{"ops":[{"insert":"This article was published in the Fall 2011 issue of Sonoma State University’s"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines"},{"insert":" (vol. 26, no. 3) and was titled, “Reflections on the Nature of Critical Thinking, Its History, Politics, and Barriers, and on Its Status across the College/University Curriculum Part I.” (Part II was published in the Spring 2012 issue.)\n \nThe piece was divided into eight sections:\n\nAbstract"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Introduction"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"I. My Intellectual Journey"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"II. Barriers to the Cultivation of Critical Thinking"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"III. Forms and Manifestations of Critical Thinking, Mapping the Field"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"IV. The Establishment of the Center and Foundation for Critical Thinking"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"V. Academic Departments, Faculty and Administrators Generally Fail to Foster Critical Thinking"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"VI Conclusion"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nThe fourth of these appears below.\n \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"II. Barriers to the Cultivation of Critical Thinking"},{"insert":"\n \nAt present (2012), there are still formidable barriers to the cultivation of fair-minded critical communities. I will comment briefly on some manifestations of these barriers. Though I will consider both academic and non-academic sources of impediments, I will emphasize the academic. Among the academic I will focus on those created by higher education departmental politics, especially those resulting from the vested interests of academic departments. I will touch upon impediments created by faculty and academic departments in general and, to a lesser extent, those created by collegiate bureaucratic interests. I focus on these particulars: 1) because they represent paradigm cases of a lack of serious intellectual activity in the bureaucratic life of higher education and 2) because I have lived first-hand the problems I lay bare in what follows. Finally, I will emphasize the barriers created by egocentric and sociocentric thought in general. I will begin with some reflections suggested by the history of critical thinking.\n\n "},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"A. Insights From the History of Critical Thinking"},{"insert":"\n\nTo me, Socrates (470-399 B.C.E.) is the most original and influential figure in the history of critical thinking. He not only recognized the defining role that thinking plays in the lives of humans (that we are "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"homo sapiens"},{"insert":", the species that thinks), he also saw that we are not by nature "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"critical "},{"insert":"thinkers ("},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"homo criticus"},{"insert":", the species that thinks critically). He recognized that human thinking is often deeply flawed and that many intelligent humans (principally those whose thinking is characteristically sophistic, manipulative, and self-deceptive) are interested in thinking not to gain insight into the flawed nature of their own thinking but rather to gain control, influence, and status in the struggle for wealth and power in everyday human affairs.\n \nThis duality continues in the human struggle for power to this day, that is, Socratic vs. sophistic thought: what I have often characterized as critical thinking in a “strong” vs. critical thinking in a “weak” sense. Sophistic critical thinking, which is critical thinking tailored to win in a power struggle, continues to thrive and indeed is arguably the more dominant of the two. Many, if not most, people reflect on their thinking not to serve the ends of emancipation and intellectual integrity, but rather to acquire skills and insights that advantage them in the struggle for power in human affairs.\n\nSocrates “claimed the right of independent criticism of all institutions and of politicians who did not seem to know what they were doing or [who] compromised their principles” (Kidd, 1967, p. 482). So too should we all. All conscientious thinkers should weigh-in on the side of commitment to the ideal implicit in Socrates’ life and practice: hence to the importance of intellectual integrity, intellectual autonomy, intellectual humility, intellectual empathy, intellectual perseverance, and human emancipation.\n \nAgain, if there is one truth that the history of critical thinking teaches, it is that reason is regularly ruled by force. If there is one truth that all Socratic critical thought assumes, it is that force should be regularly ruled by reason. Much of the history of human thought (critical thought especially) demonstrates how force has traditionally triumphed over reason. The Middle Ages, for example, testify to a period of time in which reason was forcefully subjugated by religious authorities. During this time, the feudal hierarchy and the Church controlled virtually all authority and power, and used the two in tandem to suppress dissenting views. Reason functioned mainly as a rationalization of the status quo. If you happened to be an orthodox believer (as, for example, Thomas Aquinas was), you were free to use reason to defend established views. All critical thinking was, in effect, selectively used, since all public discourse was guaranteed to come down on the side of the reigning power (or be suppressed). A history that documented the relationship of force and reason would be a many-volumed set.\n\nOf course, force and violence may be on the decline. But we can’t be sure of this, for we lack a benchmark history of sophistic thinking in human life. In time such a history may be written. Where force rules, freedom of thought, and hence fair-minded critical thought, cannot. As long as people are punished for dissenting from the status quo, most people will keep their criticisms of the status quo to themselves. While a few people may be ready to make sacrifices for freedom of speech, the vast majority of people tacitly chose lives of silent conformity. Most quickly learn that punishments are meted out to those who do not line up behind the views and thinking of those dominant in the structure of power. In short, though the extent of the use of force has fluctuated historically, it has repeatedly played a powerful, if not a defining role, in human life.\n \nThe society envisioned by Socrates is at best a long time coming, and, to my eyes, doesn’t seem even distantly on the horizon. The field of critical thinking studies would be well served by multiple histories of critical thinking each written from a different point of view. Well-documented histories of critical thinking represent an area of research still needed.\n\nNevertheless, a brief look at the recent history of critical thinking (the last 50 years) may be useful in suggesting the barriers we face today in fostering critical thinking in education and human societies. In the next section I will offer some of my thoughts on this history (I am under no illusion that my view tells all the tales that need to be told. I will emphasize some of the problems that some academic departments have created for those who advocate substantive critical thinking. In my view, these problems are stumbling blocks to bringing critical thinking across the curriculum and, thus, ultimately into everyday social, political, and economic life. (It goes without saying that many historical questions could usefully be raised about the bad faith politics in this era).\n\n "},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"B. The History of Education: Money and the Long View"},{"insert":"\n\nAt every step along the way in the history of schooling, economics (money) rears its ugly head. In my view, no one can ignore the role of wealth in academic affairs and still construct a faithful account of education as it exists in the real world. At every level, in every subject, in every important decision, money is there opening and closing doors, creating and destroying research, privileging and marginalizing persons, subjects, movements, ideologies and perspectives. As one modest example, I will suggest how philosophy departments in California have worked to control classes in critical thinking for their own funding.\n\n "},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"C. Critical Thinking Rescues Many Philosophy Departments: A Personal Perception (and Call for Research)"},{"insert":"\n\nIn this brief section I will share my view of what I consider to be a destructive trend in higher education. Again, I focus on my experiences in higher education in California to exemplify my point. How far this trend has spread nationally and internationally needs to be researched so we can determine its extent and begin to reverse it. Remember that this is my view based on many years of working in the field of philosophy.\n\nEvery academic department has an interest in teaching students to think well within the discipline it represents. At the same time, most faculty, including philosophy faculty, do not, it seems to me, understand the role of critical thinking in this process. For instance, I well understand the fact that academic philosophers in California, more than faculty from any other discipline, “control” critical thinking through their frequent control of student requirements in critical thinking. Such faculty, in my experience, often do not sincerely and in good faith study to determine how accomplished practitioners in other disciplines engage in critical thinking. The end result is that philosophers who gain windfall numbers of FTEs by gaining control of courses that fulfill the state-wide critical thinking requirement do not discuss the problem of laying the foundations of critical thinking in such a way as to determine how foundations for critical thinking in freshman studies should be followed up in every other university course (to serve the need for critical thinking, ultimately, for all peoples in all nations). Much research could usefully be done in this area.\n \nThe mindset behind this troublesome practice comes in many forms. For example, when I became persuaded, while teaching a course in philosophical reasoning, that a sizeable percentage of philosophy majors were learning to be argumentative rather than learning to be fair-minded reasoners, my colleagues took immediate action against me. First, they tried to prevent me from teaching the course. Secondly, the department refused to consider the evidence I had that documented the problem in teaching and learning: namely, philosophy majors developing into “argumentative” rather than “empathic” reasoners. The dodge used to avoid discussing what I observed centered on the claim that the students in my philosophical reasoning class had not given me official permission to “study” them. My response to the department was that professors do not need permission to study the characteristics of their students’ work. Quite the contrary. In my view faculty studying the strengths and weaknesses of student reasoning is not only a professional right; it is a responsibility.\n \nA more general illustration of bad faith in the politics of numerous philosophy departments is the common practice of allowing courses in "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"formal "},{"insert":"logic to count as fulfilling critical thinking requirements, even though virtually no one (including the philosophers who teach formal logic) uses the cumbersome language of formal logic to critique human thought. To show how empty such a procedure would be, one need only examine the kinds of exercises typical of formal logic courses (see page 12 below). There is, of course, no reason to believe that what is taught in formal logic (or informal logic for that matter) will automatically transfer to other disciplines, nor is there reason to believe that those engaged in disciplinary thinking across the curriculum would have their thinking improved if they could somehow inject formal or informal logic strategies into their subject’s methodology.\n \nThe temptation, of course, is vested interest. If philosophy departments gain funding for their small upper division courses by teaching large critical thinking courses, then the very existence of the department will be protected. Thus it is reasonable to expect that there will be a strong temptation to seek control of institution-wide critical thinking requirements by philosophy departments (and/or by any other departments similarly threatened).\n \nAt the California university where I was a full professor for 35 years, the philosophy department specifically set out to persuade colleagues in other departments, and key administrators as well, to accept a required course in critical thinking and to accept that course being taught and administered exclusively by us, the philosophy department. I naively, and now with regret, supported this effort. Initially the department was unsuccessful (the school of natural sciences designed a course that focused on critical thinking in science, Science 101 Critical and Scientific Thinking). After a few years of teaching Science 101 as a general education “alternative” to a course in critical thinking (taught exclusively by the philosophy department) the school of natural science only irregularly taught the scientific thinking-centered course.\n\nThe result was that the philosophy department gained de facto control of the university wide requirement (A-3). The philosophy department gained control of the design and the hiring (hiring only philosophers to teach the course in “Critical Thinking” identified as “Philosophy 101”). Then the philosophy department gained support for formal logic (over my objection) as an option to the course labeled “Critical Thinking.” Philosophy controlled the design and hiring of the formal logic course, hiring only philosophers to teach it.\n \nAt the same time, the local junior college gained control of the design and hiring for required critical thinking courses at the college. The philosophy department there was successful in requiring a degree in philosophy as a necessary qualification to teach the basic critical thinking course. Thus, when a scholar with outstanding qualifications in research and pedagogy in critical thinking applied to teach a section of critical thinking at the junior college, her application was refused, the explanation given was that, though she had many significant publications in critical thinking studies, she lacked a degree in philosophy.\n \nThis junior college “explanation” implies that those who have degrees in philosophy are qualified to teach critical thinking while those with other degrees are not. I know of no evidence that supports the claim that philosophy graduates are routinely better critical thinkers (or better at teaching critical thinking, for that matter) than graduates of any number of other departments’ graduates. Research in this area is needed.\n \nI do not know to what extent philosophy departments across the higher education institutions in the country at large mirror the pattern of events regarding critical thinking and formal logic at the California State University and California state community colleges. Research that brings out the extent of these practices is needed. The fact is that critical thinking is relevant to all college and university courses and thus no subject area should be given, a priori, a proprietary right to it. The funding for critical thinking should go to those academic departments that conduct research and offer advanced courses in the theory and application of critical thinking, as would be the case with any other aspiring field of studies. In point of fact, all departments have the responsibility to teach whatever they teach in a critical manner. Students have a right to learn critical thinking by having to exercise it while thinking their way through all the disciplines they study. Philosophers are not in fact routinely qualified to teach students critical thinking in a single stand-alone course nor are they, in my view, qualified, without special preparation, to instruct other faculty in how to teach critical thinking systematically across the disciplines.\n\n "},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"D. An Area of Bad Faith?"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nSince much of the funding that philosophy departments in the US receive from the university/college is generated by the large scale enrollment of students in introductory courses in critical thinking, and since universities and colleges expect the instruction students get in critical thinking courses to lay the foundation for all disciplines to be taught and learned in a "},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"critical "},{"insert":"manner, philosophy departments have the responsibility to do the research into pedagogy and application that will enable them to provide leadership in critical thinking instruction across the university. Unfortunately, in my experience, very few departments are prepared to accept that responsibility. Certainly, it was not accepted by my department. For example, most philosophy departments have shown little interest in the research that the Foundation for Critical thinking has conducted (over 32 years) (1980-2012) in how critical thinking can be contextualized into content domains.\n \nMuch research has been conducted as a result of the sessions of the annual conference on critical thinking and educational reform (See Foundation for Critical Thinking International conference archives at www.criticalthinking. org) However, much more research is needed that demonstrates how to contextualize critical thinking into diverse subject domains. Of course, one might assume that philosophy departments ( to the extent they lay claim to a priority interest in critical thinking) would conduct the research necessary to develop explicit ways and means for how other departments can “follow up” on their putative, but in my experience typically superficial, example. In other words, as far as I can see, there is little motivation in academic disciplines generally to explore the interface of critical thinking and the thinking essential to all academic disciplines.\n \nFor example, canvassing the many hundreds of sessions of the International conference as a measure (from 1980 to 2012), I can only conclude that few departments are interested in developing the interface of critical thinking and the logic of their discipline. Consult the 22 Thinker’s Guides on the web site of the Foundation for Critical Thinking for extended examples of how one might begin to structure contextualizations of critical thinking across the disciplines. See the list (page 2 above).\n \nIn my experience, both philosophers and nonphilosophers tend to take the easy way out. It is rare for\n philosophers to arrange meetings on how to foster critical thinking across the disciplines. Once the political goal is achieved — i.e., once philosophy departments gain control of the critical thinking courses — perhaps there is little motivation remaining to do anything further. This certainly was my experience (40 plus years, six years as chair) with the politics of the philosophy department at a California State University. In any case, such (“how-can-we-teachcritical-thinking-across -the- disciplines?”) meetings are, in my experience, uncommon. Only a small number spring to mind. And these are at a college- or university-wide initiative, not usually at the initiative of philosophy departments themselves. This area needs further research to determine the extent to which my perceptions are not idiosyncratic.\n\n "},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"E. Administrators Follow Suit"},{"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"Many college and university administrators I have talked to have their own rationalizations for evading responsibility to insure that critical thought is in fact taught effectively across the curriculum. 1) In my experience, they rarely ask academic departments to explain how they are fostering critical thinking in their various courses and 2) they nevertheless include in their mission statements the claim that critical thinking is a primary university goal (and expected outcome) at their institution. By and large they allow those involved in teaching critical thinking to make of critical thinking what they will. Once again, I am generalizing from my experience. Further research would be welcome to verify or falsify my generalization.\n \nThe result seems to me predictable. Philosophy departments that gain control of critical thinking courses continue teaching their upper division classes as ever they have (often in a didactic manner), while those philosophers teaching stand-alone courses in critical thinking restrict their “research” to examining a variety of textbooks in formal or informal logic. They choose such a text and then teach it as if critical thinking were achieved in everyday life by applying the concepts of formal and informal logic to it. Again, more research would be welcome.\n \nI know of no philosopher who uses formal logic to deal with everyday problems. Indeed, it is my bet that very few who teach formal or informal logic do so critically. If you want to see for yourself, ask philosophers to discuss some examples that illustrate how they apply formal logic concepts to problems calling for critical thinking in everyday life. Also ask them to illustrate how they teach formal or informal logic in a critical manner. If they say “yes” then ask them to explain what changes they have made that demonstrate a divergence from the traditional didactic ways logic is classically taught. For my critique of traditional and modern formal deductive logic, see my dissertation "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Logic As Theory of Validation "},{"insert":"(1968).\n \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"F. Philosophers Gain Advantage in California"},{"insert":"\n\nIn academia as elsewhere in society, if you want to know what is going on, follow "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"the structure of power "},{"insert":"by exposing where vested interests lie and what and whom they serve. Assume that money is playing a significant role in all decision-making. You will soon find that important affairs are rarely disclosed by their public representations. In my experience, the important issues are rarely on the surface of academic politics. Let’s look at a few examples.\n \nIn 1980, just as the critical thinking “movement” was beginning to fire up, chancellor Dumke of the California State University issued an executive order (No. 338) defining and requiring six units of instruction in critical thinking (with impact on approximately 300,000 students). (Lazere,1987).\n \nHere is the essence of the order:\n\n Instruction in critical thinking is to be designed to achieve an understanding of the relationship of language to logic, which should lead to the ability to analyze, criticize, and advocate ideas, to reason inductively and deductively, and to reach factual or judgmental conclusions based on sound inferences drawn from unambiguous statements of knowledge or belief. The minimal competence to be expected at the successful conclusion of instruction in critical thinking should be the ability to distinguish fact from judgment, belief from knowledge, and skills in elementary inductive and deductive processes, including an understanding of the formal and informal fallacies of language and thought (p. 1).\n \nLet’s unpack this lofty language. First, this ambitious “executive order” is calling for much more than someone teaching a three or four unit course could reasonably hope to accomplish. Even the most highly skilled teachers, I would argue, could not accomplish this task as defined. In fact, most of the required learning outcomes in this directive are more reasonably expected from the best students after three or four years of excellent (Socratic) teaching at the graduate level rather than after one semester of standard didactic instruction. "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"In fact, a single college course (no matter how it is designed) cannot produce a disciplined critical mind"},{"insert":".\n \nConsider each of these goals separately:\n\nAchieve an understanding of the relationship of language to logic"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Develop the ability to analyze ideas,"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Develop the ability to criticize ideas,"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Develop the ability to advocate ideas"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Learn to reason inductively,"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Learn to reason deductively"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Develop the ability to reach factual or judgmental conclusions based on sound inferences drawn from unambiguous statements of knowledge or belief"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Develop the ability to distinguish fact from judgment"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Develop the ability to distinguish belief from knowledge"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Develop skills in elementary inductive and deductive processes"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Come to an understanding of the formal fallacies of language and thought"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Come to an understanding of the informal fallacies of language and thought"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \nMany philosophers teaching critical thinking focus on one or two of these tasks, usually numbers eleven and twelve on the list above. Most have had to take at least one course in deductive logic and that instruction usually included some formal and informal fallacies. So most philosophers have a model they can fall back on without having to develop new teaching strategies or understandings, let alone deep-seated dispositions or traits of mind.\n \nPhilosophy departments are not expected by their departments to do any research on critical thinking. Neither are they expected to be up to date on research in critical thinking. They are not expected to study the research into critical thinking pedagogy. Philosophers are not expected to attend critical thinking conferences. In fact, philosophers commonly describe Critical Thinking courses as courses in “baby logic.” By this term they imply that such courses are not academically deep.\n \nThis is an easy way out of critical thinking, no doubt. But it is not a good faith response to the growing call, and the growing need, for critical thinking in everyday life. It is clear that educational leaders and public citizens calling for critical thinking across the college curriculum want faculty to develop practical ways to cultivate critically educated persons. They are looking for higher skills of literacy (critical reading, critical writing, critical listening, critical speaking). They want students to learn to think at a higher level within content areas (for example, critical thinking in the learning and use of physics, chemistry, biology, math, sociology, anthropology, history, art, literature, engineering, medicine, law, and so forth). They want to raise the quality of political and ethical thought. They want a more reflective citizenry. They want more reasonable and humane people. They want, in short, a better world for everyone, a world that is more fair and just, where people are more fulfilled. "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Academia, despite the propaganda of universities to the contrary, has hardly begun to effectively teach for critical thinking across the disciplines."},{"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"G. How to Insure That Critical Thinking Is Not Robust"},{"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"One of the best ways to prevent critical thinking across the curriculum is give one particular discipline proprietary rights to it. When this happens, that favored discipline will likely control the criteria for hiring faculty to teach critical thinking — a state of affairs that exists in many universities today where fulfilling a “critical thinking unit requirement” is defined in terms of the successful completion of one or more critical thinking courses taught by philosophers. Once in control of the critical thinking requirement, philosophy departments in the U.S. are typically allowed to designate courses in formal or informal logic to fulfill the requirement.\n \nTo give you a sense of the technical nature of modern formal or symbolic logic imagine yourself spending a semester determining the validity or invalidity of “arguments” such as the following (Copi, p. 25):\n \nIf I work then I earn money, and if I don’t work then I enjoy myself. Therefore, if I don’t earn money then I enjoy myself."},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Had he married a beautiful woman he would have been disgusted. Had he been either jealous or disgusted he would have been unhappy. He was not unhappy. Therefore he did not marry either a beautiful woman or a homely one."},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"All mattresses are either soft or uncomfortable. No soft mattress is uncomfortable. Some mattresses are uncomfortable. Therefore some mattresses are not soft."},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \nTo the vast majority of students a steady diet of practice in analyzing and assessing arguments such as the above is proof that critical thinking is hopelessly irrelevant to their education and their life. This, I believe, is easily shown by interviewing students completing a course in formal logic. I suffered a special penalty as a professor by having to observe the tortured faces and hear the tortured voices of a formal logic practice room adjoining my own office. Semester after semester they droned on. For years I argued that formal logic courses should not be accepted to fulfill a university critical thinking requirement, to no avail. No one could offer any empirical research that established a correlation between skill in formal logic and skill in critical thought (in general). But lack of evidence does not concern the “true believers” in the efficacy of formal logic.\n \nA better case can be made for informal logic. But in my experience informal logicians have emphasized theory of informal logic (as against theory of critical thinking across the disciplines) and have largely ignored the mass of research by those who have recognized the inseparability of theory and practice of critical thinking. More on this presently.\n"}]}