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=244"},"insert":"Read It Here"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"]"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Why Children Need to Think Philosophically [3 of 3]"},{"insert":"\n \nLet me now explore the conceptual side of the question further by suggesting some kinds of philosophical issues embedded, not only in the lives of children, but also in the lives of adults:\n \nWho am I? What am I like? What are the people around me like? What are people of different backgrounds, religions, and nations like? How much am I like others? How much am I unlike them? What kind of a world do I live in? When should I trust? When should I distrust? What should I accept? What should I question? How should I understand my past, the pasts of my parents, my ethnic group, my religion, my nation? Who are my friends? Who are my enemies? What is a friend? How am I like and unlike my enemy? What is most important to me? How should I live my life? What responsibilities do I have to others? What responsibilities do they have to me? What responsibilities do I have to my friends? Do I have any responsibilities to people I don’t like? To people who don’t like me? To my enemies? Do my parents love me? Do I love them? What is love? What is hate? What is indifference? Does it matter if others do not approve of me? When does it matter? When should I ignore what others think? What rights do I have? What rights should I give to others? What should I do if others do not respect my rights? Should I get what I want? Should I question what I want? Should I take what I want if I am strong or smart enough to get await with it? Who comes out ahead in this world, the strong or the good person? Is it worthwhile to be good? Are authorities good or just strong?"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \nI do not assume that children must reflect on all or even most of the questions that professional philosophers consider – although the preceding list contains many concepts that professional philosophers tackle. To cultivate philosophical thinking, one does not force students to think in a sophisticated way before they are ready. Each student can contribute to a philosophical discussion thoughts which help other students to orient themselves within a range of thoughts, some of which support or enrich and some of which conflict with other thoughts. Different students achieve different levels of understanding. There is no reason to try to force any given student to achieve a particular level of understanding. But the point is that we can lead young students into philosophical discussions which help them begin to:\n\nsee the significance and relevance of basic philosophical questions to understanding themselves and the world about them,"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"understand the problematic character of human thought and the need to probe deeply into it,"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"gain insights into what it takes to make thinking more rational, critical, and fairminded,"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"organize their thinking globally across subject matter divisions,"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"achieve initial command over their own thought processes, and"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"come to believe in the value and power of their own minds."},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nIn the transcript that follows, a normal 4"},{"attributes":{"script":"super"},"insert":"th"},{"insert":" grade class is led to discuss a variety of basic ideas: how the mind works, the nature of mind, why different people interpret the same events differently, the relationship between emotions and mental interpretations, the nature and origin of personality, nature versus nurture, peer group influence on the mind, cultural differences, free will versus determinism, the basis for ethical and unethical behavior, the basis for reputation, the relation of reputation to goodness, mental illness, social prejudice and sociocentrism, and the importance of thinking for oneself. This transcript represents the first philosophical discussion this particular class had and although it is clear from some of their answers that their present degree of insight into the ideas being discussed is limited, it is also clear that they are capable of pursuing those insights and of articulating important philosophical ideas that could be explored in greater and greater depth over time.\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"Any rich conception of critical thinking must take into account and appropriately address the barriers to criticality that exist to some degree (or a large degree) in all humans. I invite you to view two of our latest videos that focus on these barriers:\n\nA recent webinar recording with Dr. Gerald Nosich: "},{"attributes":{"color":"blue","link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/watchEmbeddedVideo.php?id=359"},"insert":"Why Self-Deception Is a Tremendous Barrier to Critical Thinking"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Our latest Podcast Release which captures a discussion between Dr. Nosich and myself focused on "},{"attributes":{"color":"blue","link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/watchEmbeddedVideo.php?id=358"},"insert":"Ethical Reasoning, Part Two - How Egocentric and Sociocentric Thinking Are Barriers to, and the Elements of Reasoning Aid in, Ethical Reasoning"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nTo delve deeper into these barriers and apply the theory of egocentric and sociocentric to your own life, complete the activities in the "},{"attributes":{"color":"blue","link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/wallOfBarriers.php"},"insert":"Wall of Barriers"},{"insert":".\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"[Missed Part 3? "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=242"},"insert":"Read It Here"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"]"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Why Children Need to Think Philosophically [2 of 3]"},{"insert":"\n \nIn some sense we act as though we believe, and doubtless many do believe, that children have no significant capacity, need, or right to think for themselves, Many adults do not think that children can participate mindfully in the process which shapes their own minds and behavior. Of course, at the same time we often talk to our children as though they were somehow responsible for, or in control of, the ideas they express or act upon. This contradictory attitude toward children is rarely openly admitted. We need to deal explicitly with it.\n \nI believe that children have the need, the capacity, and the right to freedom of thought, and that the proper cultivation of that capacity requires an emphasis on the philosophical dimension of thought and action. Again, by ‘the philosophical dimension,’ I mean precisely the kind of deliberative thought that gives to thinkers the on-going disposition to mindfully create, analyze, and assess their own most basic assumptions, concepts, values, aims, and meanings, in effect to choose the very framework in which they think and on the basis of which they act. I would not go so far as to say, as Socrates was reputed to have said, that the unreflective life is not worth living, but I would say that an unreflective life is not a truly free life and is often a basic cause of personal and social problems. I claim at least this much, that philosophical thinking is necessary to freedom of thought and action and that freedom of thought and action are good in themselves and should be given a high priority in schooling. They are certainly essential for a democracy. How can the people rule, as the word democracy implies, if they do not think for themselves on issues of civic importance? And if they are not encouraged to think for themselves in school, why should they do so once they leave it?\n \nLet me now discuss whether children are in fact capable of this sort of freedom of thought, reflection upon ultimate meanings, values, assumptions, and concepts. The question is both conceptual and empirical. On the conceptual side, the issue is one of "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"degree."},{"insert":" Only to the degree that children are encouraged in supportive circumstances to reflect philosophically, will they develop proficiency in it. Since few parents and teachers value this sort of reflection or are adept at cultivating it, it is understandable that children soon give up their instinctive philosophical impulses (the basic "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"why"},{"insert":" and "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"what"},{"insert":" questions). It would be foolish to assume that it is the "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"nature"},{"insert":" of children to think and act unreflectively when indeed our experience indicates that they are socialized into unreflectiveness. Since we do not encourage children to philosophize, why should they do so?\n \nFurthermore, in many ways we penalize children for philosophizing. Children will sometimes innocently entertain an idea in conflict with the ideas of their parents, teachers, or peers. Such ideas are often ridiculed and the children made to feel ashamed of their thoughts. It is quite common, in other words, for people to penalize unconventional thought and reward conventional thought. When we think only as we are rewarded to think, however, we cease to think freely or deeply. Why should we think for ourselves if doing so may get us into trouble and if teachers, parents, and powerful peers provide authoritative didactic answers for us? Before we decide that children cannot think for themselves about basic ideas and meanings, we ought to give them a real and extended opportunity to do so. No society has yet done this. Unless we are willing to exercise some faith in freedom of thought, we will never be in a position to reap the benefits of it or to discover its true limits, if any.\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"We look forward with great anticipation to our upcoming "},{"attributes":{"color":"blue","link":"https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/2024-fall-academy-critical-thinking/1653"},"insert":"2024 Fall Critical Thinking Academy"},{"insert":" to be held November 15"},{"attributes":{"script":"super"},"insert":" "},{"insert":"-17, 2024 in the beautiful Arkansas Ozarks. This is our first in-person event in over five years, and we are delighted to have another opportunity to work with you all in an intimate retreat setting. Together we will explore critical thinking foundations and practice applying critical thinking concepts and principles across the significant domains of learning, teaching, work, and life.\n\nIn preparing for a new academy, we are reminded of core critical thinking insights articulated at our past events, including the following excerpt from the “Program of the Ninth Annual and Seventh International Conference on Critical Thinking” (1989). As you read it, remember that it applies not only to “students” in a formal educational setting, but to all of us who aspire to develop our minds to the fullest.\n\nOne who understands and values education as higher-order learning holds a very different set of assumptions, namely:"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n\n"},{"insert":"1)   that students can learn what to think only as they learn how to think,"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"2)   that knowledge is acquired only through thinking,"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"3)   that educated persons are those who have learned how to gather, analyze, synthesize, apply, and assess information for themselves,"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"4)   that classes with much student talk, focused on live issues, is a better sign of learning than quiet classes, focused on a passive acceptance of what the instructor says,"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"5)   that students gain significant knowledge only by valuing it,"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"6)   that information should be presented so as to be understandable from the point of view of the learner, and this requires that it be related to the learner’s experiences,"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"7)   that superficial learning is often mislearning that stands as an obstacle to deeper understanding,"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"8)   that depth is more important than coverage,"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"9)   that students can often provide correct answers, repeat definitions, and apply formulas while yet not understanding those answers, definitions, or formulas, and"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"10) that students learn best by working together with other students, with a good deal of experience in mutually supportive debate and empathic exchange of ideas."},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nWith these thoughts in mind, we do so hope you will not miss this unique learning experience led by Dr. Gerald Nosich and myself. There will be separate learning strands for new and returning registrants, while we will also be together as a whole group during part of the academy. \n\nWe will illuminate how we design instruction and training to foster intensive intellectual engagement by every learner, in every class or program, every day. If you are an educator, you will leverage your new understandings in critical thinking to rethink your model of instruction; if you are a business or government leader or trainer, you will utilize critical thinking tools to transform how you view, organize, and execute your training and other work.\n\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"This academy is concerned to foster deep internalization of critical thinking in the long run and is designed for:"},{"insert":"\n\neducators and administrators at all levels of instruction,"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"business and government leaders, and"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"anyone desiring to advance their personal critical thinking skills, abilities and traits."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Throughout the academy, participants will work toward:"},{"insert":"\n\ninternalizing first principles of a rich conception of critical thinking;"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"contextualizing these principles within academic subjects and disciplines, or within business/governmental practices;"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"developing instructional strategies that foster deep learning by helping students, employees, colleagues, and/or clients reason through your content using the concepts and principles of critical thinking,"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"understanding how to embody the character traits of the fairminded critical thinker;"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"conceptualizing critical thinking as transformative, and as essential to self-actualization and contributing significantly to the common good."},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nWith limited space at the Academy and Early Bird rates expiring October 6th, we recommend "},{"attributes":{"color":"blue","link":"https://www.criticalthinking.org/store/events/register_1.php?id=653"},"insert":"registering soon"},{"insert":". We also recommend taking advantage of our "},{"attributes":{"color":"blue","link":"https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/logistics-2024-fall-academy-critical-thinking/1659"},"insert":"hotel room blocks"},{"insert":".\n\nRemember that developing critical thinking skills and traits – as a teacher, a learner, a professional, a citizen, a partner, a family member, etc. – is a lifelong expedition, never finished, and that it occurs to a significant degree only through disciplined, explicit, routine practice. Studying in concert with others who are also serious about advancing their thinking is an excellent (and perhaps essential) way to propel your mind forward on this highly important journey. As we undertake such study in November, we hope to have you with us.\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"[Missed Part 2? "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=240"},"insert":"Read It Here"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"]"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Why Children Need to Think Philosophically [1 of 3]"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nThere is a sense in which everyone has a philosophy, since human thought and actions are always embedded in a framework of foundational concepts, values, and assumptions which define a “system” of some sort. Humans are by nature inferential, meaning-creating animals. In this sense, all humans use “philosophies,” and even in some sense create them. Even the thinking of very young children presupposes philosophical foundations, as Piaget so ably demonstrated. Of course, if by “philosophy” we mean explicit and systematic reflection on the concepts, values, aims, and assumptions that structure thinking and underlie behavior, then in that sense most children do "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"not"},{"insert":" philosophize. It all depends on whether one believes that one can have a philosophy without "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"thinking"},{"insert":" one’s way to it.\n \nMost children have at least the impulse to philosophize and for a time seem driven by a strong desire to know the most basic "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"what"},{"insert":" and "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"why"},{"insert":" of things. Of course parents or teachers rarely cultivate this tendency. Usually children are given didactic answers in ways that discourage, rather than stimulate, further inquiry. Many parents and teachers seem to think that they or textbooks have appropriate and satisfactory answers to the foundational questions that children raise, and the sooner children accept these answers the better. Such authorities unwittingly encourage children to assent to, without truly understanding, basic beliefs. In effect, we teach answers to philosophical questions as though they were like answers to chemical questions. As a result, children lose the impulse to question, as they learn to mouth the standard answers of parents, peers, and other socializing groups. How many of these mouthed answers become a part of children’s lived beliefs is another matter.\n \nChildren learn behaviors and as well as explanations. They learn to act as well as to speak. Thus they learn to behave in ways inconsistent with much of their conscious talk and thought. Children learn to live, as it were, in different and only partially integrated worlds. They develop unconscious worlds of meaning that do not completely square with what they are told or think they believe. Some of these meanings become a source of pain, frustration, repression, fear, and anxiety. Some become a source of harmless fantasizing and day-dreaming. Some are embedded in action, albeit in camouflaged, or in tacit, unarticulated ways.\n \nIn any case, the process of unconsciously taking in or unknowingly constructing a variety of meanings outstrips the child’s initial impulse to reflect on or question those meanings. In one sense, then, children become captives of the ideas and meanings whose impact on their own thought and action they do not themselves determine. They have in this sense two philosophies (only partially compatible with each other): one verbal but largely unlived; the other lived but mainly unverbalized. This split continues into adulthood. On the emotional level, it leads to anxiety and stress. On the moral level, it leads to hypocrisy and self-deception. On the intellectual level, it results in a condition in which lived beliefs and spontaneous thought are unintegrated with school learning which in turn is ignored in “real life” situations.\n \nAs teachers and parents we seldom consider the plight of children from this perspective. We tend to act as though there were no real need for children to reflect deeply about the meanings they absorb. We fail to see the conflicting meanings they absorb, the double messages that capture their minds. Typically our principal concern is that they absorb the meanings that we think are correct and act in ways that we find acceptable. Reflecting upon their thoughts and actions seems important to us only to get them to think or act correctly, that is, as we want them to think and act. We seldom question whether they deeply agree or even understand. We pay little attention as parents to whether or not conflicting meanings and double messages become an on-going problem for them.\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"The proper role of ethical reasoning is to highlight acts of two kinds: those which enhance the well-being of others—that warrant our praise—and those that harm or diminish the well-being of others—and thus warrant our criticism. Developing one’s ethical reasoning abilities is crucial because there is in human nature a strong tendency toward egotism, prejudice, self-justification, and self-deception. These tendencies are exacerbated by powerful sociocentric cultural influences that shape our lives—not least of which is the mass media. These tendencies can be actively combated only through the systematic cultivation of fair-mindedness, honesty, integrity, self-knowledge, and deep concern for the welfare of others. We can never eliminate our egocentric tendencies absolutely and finally. But we can actively combat them as we learn to develop as ethical persons.\n\nThe ultimate basis for ethics is clear: Human behavior has consequences for the welfare of others. We are capable of acting toward others in such a way as to increase or decrease the quality of their lives. We are capable of helping or harming. What is more, we are theoretically capable of understanding when we are doing the one and when the other. This is so because we have the capacity to put ourselves imaginatively in the place of others and recognize how we would be affected if someone were to act toward us as we are acting toward others.\n\nThus nearly everyone gives at least lip service to a common core of general ethical principles—for example, that it is morally wrong to cheat, deceive, exploit, abuse, harm, or steal from others, that everyone has an ethical responsibility to respect the rights of others, including their freedom and well-being, to help those most in need of help, to seek the common good and not merely their own self-interest and egocentric pleasures, to strive in some way to make the world more just and humane.\n\nUnfortunately, mere verbal agreement on ethical principles alone will not accomplish important moral ends nor change the world for the better. Ethical principles mean something only when manifested in behavior. They have force only when embodied in action. Yet to put them into action requires intellectual skills as well as ethical insights. The world does not present itself to us in morally transparent terms. We live in a world in which propaganda and self-deception are rife. Public discussion and media communication are not neutral centers of open debate. A tremendous amount of money is spent on persuading people to see the events of the world in one way rather than another.\n\nFurthermore, depending on the society and culture in which we are raised, we ourselves are strongly pre-disposed to see some persons and nations on the side of good and other persons and nations on the side of evil. Humans typically take themselves to be on the side of good and their enemies on the side of evil.\n\nIn the everyday world, the ethical thing to do is sometimes viewed as obvious and self-evident when it should be a matter of debate, or, conversely, viewed as a matter of debate when it should be obvious and self-evident. One and the same act is often ethically praised by particular social, religious or political groups and ethically condemned by others.\n\nThrough example and encouragement, we can cultivate important intellectual traits. We can learn to respect the rights of others and not simply focus on fulfilling our desires. The main problem is not so much distinguishing between helping and harming, but our natural propensity to be focused almost exclusively on ourselves and those closely connected with us. This is clear in the behavior of national, religious, and ethnic groups. Few groups, in fact, value the lives and welfare of others (other nations, other religions, other ethnic groups) as they value those of their own. Few think about the consequences to other groups of their own group’s pursuit of money, power, prestige, and property. The result is that few people (in virtually any society) act consistently on ethical principles when dealing with “outsiders.” A double standard in applying ethical principles to human life is virtually universal and often flagrant.\n\nIn short, ethical persons, however strongly motivated to do what is ethically right, can do so only if they know what is ethically right. And this they cannot do if they systematically confuse their sense of what is ethically right with self-interest, personal desires, or social taboos. Ethically motivated persons must learn the art of self- and social critique, of ethical self-examination. They must recognize the pervasive everyday pitfalls of ethical judgment: moral intolerance, self-deception, and uncritical conformity. They must also learn not to confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs, and the law. \n\nTo go deeper into the foundations of ethical reasoning, we invite you to view our recent podcast: \""},{"attributes":{"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/watchEmbeddedVideo.php?id=356"},"insert":"Ethical Reasoning, Part One: The Concept and How it is Confused With Other Modes of Thought"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":".\""},{"insert":"\n\n\n-----\n\nThis blog was adapted from "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"The Thinker's Guide to Ethical Reasoning"},{"insert":" by Richard Paul and Linda Elder, 2013, Rowman & Littlefield (pp. 4-5).\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"[Missed Part 1? "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=238"},"insert":"Read It Here"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"]"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Philosophical and Unphilosophical Minds: Philosophy as a Mode of Thinking and a Framework for Thinking"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nPerhaps the best way to show what lies at the heart of the uniqueness and power of philosophy is to consider the contrast in general between unphilosophical and philosophical minds. In doing so, I present the two as idealized abstractions for the purpose of clarifying a paradigm; I realize that no one perfectly illustrates these idealizations.\n \nThe unphilosophical mind thinks without a clear sense of the foundations of its own thought, without conscious knowledge of the most basic concepts, aims, assumptions, and values that define and direct it. The unphilosophical mind is trapped within the system it uses, unable to deeply understand alternative or competing systems. The unphilosophical mind tends towards an intra-system closedmindedness. The unphilosophical mind may learn to think within different systems of thought if the systems are compartmentalized and apply in different contexts, but it cannot compare and contrast whole systems, because, at any given time, it thinks within a system without a clear sense of what it means to do so. This kind of intra-system thinking can be skilled, but it lacks foundational self-command. It functions well when confronted with questions and issues that fall clearly within its system, but is at its worse when having issues that cross systems, require revising a system, or presuppose explicit critique of the system used.\n \nUnphilosophical liberals, for example, would be hard pressed to think clearly and accurately within a conservative point of view, and hence would not do well with an issue like “What are some of the most important insights of conservativism?” Unphilosophical psychologists, to take another example, would find it difficult to integrate sociological or economic insights into their thinking. Indeed, thinking unphilosophically in almost any discipline means thinking reductionistically with respect to insights from other disciplines; one either reduces them to whatever can be absorbed into the established concepts in one’s field or ignores them entirely.\n \nAn unphilosophical mind is at its best when routine methods, rules, or procedures function well and there is no need to critically reconceptualize them in the light of a broad understanding of one’s framework for thinking. If one lacks philosophical insight into the underlying logic of those routines, rules, or procedures, one lacks the ability to mentally step outside of them and conceive of alternatives. As a result, the unphilosophical mind tends toward conformity to a system without grasping clearly what the system is, how it came to be thus, or how it might have been otherwise.\n \nThe philosophical mind, in contrast, routinely probes the foundations of its own thought, realized its thinking is defined by basic concepts, aims, assumptions, and values. The philosophical mind gives serious consideration to alternative and competing concepts, aims, assumptions, and values, enters empathically into thinking fundamentally different from its own, and does not confuse its thinking with reality. By habitually thinking globally, the philosophical mind gains foundational self-command, and is comfortable when problems cross disciplines, domains, and frameworks. A philosophical mind habitually probes the basic principles and concepts that lie behind standard methods, rules, and procedures. The philosophical mind recognized the need to refine and improve the systems, concepts, and methods it uses and does not simply conform to them. The philosophical mind deeply values gaining command over its own fundamental modes of thinking.\n \nThe discipline of philosophy is the only one at present that routinely fosters the philosophical mind, though there are philosophical minds at work in every discipline. The philosophical mind is most evident in other disciplines in those working on foundational concepts and problems. In everyday life, the philosophical mind is most evident in those who deeply value doing their own thinking about the basic issues and problems they have and giving serious reasoned consideration to the ideas and thinking of others. In everyday life, the philosophical mind is most evident in those not afraid to probe conventional thought, rules, mores, and values, those skeptical of standards answers and standard definitions of questions and problems.\n \nIn teaching, the philosophical mind is most evident in those who routinely probe the concepts, aims, assumptions, and values that underlie their teaching; who routinely raise fundamental issues through Socratic questions; who routinely encourage students to probe the foundation and source of their own ideas and those of others; and who routinely encourage students to develop their own philosophy or approach to life or learning based on their own disciplines, rational thought. Need I add that philosophical thinking is not habit foremost?\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"It was wonderful to see so many of you at our recent "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"44"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"script":"super"},"insert":"th"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking"},{"insert":", where we delved into the theory and application of critical thinking while working together in an atmosphere of collegiality and conviviality. Our Fellows and Scholars were impressed by the very high degree of serious study, implicit throughout all Focal Sessions, on the part of participants.\n"},{"attributes":{"color":"red"},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nOne of my conference sessions focused on the problem of media bias. Below are some of the ideas we discussed and exemplified.\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"KEY CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS TO ASK WHEN SEEKING THE NEWS"},{"insert":"\n\nThe following are critical thinking questions you can immediately employ to uncover media bias and political propaganda in the news.\n \nIs this news source reputable? In other words: Does it appear to at least attempt to present the news in an unbiased manner? Does it have a track record of reporting actual stories, rather than urban myths, conspiracy theories, and other unfounded claims?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Does this news source openly publish retractions and corrections after making errors in its reporting?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Where do these reporters get their information? What additional sources do they use to corroborate their information? Are they or their editors paid to run a story, or are they paid not to run a story?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Is this news source merely a gossip column, a political smear organization, or some other dysfunctional information source with an unsavory agenda? If so, why would I waste my time with, and potentially be led astray by, these sources? (Realize that it is easy to be influenced by irrational thinking merely through exposure, even when you think you are guarding against it)."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"What is the purpose of this news outlet? Is the purpose clearly stated? Is there a hidden agenda? If so, how can I identify that agenda?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Do professional journalists write for this news outlet? What are the credentials of these journalists?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Is this news source reputable? Does it present the news in an unbiased manner? Does it have a track record of reporting actual stories, rather than urban myths, conspiracy theories, and other unfounded claims?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Am I seeking news on websites such as social media sites? If so, do I realize I’m getting the news filtered to me, often through unreliable sources? (Bottom line: avoid getting news from any social media sites since you would have to work doubly hard to assess the “news” found there—and who has the time?)"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Does this news source attempt at all to enlighten people, or does it merely pander to the views of consumers by maintaining the status quo?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"To what degree is sensationalism a goal of this news source? Why am I drawn to sensationalism, scandal, and melodrama?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Am I seeking news on websites such as social media sites? If so, do I realize I’m getting the news filtered to me, often through unreliable sources? (Bottom line: avoid getting news from any social media sites since you would have to work doubly hard to assess the “news” found there—and who has the time?)"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Does this news source attempt at all to enlighten people, or does it merely pander to the views of consumers by maintaining the status quo?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"To what degree is sensationalism a goal of this news source? Why am I drawn to sensationalism, scandal, and melodrama?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \nThese questions can help you (and your students) focus on the most reputable news sources. And of course, people should never read the news without using skills of criticality, since problems are potentially inherent in any and all news sources, however “reputable.”\n \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"REALITIES THAT IMPEDE OUR ABILITY TO GET OBJECTIVE NEWS"},{"insert":"\n \nIn the past decade, with the explosion of the internet and its attendant realities, it has become increasingly difficult to get objective news (and it was difficult even before this explosion). Many of these realities are now being documented in articles and books, though none of us can keep up with them, so rapid are these changes.\n \nHowever, we can identify the most powerful trends now facing consumers of news. Here are some of the most prominent:\n \n1. It is now very easy to find enclaves of specialized (and biased) news outlets, and social media news-related threads or webpages, that fit one’s own worldview and presuppositions. News consumers can therefore effortlessly find news sources in keeping with their preconceived notions of the world, and can connect with people of like mind, however distorted their collective views may be. Through these news sources, their biases are collectively validated, enabling them to incorporate news stories (however inaccurate or misleading) into their worldview based on how the stories make them feel—that is, how well these stories fit into their existing views, how much they wish the claims were true, or how well the stories fit the views of their friends and colleagues. These consumers seem to rarely corroborate news reports on their own. They rarely or never seek out the same stories as reported by other sources, where the stories may be reported with a broader context, or with more details or with emphasis on different elements. Consequently, these news consumers are able to keep their biased views intact, and thereby avoid facing objective reality."},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"2. Indeed, many people get their “news” solely from free-for-all social media websites that adhere to no standards of reasonability, and which are hodgepodges of poorly reasoned and well-reasoned thoughts and ideas mixed together in ways that cannot delineate to the consumer which “news” is reputable. On the other hand, many well-meaning people try to critique and even investigate what appear to be biased news sources, but, lacking critical thinking skills, they are unclear how to do so."},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"3. With the decline of newspaper circulation has come the rise of advocacy journalism, in which many news outlets actively take positions on the news as if the primary purpose were to editorialize rather than simply report the news in its most objective form. This phenomenon can be found across the political spectrum, from conservative to post-modern liberal journalism—whether moderate, far-right, or far-left."},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"And people are now flocking and clustering to these advocacy news outlets."},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"4. Of course, all advocacy journalism is not of the same quality. Whether and to what degree a position should be taken in journalism entirely depends on the case at hand and the arguments being given. In the final analysis, each of us must use our critical thinking abilities to determine the best position to take Where do these reporters get their information? What additional sources do they use to corroborate their information? Are they or their editors paid to run a story, or are they paid not to run a story? on an issue, once we are informed of all reasonable sides. We must be open to considering all rational perspectives on an issue, the complexities of which should be reflected in news reporting."},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"5. Perhaps surprisingly, many people are still unaware of the prevalence of fake news throughout social media and the web. It is now well-known that people and organizations (including private interest groups, businesses, and governments) can create authentic-looking websites featuring deliberately misleading or utterly fabricated stories. Fake news can spread quickly through social media, and a fake story can become “common knowledge” amongst a large segment of the population in a matter of days. "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Conspiracy theorists claimed that the emails entailed coded messages connecting several U.S. restaurants and high-ranking officials of the Democratic Party with purported human trafficking and a child sex ring. These unfounded claims went viral, spreading through the use of several social media sites), among ultra-conservatives and other groups antagonistic to Clinton or the Democratic Party."},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"6. Many people are unable to distinguish between news stories and news commentary. These people are therefore unaware that a news story should not entail judgment on the part of the story’s author, but rather should simply report accurate, verifiable, undistorted information, or in other words facts. News commentary, on the other hand, involves taking a position on an issue and therefore may be well or poorly reasoned. When news reporters do editorialize, they should make it clear when they are presenting facts versus when they are suggesting their inferences or conclusions based on the facts."},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"7. Many people get their news from news-based comedy programs—television and internet broadcasts whose purpose is to make people laugh by focusing on current events. This can include sketches with exaggerated or otherwise altered versions of events (e.g., Saturday Night Live), as well as comedic commentary on current news (e.g., The Daily Show). Of course, such shows have financial incentives to prioritize comedy above unbiased and even-handed delivery of objective information. At the same time, comedy writers often voice, through wit, their own views on politics and the news, and hence their “jokes” are frequently intended to, and frequently do, influence consumers’ views."},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \nMedia bias and propaganda are effective only when people lack the critical thinking skills to see through them. Hopefully these ideas give you (and your students) a richer sense of how to avoid being manipulated through partial media sources, wherever they are found.\n \nFor more on media bias and propaganda, see "},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/viewDocument.php?doc=../content/library_for_everyone/55/FactOverFake.pdf&page=1"},"insert":"Fact Over Fake: A Critical Thinker's Guide to Media Bias and Political Propaganda"},{"insert":".\n \n---\n \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"This blog was adapted from "},{"insert":"pp. 12 – 14 "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"found in: "},{"insert":"Fact Over Fake: A Critical Thinker's Guide to Media Bias and Political Propaganda"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":", by Richard Paul and Linda Elder (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2020: www.rowman.com)."},{"insert":"\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Abstract"},{"insert":"\n\nIn this paper, originally part of “Philosophy and Cognitive Psychology,” Paul argues for the power of philosophy and philosophical thinking for intellectual autonomy. He claims that even children have a need and right to think philosophically and are very much inclined to do so, but are typically discouraged by the didactic absolutistic answers and attitudes of adults. Consequently, the inquiring minds of children soon become jaded by the self-assured absolutistic environment which surrounds them.\n\nThe potential of children to philosophize is suggested in a transcript of a 4"},{"attributes":{"script":"super"},"insert":"th"},{"insert":" grade classroom discussion of a series of abstract questions. Following the transcript, Paul illustrates a variety of ways in which traditional school subjects can be approached philosophically. He closes with a discussion of the values and intellectual traits fostered by philosophical thought, the skills and processes of thought, and the relation of philosophical to critical thought.\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Introduction"},{"insert":"\n\nIn this paper I lay the foundation for a philosophy-based, in contrast to a psychology-based, approach to teaching critical thinking across the curriculum. I lay out the general theory and provide some examples of how it could be used to transform classroom instruction and activities. Nevertheless, I want to underscore the point that I lack the space to cover my subject comprehensively. Interested readers must independently pursue the leads I provide, to see the power and flexibility of philosophy-based approaches to critical thinking instruction. I must content myself with modest goals, with a few basic insights into philosophical thinking, with a few of its advantages for instruction.\n\nThere are three overlapping senses of "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"philosophy"},{"insert":" that can play a role in explicating the nature of philosophical thinking: philosophy as a field of study, philosophy as a mode of thinking, and philosophy as a framework for thinking. In what follows, I focus on philosophy as a mode of and framework for thinking and will say least about it as a field of study. Nevertheless, some characterization of the field of philosophy is useful.\n\nPhilosophy is steeped in dialogical and dialectical thought. Philosophy is an art rather than a science, a discipline that formulates issues that can be approached from multiple points of view and invites critical dialogue and reasoned discourse between conflicting viewpoints. Critical thought and discussion are its mains instruments of learning. More so than any other field, philosophy requires all participants to think their own way to whatever system of beliefs ultimately constitute their thought within the field. This entails that all philosophers develop their own unique philosophies.\n\nIn contrast, science students are not expected to construct their own science. Sciences have emerged because of the possibility of specialization and joint work within a highly defined shared frame of reference. Its ground rules exclude what is not subject to quantification and measurement. Sciences are cooperative, collaborative ventures whose practitioners agree to limit strictly the range of issues they consider and how they consider them.\n\nPhilosophy, on the other hand, is largely an individualistic venture wherein participants agree, only in the broadest sense on the range and nature of the issues they will consider. Philosophers have traditionally been concerned with big questions, root issues that organize the overall framework of thinking itself, in all domains, not just one. Philosophers do not typically conduct "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"experiments"},{"insert":". They rarely form "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"hypothese"},{"insert":"s or make "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"predictions"},{"insert":" as scientists do. Philosophical tradition gives us a tapestry rich in the development of individual syntheses of ideas across multiple subject domains: syntheses carefully and precisely articulated and elaborately argued. There is a reason for this basic difference between the history of science and that of philosophy.\n\nSome questions, by their nature, admit of collaborative treatment and solution; others do not. For example, we do not need to individually test for the chemical structure of lead or determine the appropriate theory of that structure; we can rely on the conclusions of those who have done so. But we cannot learn the structure of our own lives or the best way to plan for the future by looking up the answer in a technical manual or having an answer determined for us by a collaborative scientific effort. We must each individually analyze these questions to obtain rationally defensible answers. There is a wide range of ways human lives can be understood and a variety of strategies for living them. Rarely, if ever, can answers to philosophical questions be validated by one person for another.\n\nThe method of philosophy, or the "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"mode"},{"insert":" of thinking characteristic of philosophy, is that of critical discussion, rational cross examination, and dialectical exchange. Every person who would participate in that discussion must create and elaborate a framework for thinking comprehensively. This discipline in the mode of thinking characteristic of philosophy has roots in the ideal of learning to think with a clear sense of the ultimate foundations of one’s thinking, of the essential logic of one’s thought, and of significant alternative, competing ways of thinking.\n\nConsider philosophical thinking as a framework for thought. When one engages in philosophical thinking, one thinks within a self-constructed network of assumptions, concepts, defined issues, key inferences, and insights. To think philosophically as a liberal, for example, is to think within a different framework of ideas than conservatives do. What is more, to think philosophically, in this sense, is to "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"know"},{"insert":" that one is thinking within a different framework of ideas than other thinkers. It is to know the foundations of liberalism compared to those of conservativism.\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"When students learn to reason with skill within the content of their courses, they take ownership of the most basic principles and concepts within the subjects they are studying. The instructional ideas in all of our work are premised in this understanding. These ideas are based on a vision of instruction implied by critical thinking and an analysis of the weaknesses typically found in most traditional didactic lecture/quiz/test formats of instruction. We begin with two premises:\n \n■ that to learn a subject well, students must master the thinking that defines that subject, and"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"■ that we, in turn, as their instructors, must design activities and assignments that require students to think actively within the concepts and principles of the subject."},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"color":"#211d1e"},"insert":"The essence of studying academic subjects with discipline entails learning the tools employed by the intellectually developed mind. This means "},{"insert":"internalizing fundamental concepts and principles before attempting to learn more advanced concepts. This requires that instructors design coursework that "},{"attributes":{"color":"#211d1e"},"insert":"makes intellectual work and deep learning manageable, practical, and intuitive to students."},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"color":"#211d1e"},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"color":"#211d1e"},"insert":"One of the goals of critical thinking is to foster lifelong learning and the traditional ideal of a liberally educated mind: a mind that questions, probes, and masters a variety of forms of knowledge, through command of itself, intellectual perseverance, and the tools of learning."},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"color":"#211d1e"},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"color":"#211d1e"},"insert":"Critical thinking helps put questions into clearer perspective. It illuminates that all bona fide fields of study share common intellectual structures and standards of reasonability. It emphasizes that foundational intellectual structures and standards of reasonability are worth learning explicitly and in themselves, since they help us more deeply interconnect and understand all that we learn. It also emphasizes foundational intellectual dispositions and values that define the traits of the disciplined thinker in all fields: intellectual autonomy, intellectual humility, intellectual integrity, intellectual perseverance, intellectual empathy, confidence in reason, and fairmindedness."},{"insert":"\n\nTo learn specific strategies for fostering critical thinking in instruction, read the many resources in our libraries for educators and students. Also view our many instructional design videos in our video library. Here are few of the resources in these libraries:\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"color":"#0066cc","link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/watchEmbeddedVideo.php?id=354"},"insert":"How to Foster Critical Thinking in Students on a Typical Day"},{"attributes":{"color":"#212121"},"insert":" (recently released webinar with Dr. Gerald Nosich)"},{"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"color":"#0066cc","link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/viewDocument.php?doc=../content/library_for_educators/120/HowtoImproveStudentLearningforCommunityOnline.pdf&page=1"},"insert":"How to Improve Student Learning"},{"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"color":"#0066cc","link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/viewDocument.php?doc=../content/library_for_students/29/Thinker__sGuideonHowtoStudyandLearnaDiscipline.pdf&page=1"},"insert":"The Thinkers Guide for Students on How to Study and Learn a Discipline"},{"insert":"\n"}]}