Critical Thinking

An increasingly popular solution to the anti-scientific climate rising on social media platforms has been the appeal to more critical thinking from the user's side. In this paper, we zoom in on the ideal of critical thinking and unpack it in order to see, specifically, whether it can provide enough epistemic agency so that users endowed with it can break free from enclosed communities on social media (so called epistemic bubbles). We criticise some assumptions embedded in the ideal of critical (...) thinking online and, instead, we propose that a better way to understand the virtuous behaviour at hand is as critical engagement, namely a mutual cultivation of critical skills among the members of an epistemic bubble. This mutual cultivation allows members within an epistemic bubble (in contrast, as we will show, with the authority-based models of epistemic echo chambers) to become more autonomous critical thinkers by cultivating self-trust. We use the model of relational autonomy as well as resources from work on epistemic self-trust and epistemic interdependence to develop an explanatory framework, which in turn may ground rules for identifying and creating virtuous epistemic bubbles within the environments of social media platforms. (shrink)

As we have seen in the transition form Part I to Part II of this book, the inductive riskiness of doxastic methods applied in testimonial uptake or prescribed as exemplary of religious faith, helpfully operationalizes the broader social scientific, philosophical, moral, and theological interest that people may have with problems of religious luck. Accordingly, we will now speak less about luck, but more about the manner in which highly risky cognitive strategies are correlated with psychological studies of bias studies and (...) human cognitive ecology. Chapter Four is concerned with connections between psychological study of biases and heuristics, and the comparative study of fundamentalism. The first section looks at work by psychologists and philosophers on our bias blind spot. Later sections ask, ‘In what ways might biases and heuristics play a special role in aiding our understanding of, and response to, fundamentalist orientation?’. The judgments we make in ignorance of our own biases Montaigne calls our importunate presumptions, and he suggests a host of practical factors that make them appealing. Montaigne, as I discuss in the first section, associates many of our errors with one or another kind of presumption, often about our similarity or differences from others, or from God. Our obvious psychographic diversity, and the polemical ground dynamics involved in our ‘culture wars’ are compounded on the agential side by the invisibility of our biases to ourselves. A number of person and social biases are described that plausibly affect all of our beliefs in domains of controversial views, religious views included. The second section continues to study of how etiological symmetry (similar patterns of belief-uptake) gives rise to religious contrariety (diverse narratives and theologies) in testimonial faith traditions, and what the implications of this are for philosophy of religion, generally, and for an improved comparative study of fundamentalism, in particular. Utilizing the work of philosophers such as Rachel Fraser and psychologists such as Emily Pronin and her co-authors, I offer a four-step genealogical account for how etiological symmetry so easily gives rise to religious contrariety. This account begins with the narrative nature of testimony in the Abrahamic family of religions, and how narrative content confounds our “source monitoring.” My genealogy also introduces what I term biased-closure inferences (BCI) as one of the key enablers of religious exclusivism and absolutism. These are the seemingly ‘logical’ but actually very self-serving inferences people often make, inferences from their own belief being true, to any belief contrary to it being false. Those who claim unique truth, epistemic access, and/or virtue and religious value for the home religion are no exception to the broad pertinence of bias studies across domains of controversial view. The proximate causes of belief are all that we can study, and in these there may be significant etiological symmetries. Yet those groups themselves, especially to the extent that they are exclusivist, are tunnel-visioned on claims of doctrinal uniqueness: on content differences of a theological sort. Comparative philosophy is met with the puzzlement that symmetric or essentially similar doxastic strategies should give rise not just to cognitive diversity, but to what we can call polarized or polemical contrariety, contrariety of a kind where each view adamantly rejects all others. Arguably, the more that theologies offer explanations of a counter-inductive sort, or profess counter-inductive thinking as exemplary of faith, the better evidential ground there for inferring that bias involved in the acquisition or maintenance of beliefs. This provides more substance to the question of when censure, and etiological challenges to faith-based beliefs are philosophically well-motivated. (shrink)

The topic of fake news has received increased attention from philosophers since the term became a favorite of politicians (Habgood-Coote 2016; Dentith 2016). Notably missing from the conversation, however, is a discussion of fake news and conspiracy theory media as a market. This paper will take as its starting point the account of noxious markets put forward by Debra Satz (2010), and will argue that there is a pro tanto moral reason to restrict the market for fake news. Specifically, we (...) begin with Satz’s argument that restricting a market may be required when i) that market inhibits citizens from being able to stand in an equal relationship with one another, and ii) this problem cannot be solved without such direct restrictions. Our own argument then proceeds in three parts: first, we argue that the market for fake news fits Satz’s description of a noxious market; second, we argue against explanations of the proliferation of fake news that are couched in terms of “epistemic vice”, and likewise argue against prescribing critical thinking education as a solution to the problem; finally, we conclude that, in the absence of other solutions to mitigate the noxious effects of the fake news market, we have a pro tanto moral reason to impose restrictions on this market. At the end of the paper, we consider one proposal to regulate the fake news market, which involves making social media outlets potentially liable in civil court for damages caused by the fake news hosted on their websites. (shrink)

In this paper, we examine how the availability of massive quantities of data i.e., the “Big Data” phenomenon, contributes to the creation, spread, and harms of online misinformation. Specifically, we argue that a factor in the problem of online misinformation is the evolved human instinct to recognize patterns. While the pattern-recognition instinct is a crucial evolutionary adaptation, we argue that in the age of Big Data, these capacities have, unfortunately, rendered us vulnerable. Given the ways in which online media outlets (...) profit from the spread of misinformation by preying on this pattern-finding instinct, we conceptualize the problem that we identify as a morally objectionable form of “epistemic exploitation.” As we argue, the consumer of digital misinformation is often exploited by having her pattern-recognition instinct used against her. This exploitation is morally objectionable because it deprives her of an epistemic good to which she has a right. This epistemic good is the integrity of the pattern-recognition instinct itself which, we argue, is a capacity that allows us to participate in uniquely human goods. While our primary goal is to bring attention to this form of epistemic exploitation, we conclude by briefly evaluating some general solutions to the growing problem of online misinformation. (shrink)

This paper presents a passage from Peter Singer on the pond analogy and comments on its content and use in the classroom, especially with respect to the development of the learners' argumentative skills.

The fallacy of ignoring qualifications, or secundum quid et simpliciter, is a deceptive strategy that is pervasive in argumentative dialogues, discourses, and discussions. It consists in misrepresenting an utterance so that its meaning is broadened, narrowed, or simply modified to pursue different goals, such as drawing a specific conclusion, attacking the interlocutor, or generating humorous reactions. The “secundum quid” was described by Aristotle as an interpretative manipulative strategy, based on the contrast between the “proper” sense of a statement and its (...) meaning taken absolutely or in a certain respect. However, how can an “unqualified” statement have a proper meaning different from the qualified one, and vice versa? This “linguistic” fallacy brings to light a complex relationship between pragmatics, argumentation, and interpretation. The secundum quid is described in this paper as a manipulative argument, whose deceptive effect lies in its pragmatic dimension. This fallacy is analyzed as a strategy of decontextualization lying at the interface between pragmatics and argumentation and consisting of the unwarranted passage from an ut-terance to its semantic representation. By ignoring the available evidence and the presumptive interpretation of a statement, the speaker places it in a different context or suppresses textual and contextual evidence to infer a specific meaning different from the presumable one. (shrink)

El presente artículo ofrece una interpretación de la totalidad de la filosofía kantiana como reforma al concepto de filosofía de acuerdo con la naturaleza metafísica y moral de la razón. Para ello se articulan los elementos que sirven a la reforma, a saber, la comprensión de la filosofía bajo el concepto escolástico y bajo el cósmico, este último desprendido de la teleología racional expresada en la consideración histórica de la filosofía. Después, se construye la interpretación de la metodología arquitectónica que (...) utiliza la reforma, primero demostrando que la pregunta crítica sobre los juicios sintéticos a priori sirve para determinar los conocimientos posibles; posteriormente, argumentando que la pregunta se subsume a los intereses racionales de los seres humanos para vincular los conocimientos con el fin de la razón, lo cual corresponde a la estructuración de la filosofía según la Sabiduría a la que tiende. Por último, se propone cuál es la labor que cada Crítica tiene dentro de todo el proyecto de reforma. La interpretación, por tanto, recupera las intenciones eminentemente metafísicas y morales de la empresa kantiana, permitiendo abordarla en su conjunto. (shrink)

In this paper, I describe some strategies for teaching an introductory philosophy of science course to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) students, with reference to my own experience teaching a philosophy of science course in the Fall of 2020. The most important strategy that I advocate is what I call the “Second Philosophy” approach, according to which instructors ought to emphasize that the problems that concern philosophers of science are not manufactured and imposed by philosophers from the outside, but (...) rather are ones that arise internally, during the practice of science itself. To justify this approach, I appeal to considerations from both educational research and the epistemology of testimony. In addition, I defend some distinctive learning goals that philosophy of science instructors ought to adopt when teaching STEM students, which include rectifying empirically well-documented shortcomings in students’ conceptions of the “scientific method” and the “nature of science.” Although my primary focus will be on teaching philosophy of science to STEM students, much of what I propose can be applied to non-philosophy majors generally. Ultimately, as I argue, a successful philosophy of science course for non-philosophy majors must be one that advances a student’s science education. The strategies that I describe and defend here are aimed at precisely that end. (shrink)

What is the relevance of ideals for determining virtuous argumentative practices? According to Bailin and Battersby (2016), the telos of argumentation is to improve our cognitive systems, and adversariality plays no role in ideally virtuous argumentation. Stevens and Cohen (2019) grant that ideal argumentation is collaborative, but stress that imperfect agents like us should not aim at approximating the ideal of argumentation. Accordingly, it can be virtuous, for imperfect arguers like us, to act as adversaries. Many questions are left unanswered (...) by both camps. First, how do we conceptualize an ideal and its approximation? Second, how can we determine what is the ideal of argumentation? Third, can we extend Stevens and Cohen’s anti-approximation argument beyond virtue theory? In order to respond to these questions, this paper develops a second-best perspective on ideal argumentation. The Theory of the Second Best is a formal contribution to the field of utility (or welfare) optimization. Its main conclusion is that, in non-ideal circumstances, approximating ideals might be suboptimal. (shrink)

Argument mapping is a way of diagramming the logical structure of an argument to explicitly and concisely represent reasoning. The use of argument mapping in critical thinking instruction has increased dramatically in recent decades. This paper overviews the innovation and provides a procedural approach for new teaches wanting to use argument mapping in the classroom. A brief history of argument mapping is provided at the end of this paper.

We are often urged to figure things out for ourselves rather than to rely on other people’s say-so, and thus be ‘epistemically autonomous’ in one sense of the term. But why? For almost any important question, there will be someone around you who is at least as well placed to answer it correctly. So why bother making up your own mind at all? I consider, and then reject, two ‘egoistic’ answers to this question according to which thinking for oneself is (...) beneficial for the autonomous agent herself. I go on to suggest that the reason we should (sometimes) think for ourselves is that doing so (sometimes) increases the collective reliability of the epistemic community to which we belong. In many cases, this will do nothing at all to increase our own chances of forming correct beliefs. So, at least in this respect, the rationale for being epistemically autonomous is entirely ‘altruistic’. (shrink)

We examine a contribution L. Susan Stebbing made to the understanding of critical thinking and its relation to formal logic. Stebbing took expertise in formal logic to authorise logical intervention in public debate, specifically in assessing of the validity of everyday reasoning. She held, however, that formal logic is purely the study of logical form. Given the problems of ascertaining logical form in any particular instance, and that logical form does not always track informal validity, it is difficult to see (...) how she could justify her belief in logical interventionism. Her answer to this problem is the contribution we explore here. It involves the view that although the logician’s expertise is not sufficient to assess arguments made in everyday contexts on its own, it nevertheless plays a unique role in giving systematicity and direction to the critique of such arguments, in particular, in public debate. (shrink)

Auch in großen Studierendengruppen lässt sich die Lehre aktivierend und interaktiv gestalten. Ein Beispiel dafür ist das hier in seinen zentralen Gestaltungsmerkmalen skizzierte Konzept eines Einführungsmoduls zur Logik und Argumentanalyse. Ein integriertes Kursformat erlaubt einen dynamischen Wechsel zwischen verschiedenen Arbeitsformen. Metakommentare und andere Maßnahmen schaffen eine authentisch wertschätzende Kursatmosphäre. Eine Vielfalt interaktiver Arbeitsformen ermöglicht individuelle Lernwege in heterogenen Studierendengruppen.

In this paper, we propose a framework for fostering argumentative skills in a systematic way in Philosophy and Ethics classes. We start with a review of curricula and teaching materials from the German-speaking world to show that there is an urgent need for standards for the teaching and learning of argumentation. Against this backdrop, we present a framework for such standards that is intended to tackle these difficulties. The spiral-curricular model of argumentative competences we sketch helps teachers introduce the relevant (...) concepts and skills to students early on in their school career. The focus is on secondary schools, but the proposal can also be of use for learning and teaching in universities, especially in introductory classes. (shrink)

In modern socio-economic conditions, one of the priority areas of higher education is the training of a competent specialist with a high culture of thinking, capable of independently making responsible and professional decisions, and acting creatively in non-standard situations. Haber argues that critical thinking (hereafter – CT) is an indispensable skill to achieve this goal; moreover, current global burning issues point out that ‘acquiring and applying this skill is vital to our survival as a society’ (xiii). So, Haber presents his (...) book as a guide for educators, students, as well as for everyone who wants to reinforce his reasoning abilities (xviii). However, taking into account that in recent decades, hundreds of valuable textbooks, guidelines were written on CT, one may ask how Haber is going to avoid his book from being sunk in the ocean of this literature, and what kind of characteristics make it special from other books on this topic. (shrink)

Este ensayo propone un objetivismo ético basado en la naturalización de la ética. Para lograr este objetivo, primero presentaremos la argumentación general del relativismo moral y mostraremos que esta es inválida. A continuación, veremos la razón por la que el relativismo moral es insostenible: hay valores morales que necesariamente deben ser universales. Luego, defenderemos la idea de que los conflictos morales surgen por discrepancias entre creencias fácticas, y una manera de contrarrestar este hecho es mediante el desarrollo del pensamiento crítico. (...) Finalmente, concluiremos que hay una manera de lograr un objetivismo ético: tratando a las hipótesis morales como hipótesis científicas. (shrink)

Doing Practical Ethics is a skills-focused textbook suitable for a variety of Ethics courses. Much as Logic textbooks teach argument skills by demonstrating and then giving students exercises to practice, Doing Practical Ethics provides carefully scaffolded demonstrations and practice opportunities for many of the component argument skills required for engaging in practical ethics. Most chapters of Doing Practical Ethics have 3 components: (1) a clear explanation (with many examples) of a specific skill for analyzing, evaluating, or constructing moral arguments; (2) (...) Demonstration Exercises with sample solutions that students can use to check their comprehension; and (3) additional Practice Exercises (which instructors can assign as homework) that help students further hone their skills. The book can be assigned in skills-focused courses as a standalone text. Pairing it with an anthology will greatly increase your students' ability to engage successfully with the arguments made in assigned readings. The skills covered are relevant to a variety of Ethics courses, from Intro to Ethics and Contemporary Moral Problems to Business Ethics, Bioethics, and Environmental Ethics. We've found that using the book not only helps our students build important reasoning skills -- it also makes class more fun by letting us focus on engaging activities that let students practice productively thinking about and discussing contentious issues. (shrink)

Yaşadığımız çağ bize emsalsiz miktarda bilgi, bir o kadar da karmaşa getiriyor. Düşüncelerimizi sağlıklı biçimde kurmak, safsatalara düşmekten kaçınmak hiç olmadığı kadar zor. Eleştirel düşünce başlı başına bir disipline dönüşmüş durumda. Yasin Ramazan, tüm bu keşmekeş içinde yolunu kaybetmeden tutarlı düşünceler üretmeye çalışan okura rehberlik etmeyi hedefliyor. Düşünmenin Alfabesi nasıl mantıklı düşüneceğinizi öğretmeyi hedeflese de bir mantık kitabı değil. Teorikten ziyade pratik, anlayarak yola koyulmayı teşvik eden bir metin. Sadece başkalarının düşüncelerini kritik etmeyi değil, kendi öğrenme ve düşünme serüvenimizi de (...) takip etmeyi ve gerekli iyileştirmeleri yaparak zenginleştirmeyi salık veriyor. Tutarlı düşüncelerin yanı sıra sağlam inançlar elde etmemizin de yolu yine eleştirel düşünceden geçiyor. -/- “Bu kitap, size eleştirel düşünmeyi sevdirmeyi hedeflemiyor. Zaten, kitabı elinize alıp karıştırdığınıza veya internet kitapçısında sepete eklediğinize göre sistematik ve disiplinli düşünme eksikliğini hissediyor veya bildiğiniz halde bu alandaki gelişmeleri merak ediyorsunuz demektir. Buradaki amacımız, günlük hayatta alışkanlıkla yaptığımız ve zaman zaman başarılı olduğumuz düşünme faaliyetini, profesyonel veya akademik hayata nasıl taşıyabileceğimizi görmekten ibaret. Bu kitabı bir rehberden çok bir tecrübe aktarımı gibi düşünürseniz, kendi düşünme serüveninizde size eşlik etmesine izin verebilirsiniz.”. (shrink)

Built in the centre of Copenhagen, and noted for its equestrian stairway, the Rundetaarn (Round Tower), was intended as an astronomical observatory. Part of a complex of buildings that once included a university library, it affords expansive views of the city in every direction, towering above what surrounds it. The metaphor of the towering figure, who sees what others might not, whose vantage point allows him to visualize how things fit together, and who has an earned-stature of respect and authority, (...) fits another Danish stalwart, Hans Vilhelm Hansen, whose contributions to the fields of informal logic and argument theory have earned the gratitude of his colleagues, and inspired this collection of essays, written to express the appreciation of its authors and of the many, many colleagues they represent. (shrink)

Chez les scientifiques, la plupart des critiques sont constructives, alors qu’elles sont destructrices chez les humanistes. En effet, les scientifiques font circuler leurs brouillons entre collègues et étudiants, dans l’espoir de recueillir leurs commentaires et suggestions avant de soumettre leurs travaux à la publication. En revanche, les philosophes et les penseurs politiques attaquent leurs rivaux à coup d’arguments ad hominem et d’insultes. La raison de cette différence est que les scientifiques recherchent la vérité, alors que la plupart des humanistes se (...) battent pour des causes plus ou moins nobles, allant de la promotion de leur propre programme à la participation à des croisades pour ou contre la rationalité, le réalisme, la justice ou autre. (shrink)

In the scientific communities most criticisms are constructive, while they are destructive in the humanistic circles. Indeed, scientists circulate their drafts among colleagues and students, hoping to elicit their comments and suggestions before submitting their work to publication. In contrast, philosophers and political thinkers attack their rivals, without sparing arguments ad hominem or even insults. The reason for this difference is that scientists are after the truth, whereas most humanists fight for more or less noble causes, from swelling their own (...) curricula to joining crusades for or against rationality, realism, justice, or what have you. (shrink)

Jeśli można mówić o modzie w badaniach naukowych, to semantyka jest od prawie wieku niewątpliwie jedną z bardziej modnych dziedzin w nauce. Badają ją nie tylko logicy i filozofowie języka, lecz także kulturoznawcy, antropologowie, filologowie, kognitywiści czy informatycy. Niniejszy artykuł ma na celu zbadanie roli, jaką odgrywa semantyka w teorii argumentacji, a dokładniej — zarysowanie pewnego modelu argumentacji, który modyfikuje znaczenia terminów dla celów argumentacyjnych. Najpierw przedstawię kilka przykładowych argumentów semantycznych, analizując każdy z nich na tyle, aby wydobyć pewne subtelności (...) potrzebne do zbudowania modelu argumentu semantycznego. W ten sposób pokażę, jak nomen omen znaczący wpływ na argumentację ma znaczenie słów, a także na ile sposobów może ono wpływać na przebieg argumentacji. Na samym końcu zarysuję definicję argumentu semantycznego, która może wytyczyć kierunek dalszych badań nad semantyką w teorii argumentacji. (shrink)

Critical thinking deserves both imaginative teaching and serious theoretical attention. Studies in Critical Thinking assembles an all-star cast to serve both.

Reasons.js is an open-source, loosely-coupled, web-based argument mapping library that can be integrated into a range of online coursewares and websites. The javascript library can be embedded into any HTML page and allows users to create, edit, share, and export argument maps . The API is designed to permit the integration of the three stages of informal logical analysis — identification of truth claims within arguments, the analysis of logical structure, and synthesis of logical structure into written form.

Virtue epistemology is among the dominant influences in mainstream epistemology today. An important commitment of one strand of virtue epistemology – responsibilist virtue epistemology (e.g., Montmarquet 1993; Zagzebski 1996; Battaly 2006; Baehr 2011) – is that it must provide regulative normative guidance for good thinking. Recently, a number of virtue epistemologists (most notably Baehr, 2013) have held that virtue epistemology not only can provide regulative normative guidance, but moreover that we should reconceive the primary epistemic aim of all education as (...) the inculcation of the intellectual virtues. Baehr’s picture contrasts with another well-known position – that the primary aim of education is the promotion of critical thinking (Scheffler 1989; Siegel 1988; 1997; 2017). In this paper – that we hold makes a contribution to both philosophy of education and epistemology and, a fortiori, epistemology of education – we challenge this picture. We outline three criteria that any putative aim of education must meet and hold that it is the aim of critical thinking, rather than the aim of instilling intellectual virtue, that best meets these criteria. On this basis, we propose a new challenge for intellectual virtue epistemology, next to the well-known empirically-driven ‘situationist challenge’. What we call the ‘pedagogical challenge’ maintains that the intellectual virtues approach does not have available a suitably effective pedagogy to qualify the acquisition of intellectual virtue as the primary aim of education. This is because the pedagogic model of the intellectual virtues approach (borrowed largely from exemplarist thinking) is not properly action-guiding. Instead, we hold that, without much further development in virtue-based theory, logic and critical thinking must still play the primary role in the epistemology of education. (shrink)

The logic of academic writing is the argumentative strategy on which our papers, our sections, and our paragraphs are based. It is a strategy, as it is a plan that connects different steps and has a specific goal, namely convincing the audience of an original and important idea. And it is argumentative, for two reasons. First, we can defend our idea and we can convince our audience only through arguments, which only in very few disciplines are formal deductions. In most (...) cases, the arguments that we use are based on premises accepted by a community and the conclusions are drawn from principles that in the ancient dialectics were called “maxims,” principles shared by everyone. Second, a paper is a dialogue between the author and his or her readers. An idea can be considered as interesting and worth reading only when it addresses a topic that is perceived as important by the readers and tackles a problem that is open and needs to be solved. Our arguments are acceptable when they start from the premises of our community of readers, avoiding repeating what is obvious for them or taking for granted what is obscure or unknown to them. In this book, we present the argumentative approach to academic writing that we used in classroom. What characterizes it and makes it unique is the perspective that is adopted. We do not start from preexisting ideas that only need to be presented in a way that is suitable to an academic public. We intend to show that writing academically is a consequence of thinking academically, or rather “strategically.” We want to explain how the linguistic and presentational devices are the result of a much deeper plan underlying them, and how mastering the logic of a paper leads to understanding and even developing academic styles. The logic of academic writing is not aimed at teaching how to use language and write texts academically, but at enabling readers to create their own style based on their own argumentative strategies. (shrink)

This book is the result of rethinking the standard playbook for critical thinking courses, to include only the most useful skills from the toolkits of philosophy, cognitive psychology, and behavioral economics. -/- The text focuses on: -/- - a mindset that avoids systematic error, more than the ability to persuade others - the logic of probability and decisions, more than than the logic of deductive arguments - a unified treatment of evidence, covering statistical, causal, and best-explanation inferences -/- The unified (...) account of evidence I offer is a broadly Bayesian one, but there aren’t any daunting theorems. (Without knowing it, students are taught to use a gentle form of the Bayes factor to measure the strength of evidence and to update.) It’s also shown how this framework illuminates aspects of the scientific method, such as the proper design of experiments. -/- The link above allows Anonymous Guest Access without an account. (shrink)

This article proposes a phenomenological interpretation of nostalgia for communism, a collective feeling expressed typically in most Eastern European countries after the official fall of the communist regimes. While nostalgia for communism may seem like a paradoxical feeling, a sort of Stockholm syndrome at a collective level, this article proposes a different angle of interpretation: nostalgia for communism has nothing to do with communism as such, it is not essentially a political statement, nor the signal of a deep value tension (...) between governance and the people. Rather, I propose to understand this collective feeling as the symptom of a deeper need at a national level for solidarity and ultimately about recapturing a common feeling of identity in solidarity. This hypothesis would be in line with a phenomenological approach to memory as a process of establishing shared codes by rewriting the past in such a way as to strengthen social bonds and make possible a reimagining of a common future. Nostalgia for communism does not need to be ultimately an uncritical stance as it has been depicted, instead one could interpret it as a form of critical reflexion about our current forms of life. Instead of seeing communism nostalgia as a specific form of being stuck in the past, one could explore its potential for pointing at the things that are still not working in the current neo-liberal regime. (shrink)

Публикация (#5) из научно-популярного цикла: "Структурная онтология познания с доктором Шимко".

Materialismo, reducionismo, behaviorismo, funcionalismo, teoria dos sistemas dinâmicos e computacionalismo são visões populares, mas eles foram mostrados por Wittgenstein para ser incoerente. O estudo do comportamento abrange toda a vida humana, mas o comportamento é em grande parte automático e inconsciente e até mesmo a parte consciente, principalmente expressa em linguagem (que Wittgenstein equivale com a mente), não é perspicaz, por isso é fundamental ter um quadro que Searle chama a estrutura lógica da racionalidade (LSR) e eu chamo a psicologia (...) descritiva do pensamento de ordem superior (DPHOT). Depois de resumir a estrutura trabalhada por Wittgenstein e Searle, como estendido pela pesquisa de raciocínio moderno, eu mostro as inadequações nas visões de Carruther, que permeavam a maioria das discussões de comportamento, incluindo a conduta comportamental contemporânea Ciências. Eu mantenho que seu livro é um amálgama de dois livros, um um sumário da psicologia cognitiva e o outro um sumário das confusões filosóficas padrão na mente com algum jargão novo adicionado. Eu sugiro que este último deve ser considerado como incoerente ou como uma visão dos desenhos animados da vida e que tomar Wittgenstein em sua palavra, podemos praticar a autoterapia bem sucedida, em relação à questão da mente/corpo como uma questão de linguagem/corpo. -/- Aqueles que desejam um quadro até à data detalhado para o comportamento humano da opinião moderna dos dois sistemas consultar meu livros Falando Macacos 3ª Ed (2019), A Estrutura Lógica da Filosofia, Psicologia, Mente e Linguagem em Ludwig Wittgenstein e John Searle 2a Ed (2019), Suicídio Pela Democracia,4aEd(2019), Entendendo as Conexões entre Ciência, Filosofia, Psicologia, Religião, Política e Economia- Artigos e Análises 2006-2019 (2019), Ilusões Utópicas Suicidas no 21St século 5a Ed (2019), A Estrutura Lógica do Comportamento Humano (2019), e A Estrutura Lógica da Consciência (2019) y outras. (shrink)

The literature on critical thinking (CT) in counselling and therapy generally posits higher quality outcomes when CT is applied in therapeutic treatment. We critically examine support for the claim that CT improves clinical outcomes. The purported effects of CT are first identified by arguments in favour of using CT in therapeutic treatment, both in terms of its general efficacy and with regard to its applicability in professional counselling. We then underscore limitations in the current literature, highlighting mainly a gap between (...) theory and practice. Overall, our results suggest that available evidence provides primarily inferential, rather than direct, support for the claim that CT positively influences therapy outcomes. We close the paper by proposing research questions to guide further empirical investigation. (shrink)

This volume reflects the development and theoretical foundation of a new paradigm for critical thinking based on inquiry. The field of critical thinking, as manifested in the Informal Logic movement, developed primarily as a response to the inadequacies of formalism to represent actual argumentative practice and to provide useful argumentative skills to students. Because of this, the primary focus of the field has been on informal arguments rather than formal reasoning. Yet the formalist history of the field is still evident (...) in its emphasis, with respect to both theory and pedagogy, on the structure and evaluation of individual, de-contextualized arguments. It is our view that such a view of critical thinking is excessively narrow and limited, failing to provide an understanding of argumentation as largely a matter of comparative evaluation of a variety of contending positions and arguments with the goal of reaching a reasoned judgment on an issue. As a consequence, traditional critical thinking instruction is problematic in failing to provide the reasoning skills that students need in order to accomplish this goal. Instead, the goal of critical thinking instruction has been seen largely as a defensive one: of learning to not fall prey to invalid, inadequate, or fallacious arguments. (shrink)

Science has uncovered many mistakes that had been hidden for centuries among implicit everyday assumptions. When we make explicit what lies implicit within language, there is no guarantee that we will arrive at truth about the world. Many therefore assume that only science delivers truth. Recent debates on this issue often refer to Wilfred Sellars’s arguments against the pre-conceptual given but conclude that his additional insistence on the exclusivity of the scientific image of the world is unfounded. In this paper (...) I resort to Robert Brandom’s development of these arguments to show that saying a word, understanding a concept and engaging in some practices go together. Both laws of nature and social norms regulate these practices and determine the identity conditions of objects. I argue therefore that the conceptual scheme indeed reflects the nature of things because it results from our successful engagement with the world during the long sweep of evolutionary time. (shrink)

This paper describes how bodily positions and gestures were used to teach argument diagramming to a student who cannot see. After listening to short argumentative passages with a screen reader, the student had to state the conclusion while touching his belly button. When stating a premise, he had to touch one of his shoulders. Premises lending independent support to a conclusion were thus diagrammed by a V-shaped gesture, each shoulder proposition going straight to the conclusion. Premises lending dependent support were (...) diagrammed by a T-shaped gesture, the shoulder premises meeting at the collar bone before moving down to the belly button. Arguments involving two pairs of entailments were diagrammed by an I-shaped gesture, going from the collar bone to a mid-way conclusion above the abdomen before travelling to the final conclusion at the belly button. The student’s strong performance suggests that placing propositions at different locations on the body and uniting them with gestures can help one discern correct argumentative structures. (shrink)

This textbook is not a textbook in the traditional sense. Here, what we have attempted is compile a set of assignments and exercise that may be used in critical thinking courses. To that end, we have tried to make these assignments as diverse as possible while leaving flexibility in their application within the classroom. Of course these assignments and exercises could certainly be used in other classes as well. Our view is that critical thinking courses work best when they are (...) presented as skills based learning opportunities. We hope that these assignments speak to that desire and can foster the kinds of critical thinking skills that are both engaging and fun Please feel free to contact us with comments and suggestions. We will strive to correct errors when pointed out, add necessary material, and make other additional and needed changes as they arise. Please check back for the most up to date version. Rebeka Ferreira and Anthony Ferrucci. (shrink)

How does one know one's own beliefs, intentions, and other attitudes? Many responses to this question are broadly empiricist, in that they take self-knowledge to be epistemically based in empirical justification or warrant. Empiricism about self-knowledge faces an influential objection: that it portrays us as mere observers of a passing cognitive show, and neglects the fact that believing and intending are things we do, for reasons. According to the competing, agentialist conception of self-knowledge, our capacity for self-knowledge derives from our (...) rational agency—our ability to conform our attitudes to our reasons, and to commit ourselves to those attitudes through avowals. This paper has two goals. The first is exegetical: to identify agentialism's defining thesis and precisely formulate the agentialist challenge to empiricism. The second goal is to defend empiricism from the agentialist challenge. I propose a way to understand the role of agency in reasoning and avowals, one that does justice to what is distinctive about these phenomena yet is compatible with empiricism about self-knowledge. (shrink)

We are pleased to publish this WSIA edition of Trudy’s Govier’s seminal volume, Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Originally published in 1987 by Foris Publications, this was a pioneering work that played a major role in establishing argumentation theory as a discipline. Today, it is as relevant to the field as when it first appeared, with discussions of questions and issues that remain central to the study of argument. It has defined the main approaches to many of those issues (...) and guided the ways in which we might respond to them. From this foundation, it sets the stage for further investigations and emerging research. This is a second edition of the book that is corrected and updated by the author, with new prefaces to each chapter. (shrink)

This article brings forth a new perspective concerning the relation between stupidity and thinking by proposing to conceptualise the state of non-thinking in two different ways, situated at the opposite ends of the spectrum of thinking. Two conceptualisations of stupidity are discussed, one critical which follows a French line of continental thinkers, and the other one which will be called educational or ascetic, following the work of Agamben. The critical approach is conceptualised in terms of seriality of thinking, or thinking (...) captured by an apparatus, whereas the ascetic-educational approach is discussed by tracing the links between studying and stupidity. Both accounts assume that stupidity as non-thinking is a condition for thinking, either placed before thinking emerges or as an after-thought. However, the political implications concerning the role of philosophy in the public realm are divergent: for the critical approach, the task of the philosopher is to criticise the world, whereas for the ascetic approach, the task is to work on one’s own self and hope that the world will be changed through thinking. The wider aim of this article is to contribute to the debate concerning the public role of the intellectual starting from the assumption that there is a duty to think publicly and then clarifying what this duty entails in relation to the self and the others. (shrink)

Публикация (#1) из научно-популярного цикла: "Структурная онтология познания с доктором Шимко".

Публикация (#2) из научно-популярного цикла: "Структурная онтология познания с доктором Шимко".

This tribute to the breadth and influence of Trudy Govier’s philosophical work begins with her early scholarship in argumentation theory, paying special attention to its pedagogical expression. Most people first encounter Trudy Govier’s work and many people only encounter it through her textbooks, especially A Practical Study of Argument, published in many editions. In addition to the work on argumentation that has continued throughout her career, much of Govier’s later work addresses social philosophy and the problems of trust and response (...) to moral wrongs. The introduction by Catherine Hundleby situates Govier’s research along the path of her unusual academic life. While following the timeline of Govier’s research publication, in this collection the authors build on her work and suggest certain new connections between her argumentation theory and social philosophy. A Practical Study of Argument, first published in 1985, situates Govier among a distinct segment of informal logicians whose concerns about teaching reasoning to post-secondary students orient their research, Takuzo Konishi argues. Moira Kloster evaluates Govier’s progress in the challenge of providing critical thinking education to diverse and changing social contexts. Shifting gears to social philosophy but still addressing education, Laura Elizabeth Pinto explores the significance of Govier’s work on trust for explaining the problem of “audit culture” for teaching. At the centre of this volume, social philosophy receives an abstract meta-ethical defense from Linda Radzik. Moving solidly into the domain of normative social philosophy, Alice MacLachlan reconsiders Govier’s condemnation of revenge by viewing it as a form of moral address, but she notes how revenge as an act of communication contrasts with argumentation in lacking the respect that Govier maintains is intrinsic to argumentation. MacLachlan ultimately agrees that revenge is morally indefensible. The practical challenges of addressing others in the aftermath of wrongdoing, especially in public contexts, can make it difficult to distinguish between victims and combatants or wrongdoers, Alistair Little and Wilhelm Verwoerd explain, and Kathryn Norlock argues that forgiveness is psychologically vexed too. People may recognize transformation to be in principle possible for all people, Norlock argues, and yet we may find the evidence regarding some particular evildoer sufficient to count that person as an exception. Finally Govier responds to the various papers. (shrink)

على الرغم من المحاولات الحثيثة أو المستمرة، في الفكر الغربي، كما في الفكر العربي، للتمييز بين النقد والانتقاد، ولتأكيد إيجابية النقد، لا سلبيته، ما زال الخلط أو اللبس بين النقد والانتقاد قائمًا وبارزًا، في كثيرٍ من الأحيان، حتى في بعض النصوص التي تتضمن محاولة القيام هذا التمييز¬، ولا زالت النظرة السلبية إلى النقد طاغيةً أو حاضرةً بقوةٍ، لدرجةٍ سمحت لفيصل دراج بالقول: «النقد في زماننا شبهة، ممارسة مشبوهة، فعل سيء الصيت.» وقبل مناقشة هذه النظرة السلبية للنقد، وربطها بالفكر النقدي عند (...) العظم، لا بد من التأكيد أن الخلط أو الالتباس بين النقد والانتقاد ليس قائمًا في اللغة العربية والفكر العربي فحسب، بل هو موجودٌ وبقوةٍ في اللغات الأجنبية (الإنكليزية والفرنسية والألمانية) والفكر الغربي عمومًا. -/- وإذا عدنا إلى "معجم اللغة العربية المعاصرة"، نجد في مادة "ن ق د": «نقد الشيء: بيَّن حسنه ورديئه، أظهر عيوبه ومحاسنه [...].» هنا يبدو أن النقد يتناول السلبيات والإيجابيات، لكن سرعان ما نجد: «نقَد الناس: أظهر ما بهم من عيوب [...].» هنا يصبح النقد مختصًّا بما هو سلبيٌّ فقط. والأمر ذاته نجده في شرح فعل "انتقد" والكلمات المرتبطة به اشتقاقيًّا (انتقاد، انتقادي ...إلخ): «انتقد الكتاب وغيره: أظهر عيوبه ومحاسنه، [...]. انتقد سلوك صديقه: استنكره وأبدى رأيًا شاجبًا له [...]. أسلوب انتقادي: يتميز بحدة النقد وإظهار المساوئ دون الالتفات إلى نقاط القوة.» فتارةً يتجسَّد الانتقاد في "إظهار العيوب والمحاسن"، وتارةً أخرى يتمثَّل في "إظهار المساوئ" فقط. -/- والالتباس ذاته تقريبًا موجودٌ في المصطلحات أو المفردات الإنكليزية والفرنسية والألمانية المعبرة عن النقد و/أو الانتقاد، ومعظم ترجماتها العربية. فإذا قبلنا التمييز الشائع بين مفردتي "critique" و"criticism" الإنكليزيتين (وسنقتصر هنا على وضع المقابل الإنكليزي، مع الإشارة إلى انطباق هذا التحليل اللغوي، انطباقًا كاملًا تقريبًا، على اللغتين الفرنسية والألمانية) على أساس أن الأولى تعني النقد (بمعنى إظهار الإيجابيات والسلبيات)، والثانية تعني الانتقاد (الاقتصار على إظهار السلبيات)، فإن هذا التمييز – الذي يستسهل بعض الكتَّاب( ) تبسيطه وإخفاء إشكاليته، أو يوحون، قصدًا أو عن غير قصدٍ، بوجود هذه البساطة – يتداعى إلى حدٍّ كبيرٍ، إذا أخذنا بعين الاعتبار، ليس فقط السيرورة التاريخية لنشوء واستخدام هذين المصطلحين( )، وإنما أيضًا دلالاتهما المتداخلة حاليًّا (من المعلوم أن "criticism"( ) تعني أيضًا النقد المختص أو "النقد الأدبي")، وإحالتهما، في اللغات الإنكليزية والفرنسية والألمانية، إلى فعلٍ واحدٍ "criticize أو criticise"، للتعبير عن فعلي "نَقَدَ" و"انتَقد" في اللغة العربية، وإلى صفةٍ واحدةٍ "critical"، للإشارة إلى ما هو "نقدي" و"انتقادي"، وإلى فاعلٍ، أو اسم فاعلٍ، واحدٍ "critic"، للإشارة إلى "الناقد" و"المنتقد". -/- كيف تعامل العظم - وهو المتقن للغات الأجنبية الثلاث المذكورة آنفًا - مع هذا التداخل الدلالي بين النقد والانتقاد؟ وإلى أيّ حدٍّ، وبأيّ معنىً، اتخذ، أو لم يتَّخذ، النقد عنده طابعًا أحاديًّا، من خلال الاقتصار على السلبيات فقط، أو على الإيجابيات فقط؟ وهل يمكن للتركيز على السلبيات، وإهمال الإيجابيات، أن يكون إيجابيًّا، أو ألا يكون سلبيًّا في المحصلة، على ما في ذلك من مفارقةٍ أو تناقضٍ ظاهريٍّ؟ إنَّ الإجابة عن هذه الأسئلة وغيرها يستلزم التحديد الدقيق والمتعدد المستويات أو الأبعاد، في الوقت نفسه، لمعاني كلٍّ من "النقد" و"الانتقاد" و"الإيجابي" و"السلبي"، إلخ. ويمكن لتعدد التحديدات أو التعريفات أن يسمح بإجابةٍ مركبةٍ وغنيةٍ متعددة المستويات عن هذه الأسئلة السابقة وما يماثلها، بحيث يكون النقد، على سبيل المثال، عند العظم، سلبيًّا على مستوىً أو أكثر، وإيجابيًّا على مستوىً أخر أو أكثر. وهذه الإجابات التي تأخذ شكل "نعم ولا" هو الأقرب إلى ما يمكن أن نسميه ﺒـ "الإجابة الفلسفية"، وهي في كل الأحوال، ليست غريبةً على الفلسفة، كما يؤكِّد العظم. -/- ولتوضيح مدى سلبية و/أو إيجابية النقد عند العظم، ومعنى أو معاني هذه السلبية و/أو الإيجابية، عمومًا، والعلاقة بين بعض صيغ النقد و/أو الانتقاد خصوصًا، سنستند إلى أربعة معايير مختلفةٍ أو متمايزةٍ نسبيًّا: التسويغ أو عدم التسويغ، المحايثة أو المفارقة، التركيز المتوازن على السلبيات والإيجابيات معًا، أم التركيز على السلبيات أو الإيجابيات فقط، وجود أو عدم وجود غرض أو هدف إيجابي. إن المحاكمات أو التقييمات التي تتسم بأنها مسوَّغة، و/أو محايثة، و/أو تركز، تركيزً "متوازنًا، على السلبيات والإيجابيات، و/أو التي تستهدف تحقيق أمر إيجابيٍّ، هي أقرب إلى ما يمكن تسميته، في هذا السياق، بالنقد؛ أما المحاكمات أو التقييمات التي تتسم بأنها غير مسوَّغةٍ، و/أو مفارقةٌ أو خارجيةٌ أو غير محايثةٍ، و/أو تقتصر على التركيز على السلبيات، و/أو لا تستهدف تحقيق أمرٍ إيجابيٍّ، فهي أقرب إلى ما يمكن تسميته، في هذا السياق، بالانتقاد. ومن الواضح أنه، واستنادًا إلى كل المعايير المذكورة، يكون النقد إيجابيًّا، أو أقرب إلى ما هو إيجابيٌّ، مقارنةً بالانتقاد الذي يكون سلبيًّا أو أقرب إلى ما هو سلبيٌّ. لكن تغير معاني السلبي والإيجابي أو "ماصدقاته"، يسمح لنا بزحزحة إشكالية العلاقة بينها (بين قيم السلب والإيجاب ومعانيها) بما يساعدنا على إبراز إيجابية ما نعدُّه، من منظورٍ آخر، سلبيًّا، وإبراز سلبية ما نعده، من منظورٍ آخر، إيجابيًّا. ويبقى أن نلفت الانتباه إلى أن محاولة التمييز بين مفهومي أو فكرتي النقد والانتقاد لا تهدف، ولا ينبغي أن تهدف، إلى الفصل الحاد أو الكامل بينهما؛ إذ يمكن النظر إلى بعض (وربما كل) صيغ الانتقاد على أنها مجرد أنواعٍ متميِّزةٍ من النقد، بوصفه حكمًا تقييميًّا في خصوص موضوعٍ ما. (shrink)

يتمحور البحث حول نقد صادق جلال العظم للتابوهات، عمومًا، وللتابو الجنسي، خصوصًا، وينطلق البحث من التشديد على أهمية النقد في فكر العظم، على مستويي؛ التنظير له، وممارسته في معظم أو جل أعماله، ليحاول، بعد ذلك، إبراز تلك الممارسة النقدية في ميدان التابوهات عمومًا، وتابو الجنس خصوصًا، وانطلاقًا من ذلك؛ تتمثل الأسئلة الأساسية التي يحاول البحث الإجابة عنها، في الآتي: ما أهمية النقد عمومًا، ونقد التابوهات خصوصًا، في فكر العظم؟ ما العلاقة بين النقد والتحريم، من منظور العظم؟ وإلى أي حدٍّ، وبأي (...) معنىً سعى العظم إلى تجاوز (الخطوط الحمر) في نقده لثالوث التابوهات (الجنس والدين والسياسة)؟ ما الذي ينقده العظم، تحديدًا، في ميدان التابو الجنسي؟ وما هي الإشكاليات الأساسية التي يتضمنها ويثيرها هذا النقد؟ للإجابة عن هذه الأسئلة؛ ستتجسد مقاربتنا المنهجية لنصوص العظم، في ما يمكن تسميته ﺒـ "الهيرمينوطيقا النقدية"؛ فهي هيرمينوطيقا، أو تتّصف بالسمة الهيرمينوطيقية، ليس بسبب بعدها التأويلي الصريح، أو اعتمادها على التأويل فحسب، (فبهذا المعنى، كل مقاربةٍ أو دراسةٍ هي هيرمينوطيقيةٌ، لأنها تأويليةٌ بالضرورة)؛ وإنما بسبب افتراضها، أيضًا، أن هذه النصوص تتضمن دلالاتٍ متكاملةً، تجسِّد كليةً متسقةً أو متناسقة العناصر، يمكن الإمساك بها، انطلاقًا من "المقاصد المعلنة" للكاتب، وعلى هذا الأساس، سنحاول، في عرضنا ومناقشتنا لنقد التابو (الجنسي) عند العظم، أن نستند، بالدرجة الأولى، إلى تنظير العظم نفسه حول هذه المسألة؛ أي إلى أقواله المحدَّدة وآرائه الصريحة في هذا الخصوص، قبل أن نضع هذه الرؤية النظرية في مواجهةٍ ثنائيةٍ: مع ذاتها من جهةٍ، (ضمن إطار ما يمكن تسميته بالنقد المحايث)، ومع انتقادات بعض المفكرين الذين دخلوا في حوارٍ أو سجالٍ معه، ومع رؤيتنا للواقع أو الفكر الذي يحاول العظم دراسته، (في إطار ما يمكن تسميته بالنقد الخارجي)، من جهةٍ أخرى. وهذه المواجهة النقدية المزدوجة مع ما هو محايث لفكر العظم، ومفارقٌ له، هي التي تمثِّل أساس البعد النقديِّ في دراستنا لهذا الفكر. (shrink)

Christian Kock’s essays show the essential interconnectedness of practical reasoning, rhetoric and deliberative democracy. They constitute a unique contribution to argumentation theory that draws on – and criticizes – the work of philosophers, rhetoricians, political scientists and other argumentation theorists. It puts rhetoric in the service of modern democracies by drawing attention to the obligations of politicians to articulate arguments and objections that citizens can weigh against each other in their deliberations about possible courses of action.