This paper assesses the prospects of combining the distinctive strengths of the two major educational research programs of critical thinking and critical pedagogy—or, described more accurately, overcoming their shared limitations—in a new and superior educational objective called criticality. Several recent proposals explore the possibilities of engaging in bridge-building between these camps. The plan is that the distinctive strengths of these paradigms—the logical and epistemological precision of critical thinking together with the socio-political consciousness of critical pedagogy—could complement each other, while the (...) associated adjustments to the overall picture could also help us to address their shared shortcomings. This gives us a new and more grounded educational goal of criticality, as suggested and developed independently by a growing number of thinkers. This article joins the ongoing conversation but provides a more counterreactionary tone by striving to vindicate the traditional mainstream conception of critical thinking. I maintain that despite their admirable ambitions, the various expressions of criticality do not succeed in combining the best parts of critical thinking and critical pedagogy, since on a deep metatheoretical level these two paradigms have irreconcilable core principles. First, I argue that the depiction of the failures of critical thinking used to motivate criticality is to a large degree a straw man: in actuality, the existing conceptualization of critical thinking can already do the desired extra socio-political educational work, so there really is no pressing need for the suggested augmentations. Second, the traditional worries of indoctrination, which have followed critical pedagogy since the inception of this educational movement, still remain unresolved within criticality. The only way to address this concern successfully is to lean on critical thinking as the core of our educational theory, bringing us right back to where we started. (shrink)

L’effort récent pour diversifier les cours de philosophie est souvent motivé par le désir d’inclure les étudiants sous-représentés. Bien que l’incorporation de la philosophie non-occidentale permettrait d’atteindre une plus grande diversité, il ne semble y avoir aucune raison particulière de choisir des traditions non-occidentales à cette fin. Je soutiens que cette apparence est trompeuse. Les données suggèrent qu’une absence de contenu non-occidental dans le programme d’études provoque l’aliénation de certains de nos étudiants de couleur. Étant donné le fardeau minimal que (...) cela imposerait aux instructeurs de philosophie de faire face à cette souffrance, nous avons de bonnes raisons d’inclure du contenu non-occidental dans nos cours d’introduction, où il est susceptible d’avoir le plus grand impact. (shrink)

Logicians disagree about how validity—the very heart of logic—should be understood. Many different formal systems have been born due to this disagreement. This thesis examines how teachers explain the subject matter of logic to students in introductory logic textbooks, and demonstrates the different explanations teachers use. These differences help explain why logicians have different intuitions about validity.