by

K. Andersen
Honors College, Washington State University

One of my most memorable encounters in academia with “critical thinking” as the kosher, discretely awe-inducing, concept it is, was in October 1997 at the National Collegiate Honors Council Conference in Atlanta. This huge, annual conference abounds in sessions on excellence in teaching the best and brightest undergraduates, and “critical thinking” regularly finds its way into session titles or hovers above the educational community’s discussions like simmering heat above desert asphalt.

With morbid curiosity I made my way to the session entitled “Blessed, Betrothed, Battered, Butchered: Biblical Women Speak Out” in which a teacher and (Honors) students from Columbia College “explored the Bible through the stories of women. Each student researched one of the women’s stories, discovering the effects of culture, history, and theology on the role of women in biblical times”1 In her introduction to the session’s topic the teacher described the presenters’ efforts as examples of “critical thinking,” as they were exploring the Bible from the untraditional perspective of much overlooked women’s stories, and in so doing they were presenting a kind of “Christian feminism.” The students proceeded to dramatize their chosen subjects, reading aloud from the Bible, making statements such as “understanding the Bible,” “the stories of the great Bible,” “agree with what the Bible says, serving your man is a blessing,” “a woman’s faith can be just as strong as a man’s faith,” interspersed with exclamations such as “Praise the Lord,” “my faith,” “I heard the Lord.” The room was packed and the audience applauded vigorously.

As esoteric and extreme as this example may be, it lends itself well to an explication of some of the fundamental dimensions of the nature of critical thinking which I shall address in the following. One such fundamental dimension, of course, has to do with the intellectual predisposition of the critical subject, which must lead me to question whether the “morbid curiosity” mentioned above somehow hindered me in recognizing the true critical nature of the students’ project, or conversely, whether a definition of the act of critical thinking, e.g. via a rubric, might indeed disclose shortcomings in the presenters’ approach, which might enable me to reject their activities as having anything to do with critical thinking properly understood.

In the following paper I will first discuss my experiences with the WSU Critical Thinking Rubric2 a version of which I have included as part of my University Honors 440, Domain of the Arts course, which typically holds 28 students in each class, since Fall semester 2001. Secondly, I will examine, more generally, the act of critical thinking as it seems to transcend any given rubric. In doing so, I will pay particular attention to some of Harvey Siegel’s viewpoints collected in Rationality Redeemed? (1997). Finally, I will propose that critical thinking-in-the-classroom is far from an activity void of consequences for learning outcomes and assessment practices of programs, students and teachers. On the contrary, it is of the greatest importance for critical thinking itself that the goal of teaching critical thinking is aligned with the assessment practices that formulate the learning outcomes of academic programs. Any underestimation of the importance of this front will have disastrous implications for critical thinking. Much is at stake for individual classes, teachers, and academic units, as critical thinking as a learning outcome launches itself upon the interest-driven battle field of challenging curricula, graduation rates, grade inflation, undergraduate and graduate school admissions, and fund raising. Is it possible for everybody involved, students (their parents), teachers, and administrators, to look beyond the pragmatic, diploma-achieving, so wholesomely final, context of undergraduate education? In other words: to which extent is critical thinking compatible with the established practices of undergraduate education? Even more is at stake for society at large as recipient of our products: will an uncritical, ideologically complacent, populace be able to successfully deal with the stupendous challenges of modern economic and cultural coexistence?

The Rubric
A good 2400 years ago, as Socrates in 399 BCE raised his cup towards the Athenians and irrevocably swallowed the potion, he had delivered the final and fully authoritative perspective on critical thinking. He had instituted an educational ideal whose essence was a critique of the assumptions embedded in statements, in individuals, and in the social norm systems reflected in them, and by refusing to relinquish his right to do so, he furthermore established critical thinking as a moral duty. His insistence within the realm of social law upon concordance between examined opinion and action, not only made critical thinking a matter of individual integrity, but made it a matter of communal integrity as well.3 The message for critical thinking delivered by the Socratic method is simple: by examining different perspectives upon a given issue, you must diligently unearth the reasons for your thinking, irrespective of their relationship to established mores; as painful, complex and confusing as that may be.

So, what are we doing still talking about this stuff? Why aren’t we simply teaching Socratic dialectic inquiry (pedagogically tuned) to elementary, middle and high school kids with a refresher course for college freshmen? Have we forgotten? Are we merely rediscovering, re-verbalizing, ancient truths in the face of some nomos (see footnote 3)?

These initial remarks connecting critical thinking to contemporary ideological expressions and philosophical history may seem to be overshooting the target, considering the problems of the pedagogical trenches of undergraduate education. But is it really? Would we not like to think that the intellectual ideals and practical skills of inquiry that we teach as attitude and tools, and reward accordingly in our grading, transcend the classroom to become a certain disposition through which students process the temptations, options and necessities they encounter in life? Would we not also like to think that what people thought and did in the past aren’t merely closed, curious chapters for sporadic entertainment but that their choices have existential implications for us as connecting bonds, expanding our own humanity to more than limited experience? From such perspectives the sanctimoniously gratuitous community of the students at the conference session, and the categorical tenseness that must have frozen the atmosphere, when Socrates had spoken and lifted the cup to his lips, followed by all eyes, are existential moments demanding our critical attention, lest we succumb to personal or cultural complacency.

The Washington State University Critical Thinking Rubric constitutes a valiant effort at pedagogical implementation of the Socratic ideals into undergraduate curricula across disciplines. This, obviously, is a monumental task. The diverse interest spheres of undergraduate majors alone make it difficult to identify what is meant by e.g. an “assumption.” If we reduce the field to the humanities on the one hand, and the natural sciences on the other, the difference in approach re. e.g. gathering “evidence,” is no less magnanimous. The natural sciences, fortunately, rest on the concrete firmament of Natural law - however elusive its discovery may be. Inquiry into the natural sciences essentially boils down to this: in one tube you’ve got this liquid, in another that liquid. You pour the two together and either something happens or nothing happens. In either case you have discovered something, replicable, and the Federal Government or a foundation will fund you handsomely as you chart the components of your experiment and your conclusions. This process typically takes place in a lab, in a collective, edifying atmosphere set by the common, certain direction from a vantage point of little or no evidence, over possibly discarded evidence, to productive evidence, reassuringly confirming the presence of that natural firmament which we know is there and eventually will be charted. In this psychological sense not even infinite space constitutes a problem.

For the humanities, alas, it is an entirely different affair. In this vast abyss of multi-tongued human speculation, motivations and agendas there is little such consolation to be had. The direction isn’t linear but, at best, circular. Since there is no “law of the humanities,” the process is singular, not collective. Only on a small scale will it temporarily appear communal as the humanities tries to anchor itself through a theory of philosophy, of perception, of literature, of art, of language, of culture, etc. until replaced by a “new” expected to be as fragile as that which it replaced. (Even linguistically we see the complexity: the subject is plural (humanities) but the predicate (itself) must be singular.) Ultimately, “evidence” in the humanities is only evidence because you think it is so, according to your temporary theory, anchored by your culture, your class, your gender, your sexual preference, your political view, or some fluffy notion of “tradition” etc. etc. Another human may interpret differently, with a different anchor.

How does one implement critical thinking across the board under these conditions?

The WSU Rubric’s answer is to avoid the problem. It presents seven areas to be covered in the inquiry: problem, own position, other positions, assumptions, data, context, conclusion, and leaves it up to the individual to define and execute according to her interpretation of her field. To each of the seven dimensions, the Rubric briefly indicates the characteristics of respectively an inferior and a successful response. In addition, the Rubric offers eight “Contexts for Consideration:” Cultural/Social, Educational, Technological, Political, Scientific, Economic, Ethical, and Personal Experience, but, again, suggests no methods for how to develop those massive problem areas. Clearly, “context” is the message. Apart from the eight highlighted contexts for consideration, it is surely close to being impossible not to encounter contexts when developing the seven dimensions. E.g., even gathering data implicates a context, and in this way the student is forced into a contextual framework even before he begins to consider it consciously.

While the Rubric presents a sympathetic answer to the previously mentioned problems of definition, by leaving interpretation and execution up to the expert in the field, it runs the risk of being trivial. After all, the Rubric reads like a manual for composing a research paper: introduction of problem, conclusion, and in between the familiar motions of assessing and discussing data. If this is the case, perhaps its greatest strength simply lies in its presence in class as a reminder for students to include considerations of as many of the seven dimensions as appropriate. Furthermore, in being the handy vehicle through which the teacher incorporates critical thinking into syllabus, and manifests it as a learning outcome. As I shall discuss below, it seems to me that there are more decisive parameters of critical thinking that must be in place before a rubric will have an effect.

The Class
From the outset courses in the WSU Honors College are supposed to be tuned to critical thinking. Classes are small, at most 28 students (some like the Seminar max. 15 students), and the learning style must be interactive, discussing material in class and in papers, lecturing held to a minimum. As a rule teachers do not give multiple choice exams, and grades on individual merit, affording them the chance to give all A’s if they so please. The UH 440, Domain of the Arts requirement seeks to enlighten students on the nature of the arts from theoretical and historical, occasionally practical, viewpoints, preferably targeting several forms of artistic expression. Within this frame each teacher has considerable room for maneuvering. My class, Art and Art Theory, probes the nature of art by examining a selection of theoretical ideas about “art,” from cave paintings and Plato onwards to Arthur Danto and George Dickie, with students giving presentations on either art theory, or on specific works of art, in order to consider the validity of those theoretical ideas, as we appreciate art. In addition, we attend music and theater performances, and museum exhibits, which students review in short two or three page writings. Two short theoretical writings and a traditional research paper conclude the writing requirements.

For critical thinking the topic: art, is a gracious host. So much of art, of course, is critical expression of often calculated thinking. When Manet shocked the Parisian bourgeoisie with his semi-naked luncheon in the open, or Marcel Duchamp exhibited a urinal naming it “Fountain,” or Andy Warhol exhibited brillo boxes, or Serrano photographed a crucifix in urine and named it “Piss Christ,” or books are being removed from libraries, or authors have to go underground, or Rudy Guiliani threatens to remove funding, you are forced right into the cauldron of competing bias. But what makes one thing art, the other not? Why are some expressions considered “high” art, and others “low”? When you add historical, social and biological contexts to these investigations you don’t need a formal rubric to make students consider viewpoints or examine own assumptions. However, the Rubric does formalize the critical thinking activity, most significantly as a talking point for structuring a research paper.

My adaptation of the Rubric represents a slight reordering of the sequence of the seven dimensions. I merge 4): “assumptions,” and 6): “context” into one: IV: Examine contexts. The 2) “Own position,” section is placed towards the end as V: Identify own position; 5): “assess supporting data/evidence” has become II: Analyze the material. Finally, I include an encouragement to “write well,” the point being, that while critical thought isn’t dependent upon excellent written expression, the symbiosis of the two definitely strengthens the impression. There is no doubt in my mind, that attention to what we might call “the aesthetics of writing” alone has a beneficial effect on content and structure. Most importantly I emphasize in class that my guide to critical thinking is just that: a guide. It must not be perceived as a mandatory skeleton for putting thoughts together. It is vital that the student takes rational, engaged and creative ownership of her product from beginning to end. Otherwise even the most profoundly instructional, sophisticated rubric will only become an occasion for skillful, unengaged reproduction.

Some Guidelines for
Critical Thinking and Writing

I Identify the basics of the issue
Prepare your reader for the rest of your paper. This is the introduction of your paper.
Guide your reader by identifying the issue and by suggesting possible ramifications.
End your intro with a paragraph outlining the rest of the paper.

II Analyze the material
Examine its components. Connect details in coherent analysis.
Question content and relevance. Identify strengths and weaknesses.
Analysis may be employed in a variety of ways, using different methods.
Regardless of which method you use, make sure you define your concepts.

III Address different perspectives
Consider different viewpoints on the material. Do not assume a certain perspective
to be self-evident and obvious. Different analytical perspectives may reveal different ideas and understandings of the same phenomenon.

IV Examine contexts
Assess assumptions and ideological dimensions. Interpretation is conditioned by assumptions, cultural and ideological bias. Analysis and interpretation is ultimately about disclosing and examining such contextually determined points of view.

V Identify own position
Your particular interpretation of the material in opposition to various sources
may be presented in a particular section. Injecting your voice as a discussant
throughout may also be an effective way of projecting your assessment of the material.

VI Conclude
Consider findings and implications. Tie all strings together summarizing your findings.
Emphasize the qualities and importance of your investigation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Write well!
Insightful, critical observations are not preconditioned only by excellent writing. However, displaying intriguing observations in a flowing, grammatically correct language with a varied vocabulary and sentence structure, composed within a logical structure, is a pleasure to read and certainly enhances the overall impression of your thoughts!

The rubric is handed out and discussed early on in class, and available anytime on my web site, along with syllabus and grading policies. In one semester I also presented the guide as a handout to each writing assignment with room for comments next to each of the sections. I then required students, as an activity of self-evaluation of each writing assignment, to fill in the form with remarks on how they felt they had executed their writing corresponding to each section of the guide. It is my clear impression that the rubric worked well for weaker students, who by the rubric were offered a catalogue of content-points as well as a structure, a support which also was reinforced by their comments on the self-evaluation. The more confident students, however, may only have used the rubric loosely, as well as their remarks on the self-evaluation tended to be brief, or appear slack. I discontinued the practice as I find it healthier for students (including weaker students) to focus their attention and energy on the subject matter itself rather than meditate on pedagogy.

On two occasions papers from the beginning and the end of a course were evaluated according to the WSU Rubric’s criteria by readers connected to the WSU Critical Thinking Project. For one class the overall result in regards to the critical thinking content in my class was above average, for the other average - as far as I can interpret the figures and charts. I find the variables in this sort of measurement to be too many for it to be productive. For one thing, in terms of scoring high on the evaluation, the design of the assignment makes all the difference. You can easily get what you ask for. I have seen writing assignments taking up one or even two full pages meticulously outlining the desired content. Will that bring about critical thinking? Or is such meticulous assignment design a form of regurgitation? Is including “scholarly opinion” often nothing but a “holy cow” included to automatically satisfy the rubric-designed assignment? The often lukewarm lack of enthusiasm that greets the introduction of a rubric should be cause for alarm. Another one!? - the blind stare of students seems to indicate, as they encounter yet another rubric to legislate their thinking. The truth is, that an intelligent student can follow the Rubric, go through the motions of hitting each point of critical thinking expressed in it, and therefore I would assume receive a top score, but still, either not be engaged at all in the subject matter, or write a paper that examines a variety of viewpoints but still ends up e.g. supporting or excusing the most heinous acts of humanity. On which grounds would one be able to reject such a product? Certainly not by using the value-neutral Rubric. Does the example with the sanctimonious Christians indicate that critical thinking requires more than researching different opinions on a given issue? Would it have mattered if they had presented an impressive array of theological opinion for or against the importance of women in the Bible? This fundamental dimension I will discuss in the following.

The Mindset
Judging from my above experiences and observations, I do not see critical thinking as merely a formal undertaking attainable through a rubric’s requirements to process opinions and excavate assumptions etc. That is all our tool suggests. It practically divorces critical thinking from values - the values of the teacher, the values embedded in the material, the values of the student, the values of the student’s sociological context. It essentially presents itself as a tool for validating all opinions as equally good. The narrow ideological mindset evidenced by the biblical students might only have been strengthened had they structured their session according to the Rubric. Undoubtedly their teacher would have testified to the fact that they “clearly addressed the subsidiary, embedded, and implicit aspects of the problem,” “appropriately identified own position,” before addressing “additional diverse perspectives drawn from outside information,” and identified “key assumptions and ethical dimensions.” Then proceeded to “examine evidence and question its accuracy, precision, relevance and completeness, clearly distinguish between fact, opinion, and value judgments” and “to analyze the issue with a clear sense of scope and context.” Finally to conclude while “objectively reflecting upon own assertions.” The Rubric’s seven points substantially developed. And the result would have strengthened their resolve, praise the Lord. But is it critical thinking?

The Rubric’s timid reference to “value judgments” does little to appropriately represent this fundamental problem for critical thinking. “Distinguishing between value judgments,” as is barely visible in Rubric point 5), doesn’t force you to relativize your own - and it is on this critical edge that critical thinking is balancing! The profound truth is that in the humanities there are no facts, only value judgments. That’s what the humanities deal with. Uncovering those is the great purpose of the humanities! The fact that Kierkegaard died in 1855 is a fact for the humanities, and a trivial bit of information. In the humanities facts are trivial. It is a fact that Kierkegaard stated that the “The Absolute is precisely by its objective Repulsion the Measure of the Intensity of Faith in Inwardness”4 but, again, that is merely a trivial fact for the humanities. The importance for the humanities is what is meant by that statement, and that is not a matter of fact, but a matter of value judgment, in as much as values are either hurdles that can be overcome, or walls that keep us from understanding. Complex walls, only to be broken down, brick by brick, painfully, and with a good deal of confusion. Only within this fundamental understanding of “value,” does the notion: “evidence” in the humanities make sense.

In Rationality Redeemed? (1997)5 Harvey Siegel discusses the difference between the “Skill view” and the “Character view” of critical thinking. He defines the critical thinker as “one who is appropriately moved by reasons” (p. 2, his italics). The dual nature being the skillful ability to comprehend “reasons,” and to be personally “appropriately moved” by them. He argues that critical thinking consists of two components, “reason assessment” (“a solid understanding of the principles of reason assessment, and significant ability to utilize that understanding in order to evaluate properly beliefs, actions, judgments, and the reasons which are thought to support them,” p. 2), and “critical spirit” (“certain attitudes, dispositions, habits of mind, and character traits,” p.3). While the former constitutes the “hard science” of critical thinking, the acquired skills, the method, “the brains,” so to speak, the latter is the necessary “heart” of the matter. The importance of holding on to the Character View of critical thinking lies precisely in our pedagogical mission. For critical thinking knowledge and engagement are intimately symbiotic. Siegel writes:

But in general, the character traits deemed by the Character View to be
important to our conception of critical thinking are not the entire
panoply of such traits, but rather only those which are involved with
our efforts to think critically. Thus such traits as willingness to
follow an argument where it leads, a disposition to demand evidence
for candidate beliefs, a propensity to weigh relevant evidence fairly, a
tendency to believe in accordance with such evidence, a frank acknowledgment
of fallibility, a willingness to take seriously the arguments of others
which challenge one’s own basic beliefs and commitments, and the like,
are the traits emphasized by the Character View as relevant to one’s status
as a critical thinker. (p.59)

 

With the addition of my previously discussed disclaimer regarding “evidence,” this paragraph can stand alone as a rubric for critical thinking. What is identified here is, for lack of better words, an existential disposition which shuns orthodoxy and dogmatism, indeed, what we mean when we so often say: keep an open mind! Without dogmatism we treasure the insecurity of where thoughts are leading us. Relieved from orthodoxy the confusion of other avenues of interpretation opens up. Were the biblical presenters removed from their environment and sufficiently schooled in the Socratic ideals behind this line of thinking, they might even expand their critical thoughts to arrive at a point where they recognized their faith as a matter of personal choice, rather than imposing it upon others, and themselves, as a matter of necessity. Teaching such a disposition as a moral stance (which doesn’t easily lend itself to pedagogy and establishment), through course materials, does more for critical thinking than all the rubrics in the world.

The Non-Context
In order to identify values it is important to be able to observe them from a non-contextual viewpoint. Obviously, this is problematic. How does one liberate oneself from the established practices of one’s emotional and intellectual being? If not through the diligent practice of critical thinking, sharpened through years of study - and existing. The circle is complete. Nevertheless, contextuality is the mother of all good reasons. How often has not the “good reasons” of established practice halted progress or dimmed vision? If the German population at large in the 1930s had been able to expose nationalistic propaganda from the moral stance of critical thinking developed above, how far would Herr Schicklgruber have gotten? In order to do that, however, one must be able to liberate oneself from the snares of good reasons which typically are all that fills one’s horizon. The critical thinker must be able to tune his mind to a position from which he understands his own values, which means acknowledge their relativity (difficult enough as it is), and then use those values as a prism for attempting to sympathetically understand other values, in all their forms of expression. Such critical thinking by far supersedes the emphatic and intellectual resilience, and patience, of most. Unfortunately there is little popular guidance in this art; the engagement and time requirements for this model makes it a lonely activity. The opportunities for doing the opposite: adapting to a value-system, are far more plentiful, as they typically offer much greater financial and social prospects.

Siegel discusses this issue of contextuality as it applies to standards of evaluation. He writes: “All of our evaluations of judgments are themselves judgments, and all of them are fallible. But accepting that evaluations are themselves judgments does not preclude the existence of standards in accordance with which judgments are to be evaluated. Any particular judgment must admit of criterion-based evaluation, however fallible. (...) That is, regarding some belief, judgment, or action as reasonable requires that we appeal to something other than the process through which that judgment was reached.” (p.109-110). In my interpretation of his words, Siegel limits the dependency of rationality upon context, as judgment of reasonable (or unreasonable) action etc. may depend upon non-contextual evaluation-criteria however those criteria may be composed. 6

This non-contextual approach is also often observable in the arts, not least in comedy. Comedic relief thrives on ignoring or exposing contexts. From the Marx Brothers to Jim Carrey comedians have delighted audiences by mixing contexts: traditional opera values and asocial greed (A Night at the Opera, 1935); common law and folklore magic (Liar Liar, 1997). Our laughter overshadows our confusion. When Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine (2002) critiques certain values in American society, his critical thinking is anchored in comedy, as he analyzes those values by confronting them with other values from different political and philosophical contexts. Inversely, the painter Thomas Kinkade also recognizes the importance of context, and as a business man he carefully nurtures family values to his middle class audience, and shrewdly orchestrates his limited artistic vocabulary in paintings of lighthouses, flowers and cottages. Outside such value-context, his paintings are at best an involuntary joke, at worst a scam.

A holistic approach to critical thinking, exploring contexts from within and without, only needs to structure itself around this one point: values. In generating her “own position” the student might find some objective relief in the process of explicating values. Paradoxically, generating one’s own subjective opinion substantially, presupposes considerable objective assessment of qualified opinions. From the perspective of “feel good” pedagogy it makes sense to require students to express “own opinion” practically off the bat. However, generating your own opinion substantially, is an objective matter. To the extend “own opinion” should be in the Rubric at all, it should be listed late in the sequence. In classes students are typically introduced to a new sphere of knowledge of which they know little or nothing, how can they have an opinion? Removing or relativizing the “own opinion” dimension, would probably also do much good for their self esteem. If class room culture were explicitly founded upon the value of knowing little or nothing, i.e. that knowledge is a complex and tentative commodity7 you can almost hear the collective sigh of relief. Instead, behind every class room door they open, the rubric hound sits salivating, eager to swallow their personal opinions. Imagine the psychological distress of constantly being expected to have an opinion but you don’t know anything? You search for values to guide you in your stack of rubrics but there aren’t any to be had there. No other chance than to skillfully, fairly mindlessly, and in somewhat disengaged fashion, go through the motions of generating some echo of scholarly opinion.

In all sorts of ways values probably also sneak into the natural sciences. “Who gets the heart?” “Let’s fund our experiments through prescription drug prices!” “Your grant requires you to do research on this, so don’t do research on that, no matter how many good ideas you have.” “The results from our scientists’ experiments support our company’s position!” “Since I, as a scientist, cannot satisfactorily explain the Big Bang, I cannot rule out the presence of a Divine Being,” etc. etc.

The Evaluation
As mentioned previously it is of the utmost importance - and obvious - that critical thinking is complemented by the assessment practices that govern its academic hinterland. If thinking critically means digesting a considerable measure of uncomfortable confusion, one shouldn’t expect students to embrace it warmly. Critical thinking is unfinished business, it is questioning established notions, it is criticism of interpretations we believe in, it runs contrary to our natural tendency to connect and construct. The pedagogical challenges implementing critical thinking are considerable. Students look for things to embrace, not discard. Furthermore, since critical thinking by all means is a theoretical activity, to which students generally aren’t well disposed, students might sooner or later experience a measure of fatigue as the abstract nature of the critical thinking learning outcome project takes its toll. It is vital for teachers to feel they can explore this wilderness with the backing of their administrators. Perhaps, this perspective isn’t essentially different from the issue of grade inflation. While each teacher should establish her practice, collective norm discussions will surely benefit all.

It is my expectation that a holistic approach, such as developed here, including a class room consciousness concerning the nature of knowledge, can do much to spur student interest in critical thinking, and thereby qualify it as a disposition reaching far beyond the temporary and fairly narrow confines of their undergraduate education. Otherwise, if we do not succeed in deploying critical thinking as a moral imperative into undergraduate curricula, it may come to be that the 1956 horror movie The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, about emotionless aliens taking over human minds and bodies, morphing from giant cucumbers, will be viewed as a documentary. We need critical thinking to understand the film for what it was: a cold war vision of the non-individualistic nature of the enemy’s Communist society. We need critical thinking to enable history and fiction to teach us about the nature of our present motives and agendas. Hopefully, that is what this is all about.

________________________________

Notes:

1 Traditions. Atlanta ‘97. National Collegiate Honors Council Conference, October 22-26, Atlanta Hilton & Towers, Conference Program, Session C.9, my notes.

2 I wish to thank the WSU Critical Thinking Project, in particular Bill Condon, Diane Kelly-Riley and Lisa Johnson, for giving me an opportunity to participate in the Project. Their leadership in organizing a continuum of faculty workshops on teaching critical thinking to undergraduates, have created a most stimulating forum for learning different classroom practices throughout the WSU campus, as well as a welcome opportunity for examining own.

3 Different scholarly opinions on Socrates’ fate are as intriguing as the matter is treacherous. In his introduction to his translation of Xenophon’s “Socrates’ Defense,” Robin Waterfield states: “I have discussed at length the difficulty of knowing what the Socratic groups did; but certain facts are clear and centre around a single, simple core. This is that he trained people to be individuals. (...) His questioning method was (and is) designed to get people to think for themselves and to prick the illusiory conceit of knowledge. And what is the most common source for thinking that one knows something? It is nomos, the unwritten conditioning that any society imposes on its members.” (Robin Waterfield (1990). Xenophon. Conversations of Socrates. Penguin: London. pp. 36).

4 Hong, Howard. ed. (1941): S. Kierkegaard Concluding Unscientific Postscript (1846) Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 189.

5 Siegel, Harvey (1997). Rationality Redeemed? New York: Routledge.

6 For more on this debate see Siegel (1997), chapter 7, p. 101-110.

7 Bertrand Russell expressed it well: “The essence of the liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.” Siegel (1997), p. 7.