Logic and Critical Thinking

I am sure, I am going to miss big deal of next Thursday class discussion but I hope my short summary will contribute a little to the topic and won’t bring more confusion to the already hot debate over logic and critical thinking.

In Logic and Critical Thinking chapter Noddings discusses the thoughts of philosophers of education on three main approaches, as well one not fully developed approach to the teaching of critical thinking. As it is more than impossible to conceptualize (difficulty, as I am continuing to read and learn it is not a struggle only of my own), I will try below to summarize shortly the main points of the chapter discussion and express some of my initial thoughts after reading the text.

According to Nobbings formal logic involves the valid manipulation of symbolic forms. Suppes argues that formal logic is the form of symbolically expressions, not the content, where we judge the true or false of a statement. Robert Ennis first introduces the connection between formal logic and critical thinking. However, his approach falls more to the informal logic then formal logic. He defines critical thinking as "the correct assessing of statement” and characterizes critical or rational thinking in terms of an ability as a form and process. Similar to Ennis, Richard Paul concentrates on the process; he separates “weak” and “strong” sense of critical thinking which approach has been viewed as practical and pedagogical useful. However, Harvey Siegel argues Paul’s approach. Siegel characterizes critical thinking as a process moved by reasons and one of the main aspects of critical thinking for Siegel is the ability properly to assess reasons, reasons that can be examined by all. McPeck defines critical thinking as the appropriate use of reflective skepticism and that there is no such thing as thinking critically in general.

Noddings agrees that if we accept McPeck’s view of critical thinking it will mean to teach the epistemology not only the disciplines accumulated content. As she continues, students need to learn how to make a valid argument, how to apply such an argument in everyday life, to adapt an attitude of reflective skepticism, to learn the technical language of the field.

One of the questions Noddings asks at the end of the chapter is: “Are there such things as general thinking skills?” With respect to all said in the chapter, Noddings examples of personal experience – “the fish” test example and the episode from Alice in Wonderland, and mine own experience not exactly as an educator – people in general have problems in thinking critically because they lack understanding of main concepts, principles, and criteria that help us to gain our critical thinking practices. When one teaches instead of focusing on developing thinking skills, an educator needs to focus on the contexts of particular modes of disciplines which will enable a student to learn how reasonably to judge in particular contexts as the critical thinking is not a skill, as the concepts and principles are not isolated, as often seems that way.

The example of the fish led Noddings to the conclusion that to teach logic relaying on how the mind actually works is “foolish and questionable if it will improve ordinary logical thinking.” I do agree with the author’s statement as well with her reasons on why she will continue teach logic in mathematics class: “if proof is to be emphasized, the rules of deductive inference must be understood.” If we focus on understanding rather than on developing skills than we will provide knowledge of what is required in particular context and what practical application is for this particular context. Ennis “acknowledges this and requires that rational thinkers exercise their skills in familiar field of experience.”

And as Noddings introduces at the end of the chapter, fourth, alternative approach to critical thinking, she asks a much more important question of the purposes of critical thinking: “Why do we want our students to become critical thinkers?” Jane Martin goes further as raises moral issues in teaching critical thinking and believes that “too often critical thinkers are spectators rather than participants.” Here as Noddings I am wondering is pedagogical neutrality possible and how and how it will contribute to critical thinking in the moral sense?