Blog - by Linda Elder with Richard Paul Archives

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"[Missed Part 4? "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=281"},"insert":"Read It Here"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"]"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nMcPeck focuses his critique on Ennis's article, \"A Concept of Critical Thinking,” published in 1962, despite Ennis's subsequent published modifications. Furthermore, Ennis makes clear, even in this early article, that he does not take himself to be providing a definitive analysis of the concept; he offers but a \"truncated\" working definition. He describes his article as providing a \"range definition\" which has \"vague boundaries,\" based on an examination of \"the literature on the goals of the schools and the literature on the criterion of good thinking,\" and designed merely to \"select\" \"those aspects\" which come under the notion of critical thinking as \"the correct assessing of statements.\" He makes it clear that he is leaving out at least one crucial element (\"the judging of value statements is deliberately excluded\"). He makes clear that his working definition does not settle the question as to how best to teach critical thinking, for example, whether as a separate subject or within subject areas. Finally, it is clear that he is concerned with critical thinking as an open-ended and complicated set of processes that can be set out in analyzed form only for the purpose of theoretical convenience, a list of \"aspects\" and \"dimensions\" that can be learned \"at various levels.\"\n \nMcPeck's motive for critiquing Ennis's concept is clearly the fact that Ennis does not define critical thinking so as to link it \"conceptually with particular activities and special fields of knowledge.\" (p. 56) And because McPeck sees this conceptual link as necessary, as given "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"in "},{"insert":"the concept, it is, to him, \"impossible to conceive of critical thinking as a generalized skill.” (p. 56) In other words, Ennis conceives of critical thinking in an \"impossible\" and therefore incoherent, muddled, and contradictory way. If we are not persuaded of this conceptual link and we read Ennis to be making more modest claims than McPeck attributes to him, most of McPeck's criticisms fall by the wayside.\n \nLet us look more closely, then, at McPeck's model and its implications. It depends upon the plausibility of placing any line of thought into a \"category,\" \"domain,\" \"subject area,\" or \"field,\" which placement provides, implicitly or explicitly, criteria for judging that line of thought. It tacitly assumes that all thinking is in one and only one category, that we can, without appealing to an expert on experts, tell what the appropriate category is, and thus what specialized information or skills are unique to it. Each discrete category requires specialized concepts, experience, skills, etc. Thus, only some limited set of people can develop the necessary wherewithal to think critically within it. Since there are many logical domains and we can be trained only in a few of them, it follows that we must use our critical judgment mainly to suspend judgment and defer to experts when we ourselves lack expertise. It leaves little room for the classical concept of the liberally educated person as having skills of learning that are general and not domain specific. It is worthwhile therefore to set out more particularly, if somewhat abstractly, why"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"it is unacceptable.\n \nFirst, the world is not given to us sliced up into logical categories, and there is not one, but an indefinite number of ways to \"divide\" it, that is, experience, perceive, or think about the world, and no \"detached\" point of view from the supreme perspective of which we can decide on the appropriate taxonomy for the \"multiple realities\" of our lives. Conceptual schemes create logical domains and it is human thought, not nature, that creates them.\n \nSecond, our conceptual schemes themselves can be classified in an indefinite number of ways. To place a line of reasoning into a category and so to identify it by its \"type\" is heuristic, not ontological – a useful tool, not descriptive of its nature. Even concepts and lines of reasoning "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"clearly "},{"insert":"within one category are also simultaneously within others. Most of what we say and think, to put it another way, is not only open-textured but "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"multi"},{"insert":"-textured as well. For example, in what logical domain does the (technical?) concept of alcoholism solely belong: disease, addiction, crime, moral failing, cultural pattern, lifestyle choice, defect of socialization, self-comforting behavior, psychological escape, personal weakness, ... ? How many points of view can be used to illuminate it? Then, is it "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"in "},{"insert":"one or many categories? Or consider the question, \"How can society ameliorate the problem of alcoholism?\" It cannot be adequately addressed from "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"one "},{"insert":"domain. Nor can the problem be adequately addressed by parsing out its elements and addressing each in isolation from the rest. The light shed by the experts must be synthesized.\n \nNot only conceptualizing \"things,\" but most especially classifying what we have conceptualized, are not matters about which we should give the final word to experts and specialists. To place something said or thought into a category, from the perspective of which we intend to judge it, is to take a potentially contentious position with respect to it. There are no specialists who have the definitive taxonomy or undebatable means for so deciding. The category a thing is in logically depends upon what it is "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"like, "},{"insert":"but all things (including conceptual schemes) are like any number of other things (other conceptual schemes, for example) in any number of ways and so are "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"in "},{"insert":"any number of logical domains, depending on our purposes.\n \nConsider for example Copernicus' statements about the earth in relation to the sun. These are, you may be tempted to say, astronomical statements and nothing else. But if they become a part of concepts and lines of thought that have radically reoriented philosophical, social, religious, economic, and personal thought, as indeed they have, are they "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"merely in "},{"insert":"that one category? When we begin to think in a cross-categorical way, as the intellectual heirs of Copernicus, Darwin, Freud, and Marx"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":", "},{"insert":"are there category-specific skills and specialists to interpret that thought and tell us what the correct synthesis of these ingredients is and how it ought to color or guide our interpretation or critical assessment of statements \"within\" some particular domain or other?\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"Critical thinking standards ultimately derive from the nature of thought itself and what we characteristically need thinking to do. Failure to internalize and regularly use these standards frequently leads to irrational thoughts, or in other words, to defeating the very purposes of reasoning. For instance, failing to focus on what is significant in human life can lead you to a life of superficiality, marked by performing for others and constantly needing their approval instead of cultivating your unique capacities. Failing to be logical or to think fairly in your relationships may lead those relationships to suffer or collapse. Thus:\n\nThe intellectual standard of clarity derives from the fact that we want or need to communicate a certain meaning to others, or to ourselves reach a higher level of understanding, and unclear language undermines or defeats those purposes."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nThe intellectual standard of accuracy derives from the fact that we are trying to understand or communicate things as they actually are, without any distortions. Inaccurate thought defeats that purpose."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nThe intellectual standard of precision derives from the fact that we often need details and specifics to accomplish our goals. Imprecision, or the failure to provide details and specifics, undermines that purpose."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nThe intellectual standard of relevance derives from the fact that some information—however true it might be—does not bear upon a question to which we need an answer. Irrelevant information, thrust into the thinking process, diverts us from the information, viewpoints, and other elements of reasoning that are pertinent to answering the question at hand."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nThe intellectual standard of depth derives from the fact that questions and issues entail various levels of complexity, and thinking that ignores that complexity is necessarily inadequate."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nThe intellectual standard of breadth derives from the fact that some issues can be dealt with only by reasoning within multiple points of view. One-sided thinking cannot be adequate when multi-sidedness is called for."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nThe intellectual standard of logic derives from the fact that reasoning that is inconsistent and self-contradictory necessarily lacks intelligibility."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nThe intellectual standard of fairness derives from the fact that humans commonly ignore or twist relevant facts and insights when they are not in line with one’s interests or agenda."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nThe intellectual standard of sufficiency derives from the fact that it is possible to gather detailed and vast information that is relevant and accurate, but that is still not sufficient to answer the question at issue or solve the problem at hand."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nTo generalize, it would be unintelligible to say, “I want to reason well, but I am indifferent as to whether my reasoning is clear, precise, accurate, relevant, logical, broad, deep, consistent, fair, or sufficient.”\n \n-----\nThis blog is adapted from page 199 in Linda Elder’s "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking Therapy: For Happiness & Self-Actualization"},{"insert":" (2025), available through the Foundation for Critical Thinking Press at "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://www.fctpress.org/"},"insert":"FCTPress.org"},{"insert":".\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"[Missed Part 3? "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=279"},"insert":"Read It Here"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"]"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nMcPeck assumes that for one person to rationally address a multi-categorical problem, he or she would need to be an expert in"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"every pertinent field, an obvious impossibility. Such universal expertise, however, is far from necessary. What "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"is "},{"insert":"necessary is that the individual has a firm grasp of the basic concepts and principles of the pertinent fields, experience thinking within them, and the ability to learn new details and assess relevant details the subjects contribute to understanding the problem. One need not know everything when one takes up a question or problem. One merely needs enough background knowledge and skills to begin to gather and analyze relevant discipline information and insight.\n\nMcPeck identifies the bogey man in critical thinking in a variety of ways – \"the logic approach,\" \"formalism,\" \"informal logic,\" \"naive logical positivism,\" \"logic simpliciter,\" and so forth – but the bulk of his book is spent in attacking scholars associated with the informal logic movement (Ennis, Johnson, Blair, D'Angelo, and Scriven). The general charge against them is, predictably, that they have failed to grasp what follows from the logic of the concept of critical thinking – that it is \"muddled nonsense\" to base it on general skills – and that such misguided attempts necessarily result in \"the knee-jerk application of skills\" and \"superficial opinion masquerading as profound insight,\" and are thus bound to run aground.\n\nSince McPeck rests so much on his conceptual analysis, it is appropriate to note what he leaves out of it. He does not consider the full range of uses of the word “critical” as they relate to various everyday senses of the predicate “thinks critically.” He does not consider the history of critical thought, the various theories of it implicit in the works of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Freud, Weber, Sartre, Habermas, and so forth. He does not consider the implications of such classic exemplars as Socrates, Voltaire, Rousseau, Thomas Paine, Henry David Thoreau, or even of an H. L. Mencken, or Ivan Illich, to mention a few that come to mind. He fails to ask whether their critical thinking can or cannot be explained by, or reduced to, specialized knowledge or domain-specific skills. He neglects the rich range of programs that have recently been developed in the field (he has it in mind that in principle there "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"cannot "},{"insert":"be a field of research here). He ignores the possibility that, given the rich variety of programs, reflecting somewhat different emphases, interests, and priorities, it may be premature to attempt to pin down in a few words \"the concept of critical thinking.\" He fails to consider the possibility that the scholars he criticizes may be using the term in an "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"inductive "},{"insert":"sense, hence not presupposing or claiming a definitive analysis of the concept, but restricting their focus rather to some of its necessary, not sufficient, conditions (for example: aiding students in developing greater skill in identifying and formulating questions at issue, distinguishing evidence from conclusion, isolating conceptual problems, identifying problems of credibility, recognizing common fallacies, and coming to a clearer sense of what a claim or an assumption or an inference or an implication is, and so forth).\n\nOne result is that his analysis of \"the concept of critical thinking” is in all essentials completed in the first thirteen pages of the book with his foundational inference in place by page four. Another is that he gives a most unsympathetic and at times highly misleading representation of most of those he criticizes (Ennis, Glaser, D'Angelo, Johnson, Blair, and Scriven).\n\nIn order to have space to develop the broader implications of McPeck's analysis, I will illustrate this latter tendency solely with respect to Robert Ennis, who is at the center of most of his critical remarks in Chapter Three, \"The Prevailing View of the Concept of Critical Thinking.\" McPeck introduces this chapter with three interrelated general charges about the \"theoretical foundation\" of the prevailing concept: that those who hold it subscribe \"to the verifiability criterion of meaning,\" are \"marked by a naive form of logical positivism,\" and have \"an unquestioned faith in the efficacy of science and its methods to settle every significant controversy requiring critical thought.\" However, nowhere in the chapter does he back up these charges. And I myself do not find anything in the work of Ennis (or of D'Angelo for that matter) that suggest such theoretical commitments.\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"When thinking is relevant, it focuses on the primary task at hand. It selects what is germane, pertinent, and related. It is on the alert for everything that connects to the issue. It sets aside what is immaterial, inappropriate, extraneous, or beside the point. \n \nThat which directly bears upon the problem you are trying to solve is relevant to that problem. When thinking drifts away from what is relevant, it should be brought back to what truly makes a difference. Undisciplined thinking is often guided by associations (“this reminds me of that, that reminds me of this other thing”) rather than what is logically connected (“if he said this, he might also mean…”) Disciplined thinking intervenes when thoughts wander, concentrating the mind on matters that help it figure out what it needs to figure out.\n \nIf you find your thinking digresses, try to determine why. Is your mind simply wandering? If so, you probably need to intervene to get it back on track. Or perhaps you realize that you need to deal with a different issue before you can address the one you were originally focusing on. If so, by all means, address the issue your mind has uncovered. But most importantly, know precisely, at any given moment, the issue you are addressing; then stick to that issue until you have either reached resolution, or made an active decision to revisit it later. Do not allow your mind to wander aimlessly from idea to idea, from issue to issue, without direction or discipline.\n \nAsk these questions regularly to make sure your thinking is focused on what is relevant:\n \nAm I focused on the main problem or task?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nHow are these two issues connected, or are they?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nHow is the problem raised intertwined with the issue at hand?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nDoes the information I am considering directly relate to the problem or task?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nWhere do I need to focus my attention?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nAm I being diverted to unrelated matters?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nAm I failing to consider relevant viewpoints?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nHow is my point relevant to the issue I am addressing?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nWhat facts will actually help me answer the question? What considerations should be set aside?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nDoes this truly bear on the question? How does it connect?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n-----\nThis blog is adapted from page 208 in "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking Therapy: For Happiness & Self-Actualization"},{"insert":" (2025), available through the Foundation for Critical Thinking Press at "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://www.fctpress.org/"},"insert":"FCTPress.org"},{"insert":".\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"[Missed Part 2? "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=277"},"insert":"Read It Here"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"]"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nIf nothing else, the reader is bound to feel something of the attraction – in this technological, specialists' world of ours – of McPeck's placing critical thought squarely in the center of an atomistic, information-centered model of knowledge. We are already comfortable with the notion that to learn is to amass large quantities of specialized or erudite facts and we know that facts are of different "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"types. "},{"insert":"In other words, we tend to think of knowledge on the model of the computers we are so enamored of: on the one hand, a huge mass of atomic facts (our data bank), and on the other a specific set of categories, McPeck's logical domains, which organize them into higher-order generalizations by formulas and decision-procedures of various kinds. To change one of the formulas or decision-procedures requires technical information about the facts to be manipulated. Critical thought in this context requires understanding of both the data bank and the established procedures.\n \nBut it is well to remember that we cannot ask computers multi-categorical questions"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"*"},{"insert":", especially those kinds that cut across the disciplines in such a way as to require reasoned perspective on the data from a \"global\" point of view. Such questions, structuring the very warp and woof of everyday life, are typically dialectical, settled, that is, by "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"general "},{"insert":"cannons of argument, by objection (from one point of view) and reply (from another), by case and counter-case, by debate not only about the answer to the question, but also about the question itself. Most social and world problems are of this nature, as are those that presuppose the subject's world view"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"."},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nFor example, consider those social problems that call for judgments on the equity of the distribution of wealth and power, of the causes of poverty, of the justification and limits of welfare, of the nature or existence of the military-industrial complex, of the value or danger of capitalism, of the character of racism and sexism or their history and manifestations, of the nature of communism or socialism, .... The position we take on any one of these issues is likely to reflect the position we take on the others and they are all likely to reflect our conception of human nature (the extent of human equality and what follows from it as so conceived, the nature and causes of human \"laziness\" and \"ambition\"), the need for \"social change,\" or \"conservatism,\" even the character of the \"cosmos\" and \"nature.\"\n \nThis point was brought home to me recently when I got into a lengthy disagreement with an acquaintance on the putative justification of the U.S. invasion of Grenada. Before long we were discussing questions of morality, the appropriate interpretation of international law, supposed rights of countries to defend their interests, spheres of influence, the character of U.S. and Soviet foreign policies, the history of the two countries, the nature and history of the C.I.A., the nature of democracy, whether it can exist without elections, who has credibility and how to judge it, the nature of the media and how to assess it, whether it reflects an \"American\" party line, sociocentrism, our own personalities, consistency, etc. Especially illuminating and instructive was the distinctive pattern that this discussion took. It was eminently clear that we disagreed in our respective world views, our global perspectives. Because we each conceived of the world with something like an integrated point of view, we conceptualized the problem and its elements differently. Specialized information was differently interpreted by us. There were no discipline-specific skills to save the day.\n \nMcPeck avoids commenting on such problems except insofar as they presuppose specialized information, which he then focuses on (or dismisses them as belonging to the realm of \"common sense\"). From a logical atomist's point of view (with everything carefully placed in an appropriate logical category of its own, and there settled by appropriate specialists), dialectical, multi-categorical questions are anomalous, they do not fit in. When they notice them, they tend to try to fabricate specialized categories for them or to break them down into a summary complex of mono-categorical elements. Hence the problem of peace in relation to the military-industrial complex would be broken down by atomists into discrete sets of economic, social, ethical, historical, and psychological problems, or what have you, each to be analyzed and settled separately. This neat and tidy picture of the world of knowledge as a specialist's world is the Procrustean Bed that McPeck has prepared for critical thought. To aspire to critical thought, on this view, is to recognize that it can be achieved only within narrow confines of one's life: \" . . . there are no Renaissance men in this age of specialized knowledge.\" (p. 7) It is possible only in those dimensions where one can function as a \"properly trained physicist, historian, . . . [or) art critic . . . \" (p. 150), and so learn specialized knowledge and unique skills.\n \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"*Editor’s Note:"},{"insert":" Some may reply that since this paper was written, generative AI has enabled computers to begin answering multi-categorical questions. However:\n\nPaul’s point is not what "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"computers themselves"},{"insert":" cannot do, but rather what "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"discipline-specific, logically atomistic reasoning"},{"insert":" – whether performed by humans or simulated by computers – cannot do."},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"To the extent that computers can simulate multi-categorical reasoning, the products thereof must still be analyzed, assessed, and, wherever significant shortcomings appear, corrected or otherwise improved by human thinking, "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"if"},{"insert":" generative AI is to be a reliable tool in how humans approach multi-categorical questions and problems."},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"Our own thinking usually seems clear to us, even when it is not. Vague, ambiguous, muddled, deceptive, or misleading thinking are significant problems in human life. If you are to develop as a thinker, you must learn the art of clarifying your thinking—of pinning it down, spelling it out, and giving it a specific meaning.\n \nHere’s what you can do to begin: When people explain things to you, summarize in your own words what you think they said. When you cannot do this to their satisfaction, you don’t truly understand what they said. When they cannot summarize to your satisfaction what you have said, they don’t truly understand what you said.\n \nTo improve your ability to clarify your thinking (in your own mind, when speaking to others, or when writing, for example), use the following strategy. "},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Practice this now"},{"insert":", focusing on an upcoming discussion of importance to you:\n \nI think… [State your main point.]"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nIn other words… [Elaborate on your main point.]"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \nFor example… [Give an example of your main point.]"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \nAn illustration of this would be… [Use an analogy or metaphor to help draw a mental picture of your point.]"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \nTo clarify other people’s thinking, ask any of the following questions (in a meeting, in a disagreement, and in any discussion where you are unclear): \n \nCan you restate that in other words? "},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \nCan you give an example of what you mean by that? "},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \nCan you elaborate on your point?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \nLet me tell you what I understand you to be saying. Do I understand you correctly?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \nAs you begin to use these strategies, as basic as they seem, note how seldom others use them. Notice how often people assume that others understand them when what they have said is, in fact, unintelligible, muddy, or confusing. Note how, very often, the simple intellectual moves are the most powerful. (For example, saying to someone: “I don’t understand what you are saying. Can you say that in other words?”) Be aware that mentally healthy people openly and clearly communicate their views when it is possible and reasonable to do so, and they want to understand the views of others.\n \n-----\nThis blog is adapted from page 207 in Linda Elder’s "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking Therapy: For Happiness & Self-Actualization"},{"insert":" (2025), available through the Foundation for Critical Thinking Press at "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://www.fctpress.org/"},"insert":"FCTPress.org"},{"insert":".\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"[Missed Part 1? "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=275"},"insert":"Read It Here"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"]"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nMcPeck's mistakes are, from one vantage point, glaring and fundamental; from another they are seductive, and, as I have suggested above, quite natural. They bear examination from a number of points of view. Certainly most can see the fallacy in inferring that, because one cannot write without writing about something, some specific subject or other, it is therefore unintelligible \"muddled nonsense\" to maintain general composition courses or to talk about general, as against subject-specific, writing skills. Likewise most would think bizarre someone who argued that, because speech requires something spoken about, it therefore is senseless to set up general courses in speech, and incoherent to talk of "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"general "},{"insert":"speaking skills.\n \nYet McPeck's keystone inference, logically parallel and equally fallacious in my view, is likely to be seductively attractive to many teachers and administrators in the form in which McPeck articulates it:\n \nIt is a matter of conceptual truth that thinking is always thinking about X, and that X can never be \"everything in general\" but must always be something in particular. Thus the claim \"I teach my students to think\" is at worst false and at best misleading."},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Thinking, then, is logically connected to an X. Since this fundamental point is reasonably easy to grasp, it is surprising that critical thinking should have become reified into a curriculum subject and the teaching of it an area of expertise of its own. . . ."},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"In isolation it neither refers to nor denotes any particular skill. It follows from this that it makes no sense to talk about critical thinking as a distinct subject and that it therefore cannot profitably be taught as such. To the extent that critical thinking is not about a specific subject X, it is both conceptually and practically empty. The statement \"I teach critical thinking,\" simpliciter, is vacuous because there is no generalized skill properly called critical thinking. (pp. 4 & 5)"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \nMany would, I suspect, find it equally attractive to conclude with McPeck that \"the real problem with uncritical students is not a deficiency in a general skill, such as logical ability, but rather a general lack of education in the traditional sense\" and that \" . . . elementary schools are fully occupied with their efforts to impart the three R's, together with the most elementary information about the world around them\" and hence have no "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"time "},{"insert":"to teach critical thinking as well. They might not be as comfortable with his notion that \"there is nothing in the logic of education that requires that schools should engage in education\" and \"nothing contradictory in saying, 'This is a fine school, and I recommend it to others, even though it does not engage in education.\"'\n \nStill, this latter point is mentioned only once, not endlessly repeated in an array of different forms as is his major refrain that \"thinking of any kind is always about X.\""},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"The ''X\""},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"of this refrain, that to which McPeck believes the logic of all thought is to be relativized, is itself characterized in a litany of synonyms (\"the question at issue,\" \"the subject matter,\" \"the parent field,\" \"the field of research,\" \"the specific performance,\" \"the discipline,\" \"the cognitive domain,\" and so forth) as are the various criteria (the need for \"specialized and technical language,\" \"technical information,\" \"field-dependent concepts,\" \"unique logic,\" \"unique skills,\" \"intra-field considerations,\" \"subject-specific information,\" and so forth) imposed on the critical thinker by the X"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"in question. The hypnotic effect of the continual reiteration of the truism implicit in his major refrain, alongside of a variety of formulations of his major conclusion is such that readers not used to slippery "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"non-sequiturs"},{"insert":" are apt to miss the logical gap from premise to conclusion.\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"[Missed Part 1?"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=273"},"insert":"Read It Here"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"]"},{"insert":"\n \nAs discussed in Part 1 of this blog, it is not enough to recognize abstractly that your mind has predictable pathologies. You must take concrete steps to correct them. This requires you to develop the habit of identifying these tendencies in action, which occurs only over time and with deliberate practice. Described below are several more frequent manifestations of egocentricity, as well as methods to help uncover and address them.\n \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Correcting egocentric oversimplification. "},{"insert":"You can correct your natural tendency to ignore real and important complexities in the world by regularly focusing on those complexities, formulating them explicitly in words, and targeting them. Do you often oversimplify problems and issues? If so, where does this lead you? Do you find yourself frustrated because you try to deal with complex issues in superficial ways?\n \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Correcting egocentric blindness. "},{"insert":"You can correct your natural tendency to ignore facts or evidence that contradict your favored beliefs or values by explicitly seeking out those facts and evidence. Egocentric blindness is similar to egocentric memory: in both cases, you are ignoring evidence you would rather not have to consider. In what parts of your life are you unwilling to look at the evidence beyond what serves your current viewpoint, or the way you prefer to see things, or your narrow vision?\n \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Correcting egocentric immediacy. "},{"insert":"You can correct your natural tendency to over-generalize immediate feelings and experiences by getting into the habit of putting positive and negative events into a larger perspective. You can temper the negative events by reminding yourself of how much you have that many others lack. You can moderate the positive events by reminding yourself of how much is yet to be done, of how many problems remain.\n \nYou know you are keeping an even keel if you find that you have the energy to act effectively in either negative or positive circumstances. Meanwhile, you know that you are falling victim to your egocentricity if and when you are immobilized by it. Do you tend to blow things out of proportion in terms of your overall view of things – to see things in terms of either “life is great,” or “life is horrible”? How will you maintain a more realistic, objective view of things as they happen day-to-day, living reasonably in the moment rather than exaggerating situations?\n \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Correcting egocentric absurdity. "},{"insert":"You can correct your natural tendency to overlook thinking that has absurd implications by making the consequences of your thinking explicit and assessing them for their realism. This requires that you frequently trace the implications of your beliefs and their consequences in your behavior. For example, you should frequently ask yourself: “If I really believed this, how would I act? Do I really act that way?” We frequently act in ways that are “absurd” – given what we insist we believe in.\n \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Internalize the Idea: Challenging Your Egocentric Dispositions"},{"insert":"\n \nRead through the aforementioned pathological dispositions and ways to correct them, then complete these statements:\n \n1.    After reading these dispositions, I see that the following are especially a problem for me… \n \n2.    I intend to correct these pathologies in the following ways…\n \n--------------------------\nThis blog is adapted from pages 133-135 in Linda Elder’s "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking Therapy: For Happiness & Self-Actualization"},{"insert":" (2025), available through the Foundation for Critical Thinking Press at "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://www.fctpress.org/"},"insert":"FCTPress.org"},{"insert":".\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"A review of "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking and Education"},{"insert":" by John E. McPeck. Martin Robinson, Oxford, 1981.\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Abstract"},{"insert":"\nIn this paper, Richard Paul rejects John McPeck's claim in "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking and Education"},{"insert":" that, since no one can think without thinking about something, critical thinking is nothing more than a conglomeration of subject-specific skills and insights. Paul rejects, in other words, McPeck's view that there are no general critical thinking skills. Paul's argument rests on the fact that most significant and problematic issues require dialectical thought which crosses and goes beyond any one discipline; that many interpretations and uses of discipline-specific information and procedures in exploring real-life issues are inevitably multi-logical.\n \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Review"},{"insert":"\nMost educational commentators and the general public seem to agree on at least one thing: the schools are in "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"deep "},{"insert":"trouble. Many graduates, at all levels, lack the abilities to read, write, and think with a minimal level of clarity, coherence, and critical or analytic exactitude. Most commentators also agree that a significant part of the problem is a pedagogical diet excessively rich in memorization and superficial rote performance, and insufficiently rich in, if not devoid of, autonomous critical thought. This complaint is not entirely new in North American education, but the degree of concern and the quiet but growing revolution represented by those attempting to address that concern is worthy of note. (A recent ERIC computer search identified 1,849 articles in the last seven years with "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"critical thinking "},{"insert":"as a major descriptor.[i])\n \nThe roots of this multi-faceted movement can be traced back in a number of directions, but one of the deepest and most important goes back as far as Ed Glaser's "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking "},{"insert":"(1941) (and his establishing with Watson the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal) and Max Black's "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking "},{"insert":"(1946). The manner in which this root of the movement has, after a halting start, progressively built up a head of steam, has been partially chronicled by Johnson and Blair.[ii] It is now firmly established at the college and university level affecting there an increasing number of courses that focus on \"Critical Thinking\" or \"Informal Logic,\" courses designed to provide the kind of shot-in-the-arm for critical thinking that general composition courses are expected to provide for writing.[iii] The influence of this current in the movement is being increasingly felt at lower levels of education but in a more variable, if somewhat less effective way.\n \nEnter John McPeck with his book "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking and Education "},{"insert":"which promises us (on its dust jacket) \"a timely critique of the major work in the field,\" \"rigorous ideas on the proper place of critical thinking in the philosophy of education,\" \"a thorough analysis of what the concept is,\" as well as \"a sound basis on which the role of critical thinking in the schools can be evaluated.\" The book is important not only because it is the first to attempt a characterization of the recent critical thinking movement, but more so because the foundational mistakes it makes are uniquely instructive, mistakes so eminently reflective of \"the spirit of the age\" they are likely to show up in many more places than this book alone. Unfortunately, because of serious flaws in its theoretical underpinnings, the book doubtless will lead some of McPeck's readers down a variety of blind alleys, create unnecessary obstacles to some important programs being developed, and encourage some – not many, I hope – to dismiss the work of some central figures in the field (Scriven, D'Angelo, and Ennis most obviously). At the root of the problem is McPeck's (unwitting?) commitment to a rarefied form of logical (epistemological) atomism, a commitment which is essential if he is to rule out, as he passionately wants to, "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"all general skills of thought "},{"insert":"and so to give himself "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"a priori"},{"insert":" grounds to oppose all programs that try to develop or enhance such skills.\n\n[i] In addition, there is a growing number of national and international conferences on the subject, for example, the "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"First "},{"insert":"and "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Second International Symposium on Informal"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"logic, "},{"insert":"the "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"First "},{"insert":"and "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Second National Conference on Critical Thinking, Moral Education,"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"and Rationality, "},{"insert":"and the "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"First International Conference on Critical Thinking,"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Education, and the Rational Person."},{"insert":"\n\n[ii] Blair and Johnson, eds., "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Informal Logic, The Proceedings of the First International"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Conference on lnformal logic, "},{"insert":"Pt. Reyes, CA: Edgepress, 1980.\n\n[iii] Such a course is now a graduation requirement for all California State College and\nUniversity system students, as well as for the California Community College system.\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"It is not enough to recognize abstractly that your mind has predictable pathologies. You must take concrete steps to correct them. This requires you to develop the habit of identifying these tendencies in action, which occurs only over time and with deliberate practice. Described below are several frequent manifestations of egocentricity as well as methods to help uncover and address them.\n \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Correcting egocentric memory. "},{"insert":"You can correct your natural tendency to “forget” evidence and information that do not support your thinking and to “remember” evidence and information that do, by overtly seeking opposing evidence and information and directing explicit attention to them. What information about yourself would you rather not know? What such information are hiding from yourself?\n \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Correcting egocentric myopia. "},{"insert":"You can correct your natural tendency to think in an overly-narrow point of view by routinely thinking within points of view that conflict with your own. Are you reading, in good faith, works of significant writers who offer studied and important views in opposition to yours? Are you able and willing to place yourself within the thinking and feelings of others and imagine how their perceptions may differ from yours?\n \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Correcting egocentric righteousness. "},{"insert":"You can correct your natural tendency to feel superior in light of your confidence that you possess “the truth” by regularly reminding yourself of how little you actually know. For example, you can explicitly state the unanswered questions that surround whatever knowledge you may have in a given area. Do you frequently act and feel as if you know the answer to nearly everything? Do you often make assertions when you lack the facts to support your views, and when you haven’t done the necessary reasoning to hold those views with confidence? Do you routinely overgeneralize?\n \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Correcting egocentric hypocrisy. "},{"insert":"You can correct your natural tendency to ignore flagrant inconsistencies between what you profess to believe and the actual beliefs implied by your behavior, and to ignore inconsistencies between the standards to which you hold yourself and those to which you hold others. You can do this by regularly comparing the criteria and standards by which you judge others with those by which you judge yourself. Do you often say one thing and do its opposite? Do you tell your children to act in one way while you act in a contrary manner? Do you expect more from others than you do from yourself?\n \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Internalize the Idea: Challenging Your Egocentric Dispositions"},{"insert":"\n \nRead through the aforementioned pathological dispositions and ways to correct them, then complete these statements:\n \nAfter reading these dispositions, I see that the following are especially a problem for me… "},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"I intend to correct these pathologies in the following ways…"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n--------------------------\nThis blog is adapted from pages 133-135 in Linda Elder’s "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking Therapy: For Happiness & Self-Actualization"},{"insert":" (2025), available through the Foundation for Critical Thinking Press at "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://www.fctpress.org/"},"insert":"FCTPress.org"},{"insert":".\n"}]}