispense with content-based subjects altogether.
Thomas
Delete>These are interesting comments, but there's perhaps only an indirect reference in Mark's comments to what "creative" thinking might be. The interplay of critical and creative thinking would perhaps make an interesting piece<
I’m not sure what you mean. I was not commenting on creative thinking nor was Mark. That’s an interesting but separate topic.
Mark
Delete>say that critical thinking gives you tools for detecting it you really mean 'classes in critical thinking' and I am denying we need such classes and suggesting other ways habits of critical thinking can be encouraged.<
I know your denying it. I’m just saying I don’t think it’s a particularly effective strategy as that is what the education system (at least in the US) has been doing without much success. Off course ultimately this is an empirical question, one I intend to answer in the near future with some studies I’ll be running.
>It's obvious from my comment that I believe that critical thinking is a good thing (and ideological bias a potentially dangerous thing). My point is that such courses can become a vehicle for those with ideological agendas (and if the developers of such courses rely on or appeal to sources biased in a particular direction then this is a danger signal).<
I’m sure they can become vehicles for ideological agenda but the same is true for other subjects. I would even argue it’s easier for other courses such as history to fall for that trap where specific content is being discussed without much critical evaluation. Teachers in K-12 education don’t have much leeway to critically discuss the content.
In a philosophy or critical thinking class, you can at least directly address things like logic, thinking for yourself, being skeptical of claims, including the views the teacher holds. You can teach facts about human biases and help students understand and identify logical fallacies. These are not topics that are really covered in any other content-based course.
>This is bad thinking. As if you could ever accomplish 'the goal of having people generally think critically'! It is a matter of gradation, more or less, not yes or no. (Unless of course you have totalitarian tendencies!)<
I didn’t mean that there is a dichotomy of either thinking critically or not thinking critically even though I can see how you can get that from what I wrote (bad writing on my part). However, what I meant was that people are very low on the scale of critical thinking abilities and don’t make the type of gains and improvements in their critical thinking skills that would be expected from so many years of education. I think we can both agree that the level of critical thinking is society is far from ideal.
>There are perhaps some general principles but they arise naturally out of thinking about specific subject matters, I would say.<
Well there is plenty of research in cognitive science that disagrees with that assumption, you have the problem of transfer of skills from subject to subject matter unless the skills are first explicitly taught and than generalized (explicitly) to show how they apply to multiple subject areas.
That is why I think you need both, at some point you need to very explicitly teach critical thinking on it’s own but also embed it into different subject classes to make sure students generalize those skills. Ideally this would be done through bringing back philosophy courses into K-12 education.
>I know you don't mean it like this but what you say could be interpreted in a totalitarian way – 'reeducation' and all that.<
DeleteThis strikes me as a rather bizarre interpretation of my statement that we need to teach motivation to be critical thinkers along with teaching the thinking skills. I’m not sure how you can take the idea of motivating everyone to be critical thinkers to mean it’s a program about “reeducation” or “brain washing” people. Do you think Massimo is trying to be a totalitarian when he encourages critical thinking on his blog? Encouraging critical thinking is the very opposite of what a totalitarian would want to do.
That aside, the topic of developing motivation for critical thinking is a large topic in the cognitive science literature as researchers have realized that simply teaching things like logic and other thinking skills doesn’t lead people to actually apply the skills in their life or be skeptical of claims outside of class.
>But, seriously, there is no reason why my approach could not also 'hit on people's motivations to be critical thinkers'. A good science course or a good English course or a good history course will do this, surely.<
I would agree but only in part. I obviously think you need the combination of the two. I’m just saying that we have tried the approach of only embedding critical thinking into specific subjects, including science classes and it hasn’t worked out very well. I’ve even seen people in college and graduate school who are very good at what they do in science and can think critically about the subject matter of interest but either are not motivated or simply don’t know how to apply critical thinking in other subject matters or other parts of their life.
>One other quick point: advocates of critical thinking classes need to face the opportunity cost issue.<
Care to elaborate what those are? As far as I know, in education the more explicit focus on critical thinking went away due to pressure towards fitting in other content (that focuses more on teaching content and not process of thinking) and political pressure due to the nature of critical thinking (people don’t necessarily want to teach students to be critical thinkers, some of the biggest advocates against critical thinking classes have been parents and school administrators)
Imad
Delete>In a philosophy or critical thinking class, you can at least directly address things like logic, thinking for yourself, being skeptical of claims, including the views the teacher holds.<
Fair point.
>You can teach facts about human biases and help students understand and identify logical fallacies. These are not topics that are really covered in any other content-based course.<
What about psychology? Statistics?
>I’m not sure how you can take the idea of motivating everyone to be critical thinkers to mean it’s a program about “reeducation” or “brain washing” people. Do you think Massimo is trying to be a totalitarian when he encourages critical thinking on his blog? Encouraging critical thinking is the very opposite of what a totalitarian would want to do.<
I hope so! But writing a blog is very different from working with a young, captive audience in a formal education setting.
I indicated (via the subsequent 'But seriously...') that I was not totally serious about the reeducation point. Nonetheless there are dangers in your approach. There is a thin line between encouraging critical thinking in a responsible way and incorporating partisan or ideological elements into the program.
You obviously have an image of how people should think, and a very low opinion of how they do think. I value skepticism and critical thinking just as highly as you do, I suspect, but am more wary of social or educational programs that seek to make wholesale changes.
I also have just a little bit more respect for the way ordinary people think. Often they are more rational and skeptical than one thinks because they don't really believe what they might say they believe. Our minds work in strange ways and we can't live without illusions of various kinds. Logic plays a basic but only a minor role in practical and social thinking.
>... you have the problem of transfer of skills from subject to subject matter unless the skills are first explicitly taught and then generalized (explicitly) to show how they apply to multiple subject areas. That is why I think you need both, at some point you need to very explicitly teach critical thinking on it’s own…<
There is a problem with transfering skills from one area to another, but it is simply false to claim that if we do not teach critical thinking skills separately and explicitly people won't think critically in a general way. Traditional forms of education in Western countries have been successfully producing critical thinkers for centuries!
You asked me to elaborate on the opportunity cost issue. Well, obviously, if you have a special critical thinking course you are going to have to drop a particular content-based course – and what about the other possibilities which we forego?
Would we not benefit also if people graduated from high school or college with a better knowledge of history (not just US or modern), other languages and cultures, higher levels of competence in mathematics etc.?
Wait a minute, are you saying we should teach that psychology discovered how Aristotle was wrong?
ReplyDeleteFunny! Actually, psychology has rediscovered a lot of what Aristotle had intuited about human nature. But that's another story.
Delete