Critical thinking across the curriculum

Critical thinking can help its practitioners understand the issues in society. The authors discuss the method involved in evaluating the validity of arguments and the need for teaching and using critical thinking skills across the curriculum.

Introduction

Critical thinking, simply stated, is arriving at conclusions based on the legitimacy of one's research. "Legitimacy" is the operative word here, for the critical thinking process eradicates faulty thinking patterns and, in particular, those known as fallacies.

Why is this process important in today's teaching climate? With controversies like the 2000 Presidential election, the McVeigh execution, the Megan's Law Internet connection, and, above all, the September 11th tragedy, there can be little doubt that improved critical thinking could provide a means of combating tendencies that might undermine some basic democratic rights on no firmer foundation than raw emotion, popular opinion, ideology and certain inflexible "traditions." R. W. Paul (1993a) states that the goal of critical thinking is "to cut through the propaganda, the information blitz and make sense of the world" (p. 674).

Jacob Bronowski, in his famous book The Ascent of Man, refers to the lack of critical thinking as a misplaced sense of absolute "certainty" about things that can lead to a fascistic mentality. Psychologist Jack Gibb also refers to the defensive behavior of "certainty" (Adler and Towne, 1994). He stresses, in opposition to 11 certainty," an optimally supportive behavior, "provisionalism"-what the great American philosopher Charles S. Peirce called "fallibilism," the understanding that we can't be certain of anything absolutely. Taking such a position allows one to be flexible. If a certain viewpoint seems logically valid and sound, it can be tentatively adopted as accurate (although absolute certainty will never be claimed). Tentative adoption, not incidentally, is exactly the method of experimental science.

Bronowski (1973) also believes that the opposite of a putative "certainty" is the process we call the search for knowledge-which might serve as a definition of that part of science and philosophy called the inquiry process. Inquiry, the search for fallible knowledge, means truly engaging in the thinking process. In short, critical thinking provides a superior approach to acquiring answers to difficult questions rather than believing uncritically what one hears on the evening newscast. Are students today being "dumbed down" by the media while at the same time receiving little, if any, education in a method for rational discourse? If so, then consider a remedy: critical thinking across the curriculum.

Review of literature

Brown and Keeley (1998) refer to critical thinking as an evaluation system for arguments. Browne, Freeman and Williamson (2000) feel that the "sponge method" of students uncritically turning to the Internet is questionable at best in terms of actually finding accurate knowledge. Uncritical thinking leads to the steady decline in the quality of student work-for example, in research papers-as well as a notable increase in the amount of plagiarism.

Ennis (1996) states that critical thinking is "a process, the goal of which is to make reasonable decisions about what to believe and what to do" (p. xvii). Paul (1993b) further claims that critical thinking keeps thinkers free of "prejudices, hate, irrational jealousies and fears, stereotypes and misconceptions" (para11). He, like Bronowski, whose family members were killed in Auschwitz concentration camps, believes that only through critical thinking can the public evaluate what the media disseminates as "truth" and avoid the totalitarian mentality that led to Nazism and perhaps terrorism itself. Even an uncritical, flag-waving Americanism is potentially a dangerous thing.

Significant differences exist between simple persuasion and critical thinking. One can be persuaded to the untruth just as well as the truth. For example, a person can easily take a position, find several pieces of evidence to back up that position, and then conclude that the position is sound. Employing critical thinking, the arguer has to view both (or even several) sides evenly, pointing out seeming "validities" on either side. Different perspectives, however, are based on research, reasonably supported premises, evidence, or other elements of an argument based on facts. Sometimes, a conclusion may be "the lesser of two evils." That's why controversies surrounding such issues as abortion, drug legalization and Megan's Law are so difficult to resolve: validity appears on both sides. Some basic questions for each of the aforementioned topics respectively refer to where life begins (perhaps an "unanswerable" question), how the United States may or may not differ from countries where certain drugs are legal and rates of drug abuse and crime have gone down (as, most generally, they indeed have), and the constitutionality of having sex offenders register with police and the community once they have served their sentences (which were supposed to have "balanced the equation" for them with society).

Students are not required to address such questions outside of actual classes in critical thinking. Yet, they are so bludgeoned by societal propaganda that the mere suggestion they think critically may make them see the instructor as a kind of demon, trying to lead them astray, swaying them to the "sin" of thinking independently. Nikiforuk (1996) refers to the phenomenon of being deprived-or even depriving oneself-of the evidence in controversial matters as "intellectual starvation," and he beseeches teachers to "advance the disciplines of questioning, discussion and service" (para 4) in the interest of providing adequate intellectual nutrition. Pilger (1998), in a book re, view of Pierre Bordieu's On Television and Journalism, reports that journalists worldwide claim to be free-thinking and fair, but their medium has become "an outlet...where predigested conformity is guaranteed" (para 3). Thus, the media work to manipulate thought using such techniques as meaningless but persuasive cliches and one-sided sound bites. However, critical thinking is the process of using logic and reasoning to resolve controversies. It is certainly not "mere" opinion, nor "popular" opinion. It, therefore, ought to be seen as a valuable educational tool for use by the vanguard of those committed to reasonable decision-making in today's academic environment and beyond.

Critical thinking appears to be as emotionless as the stars of Dragnet with their flat interrogation style. When confronting difficult issues, unrestrained emotions can lead to a kind of "hyperbolic quasi-reasoning" that is problematic in formulating accurate conclusions. Cederblom and Paulsen (1996) say, in short, that the expression of even strongly held and fully articulated opinions about an issue operates very far from critical thinking, for opinions can be "fixed" by emotions produced by fallacious reasoning. They refer to the expression of opinions as "mere disagreement versus critical thinking" (p. 3) and claim, "Mere disagreement is applied to separate individual statements, and they are judged solely against the background of the reader's or listener's own beliefs. Critical reasoning requires us to examine the structure of an entire argument, taking some statements as justifications for believing others" (p. 4). Johnson and Blair (1994) reiterate that opinion is unexamined belief or simply a strong "attitude" about something. They cite emotion-based opinions as a cause for fallacious reasoning: "The act of reasoning is rarely carried on in a situation that lacks an emotional dimension" (p. 191). They go on, however, to suggest that it is in fact an "emotional commitment" that makes us "undertake a careful and rational review of the arguments" (p. 191) and stress that emotions may not be entirely "bereft of cognitive content." Nevertheless, they conclude that the reliance on emotions alone can lead to a "cognitive malfunction," creating a kind of causal link to faulty reasoning. In summary, though emotion need not be entirely separated from our thinking, and indeed has some value, many people allow their emotions to dictate their thinking.

Rational discourse

At verdict and sentencing stages of trials, judges admonish jurors to avoid introducing their emotions into the processes and their outcomes. If jurors follow the laws and fit the evidence to a conclusion, such findings will be sound and valid. The same logic applies to the classroom. If one uses factual premises and logic to flush out faulty ideas, one generates sound reasoning, and the development of that learning pattern ought be a significant purpose of higher education. Again, that doesn't mean that emotion cannot be integrated into the situation once the conclusion is derived by means of rational consideration and rational discourse. There can be the expression of a great deal of emotion in real world situations-for example, by means of vocal inflection-to reinforce a rationale. Nietzschean polarities of Dionysian emotion and Apollonian reason thus can unite for a one-two cognitive punch that can overcome any absolute, "certain," dogmatic, even quasi-totalitarian rigidity of position while allowing for the proper function of human emotion.

There is a variety of reasoning patterns in the critical thinking process. Deductive reasoning bases itself completely on facts that are correct at the time one is arguing and that, therefore, lead to necessary conclusions in logic and quasi-necessary conclusions in life. Halpern (1996) states that deductive reasoning begins with statements "known or believed to be true" (p. 122) after extensive research, so that if the beliefs are true, then the conclusion is true. Thus, the movement is from general truths to specific conclusions: "All people are mortal; therefore, Socrates is mortal." Mayberry (1999) sums up deductive reasoning- "the internal relationship among the premises and conclusions are proper, so the argument is absolutely valid" (p. 50. Take for example, the matter of smoking. Although inductive studies provide the foundation for the formulation of the premises, the movement to the certain conclusion makes it a deductive matter. At this point, there can be little doubt that smoking is hazardous to the health of most if not all people.

Inductive arguments

Most arguments, however, are more fully inductive. They are generated from empirical research-case studies, polls, observations, and experiments-and the evidence leads to a probable or likely conclusion. A researcher comes up with a hypothetical solution (this "hypothesis formation" is frequently called abduction) that examines facts and the most likely reasons for some hitherto unexplained phenomenon. Thus, induction moves from specific evidence to a general, probable conclusion. If the premises are true, then the conclusion is likely to be true. So the characteristic form in science is, of course, the actual testing of a hypothesis.

A critical thinker must research both sides of an issue. Resources such as the CQ Researcher, Taking Sides, and the Opposing Viewpoints Series illustrate inductive processes. Halpern (1996) calls inductive reasoning a series of observable realities collected to "support or suggest a conclusion" (p. t22). Mayberry (1999) refers to inductive reasoning as making generalizations on the basis of individual instances (p. 51). When patterns consistently appear, the instances suggest probable conclusions.

Deductive arguments

Deductive arguments follow from premises that guarantee the validity of the conclusion to the extent that the premises are themselves true. Inductive arguments occur when the premises lead to a conclusion that is possible, likely or probable, but not guaranteed. One might use deductive reasoning to identify an article or book as accurate or inaccurate based on an accumulation of concrete evidence. One might use inductive reasoning for illustrating patterns of regular behavior established by observation. Such reasoning proves useful in a variety of fields from brokerage analysis to theatrical acting. Hypothesis formation-abduction-may be used to formulate alternative solutions to a problem or issue under consideration. Indeed, abduction becomes a creative act by which thinkers imagine, based on what they already know. There might be, in fact, a valid answer to the prob lem under consideration, and there might be a legitimate resolution to the issue at hand.

Fallacies

Finally, but Most importantly, critical thinkers need to consider the pivotal matter of reasoning "fallacies." In a typical critical thinking essay, the body, the largest part, would cite issues on all sides of a topic and then uncover fallacious reasoning so that finally one arguer's premises outweigh the other's in terms of logical soundness. A fallacy is a flaw in the rational properties of an argument (Gronbeck, German, Ehninger & Moore, 1992, p. 293). Cederblom and Paulsen (1996) reiterate that there are 44 arguments that tend to persuade but should not persuade" (p. 152), often the consequence of powerful fallacies that have led thinkers astray. Hinderer (1992) goes on to clarify that fallacies present arguments "that should not persuade a rational person" (p. 250), that is, a critical thinker. Researchers list the fallacies in various ways, sometimes in terms of evidence, reasoning, language or appeal. Table 1 provides definitions and examples.

Analysis

Here are four examples of fallacious statements-three made by students and one made in an editorial.

1. "Nationalized Healthcare? That's socialism!"

Primary fallacy: persuasive definition. Other fallacies that apply: red herring, attacking the person (you communist!), vagueness (in theory, practice?), appeal to popular opinion, appeal to tradition, appeal to ignorance and ideology, over-generalization, false division.

2. "You want universal health coverage? Why? We've got the greatest health care system in the world!Don't change it!"

Primary fallacy: straw person. (Don't bother our great system!) Other fallacies that apply: irrelevant reason, red herring (You don't believe this fact?)

3. "People can wear fur coats because they're just dumb animals because the Bible says so."

Primary fallacy: appeal to (sacred) tradition. Other fallacies that apply: prejudicial language ("dumb"), red herring.

4. Dr. John C. Willke, in his article "The Abortion Pill Is Dangerous; Ban It," states: "Those who bleed heavily (at least 1%) will simply continue to bleed and many will die. Probably thousands will die this way.... We totally object to its use for killing innocent little people." (Yaremchuk, 1992, p. 192)

Primary fallacy: appeal to ideology (Willke was President of the National Right to Life Committee.) Other fallacies that apply: begging the question (killing innocent little people), false dilemma.

Encouraging the recognition and understanding of these fallacies dur, ing class discussions is an excellent device to exercise critical thinking skills. In preparing students for writing research papers, for example, one can emphasize that there is no need to identify each fallacy by using the terminology listed above, except perhaps for the sake of the rhetorical effect of noting, say, an occasional "slippery slope argument," or an argument that "begs the question." A writer can cleverly incorporate expo. sure of the fallacies into discussion so that the terminology is not blatant and obvious.

Conclusions

Kurfiss (1988) remarks that critical thinking can be implemented without much difficulty in many disciplines: the sciences, mathematics, engineering, the humanities, literature, philosophy, foreign language, and social sciences. For example, in science, math and engineering classes, one can use the principles and strategies of problem-solving, akin to the analytical problems on Graduate Record Exams (GRE) or Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT). In addition, the various forms of experimentation, design, hypothesis, analysis, synthesis and decision-making can be discussed and applied. For the humanities (including art and literature), critical thinking can be employed, for example, in finding the basis for a discussion of textual and visual analysis. One can even use critical thinking principles for journal entries in poetry, prose and drama classes to offer "insights and new interpretations" (Kurfiss, 1988, P. 77).

In philosophy, the questioning of various "truths," values and ideas for practical living can be analyzed to "acknowledge the legitimacy of ideas different from [a student's] own." Philosophy, psychology and history classes can analyze dogmatic behavior in the interest Of revising or sharpening ethical and moral standards, evaluating behavior, or understanding causes and contexts of historical accounts, documents and policies (Kurfiss, 1988, p. 81). Critical thinking can give students the basis for rational discussion, for example, of nuclear disarmament (Kurfiss, 1988, p. 81), or, in a history class, the Cuban Missile Crisis from the differing viewpoints of American, Soviet and Cuban societies. Even foreign language, anthropology and education classes can benefit by critically interpreting, understanding, and valuing diverse cultures and groups in American society and around the world.

Can critical thinking help in other less obvious disciplines, such as the performing arts? Any subject that relates to communication can incorporate tenets of reasonable discourse. Let facts guide such explorations as those leading to logic cal conclusions about character in a play. A basic Stanislavskian acting technique is observation and imitation (Moore, 1984), a research methodology not unrelated to inductive reasoning. In media courses, especially those directed toward the news media, critical thinking helps check the accuracy, for example, of our leaders' facts and the soundness of their arguments.

Most importantly, teachers need to learn the methods themselves; otherwise, they "may pass on to students their own moral blindness and closemindedness" (Stancato, 2000, para 5). Still, if it remains "controversial" for an instructor to implement critical thinking tenets, any given professor might possibly feel that a "bad reputation" could follow him or her all the way to a tenure committee. Stancato (2000) feels that a positive relationship ought to hold between this kind of quasi-controversy and student learning. Since students are accessing the Web as their main source of information, teachers and administrators ought to form some sort of an alliance to assist students in avoiding questionable authority figures and the false "accuracy" that is rampant on the Web (Lynch, Vernon and Smith, 2001).

Recommendations

Students should be taught methods for adequately assessing the legitimacy of positions held on the issues of the day. Kurfiss (1988) believes that faculty in all disciplines needs to contribute to the thinking ability and intellectual development of their students. Critical thinking needs to be taught across the curriculum. Ennis (1996) eloquently states the reason in a democratic society: "If the people in a democracy do not make reasonable decisions in voting and the conduct of their public lives, then the democracy in which they live is threat, ened. Once democracy is lost, it will be very difficult to recover" (p. xvii).

References

Adler, R. & Towne, N. (1984). Looking out, looking in. 4th ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Bronowski, J. (1973). The ascent of man. Boston: Little, Brown.

Browne, M. N., Freemen, K. E., & Williamson, C. L. (2000). "The importance of critical thinking for student use on the internet" College Student Journal 34 (3),

391. Retrieved July 18, 2001 from INFOTRAC: Expanded Academic ASAP database.

Browne, M. N. & Keeley, S. M. (1998). Asking the right questions: a guide to critical thinking. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cederblom, J. & Paulsen, D. W. (1996). Critical reasoning. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Chaffee, J. (1994). Thinking critically. 5" ed. Boston: HoughtonMifflin.

Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gronbeck, B. E., German, K., Ehninger, D., & Moore, A. H. (1992). Principles of Speech Communication. 11" Brief ed. New York: Harper Collins.

Halpern, D. F. (1996). Thought and knowledge: an introduction to critical thinking, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1996.

Hinderer, D. E. (1992). Building arguments. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Johnson, R. H. & Blair, J. A. (1994). Logical self-defense. New York: McGraw- Hill.

Kahane, H. (1992). Logic and contemporary rhetoric: the use of reason in everyday life. 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Kurfiss, J. G. (1988). Critical thinking: theory, research, practice, and possibilities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Lynch, D., Vernon, R. F., and Smith, M. L. (2001, SpringSummer). "Critical thinking and the web" Journal of Social Work Education 37 (2), 381. Retrieved July 18, 2001 from INFOTRAC: Expanded Academic ASAP database.

Mayberry, K. J. (1999). For argument's sake: a guide to writing effective arguments. 3" ed. New York: Longman.

Moore, S. (1984). The stanislavski system. New York: Penguin.

Nikiforuk, A. (1996, March). "Better read than (brain-)dead" Canadian Business 69 (3), 111. Retrieved July 17, 2001 from INFOTRAC: Expanded Academic ASAP database.

Paul, R. W. (1993). Critical thinking: what every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Rev. 3rd ed. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Paul, R. W. (1993, SeptemberOctober). "The logic of creative and critical thinking" American Behavioral Scientist 37 (1), 21-39. Retrieved July 19, 2001 from INFOTRAC: Expanded Academic ASAP database.

Peirce, C.S. (1998). The essential Peirce: selected philosophical writings. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Pilger, J. (1998, August). "A 'j'accuse' against French journalism says the more you watch tv, the less you know. Does that strike a chord?" New Statesman 127, 31. Retrieved July 17, 2001 from INFOTRAC: Expanded Academic ASAP database.

Rybacki, K. C. & Rybacki, D. J. (2000). Advocacy and opposition: an introduction to argumentation. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Stancato, F. A. (2000, September). "Tenure, academic freedom and the teaching of critical thinking" College Student Journal 34 (3), 377. Retrieved July 18, 2001 from INFOTRAC: Expanded Academic ASAP database.

Yaremchuk, William A. (1992). Critical discourse. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Paul Cameron

Gary Richmond

Paul Cameron is an assistant professor of Communications at Kingsborough Community College, City University of New York

Gary Richmond is an instructor of Humanities at LaGuardia Community College, City University of NewYork.

Copyright Schoolcraft College Fall 2002
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved