History: Where We've Been
Our species, Homo sapiens, is
distinguished by a number of natural characteristics: We are fully
bipedal—we walk upright full time; we have fully opposable thumbs; we
communicate through language; and we have the ability to reason
abstractly. All of these traits contribute to what human beings
are, but it is the last of these with which we are concerned here.
Even prehistoric humans managed to reason well
enough to craft tools, weapons, clothing, and even artworks; to use and
control fire; and to
organize themselves into communities to enhance their prospects for survival and
prosperity. And when agriculture and metallurgy developed, it both
was promoted by, and in turn promoted, an evolving ability to
figure things out and to put that figuring to practical use.
But it was only relatively recently, in the fifth
century bce, that formal
methods of reasoning were developed and shown to be superior to
the largely haphazard sort of thinking that had previously
guided civilization. Following the collapse of this "classical"
civilization, structured
reasoning went into a cloistered withdrawal from mainstream society
during the European Middle Ages. It reemerged in the form of scholasticism to fuel the Renaissance in the
15th century, exploration and religious reform in the 16th, the
emergence of empirical science and the revival of philosophy in
the 17th, the advent of the Industrial Age in the 18th, and the
phasing out of slavery and monarchic governance in favor of
democracy in the 19th and 20th.
This last bit, democratization—rule of, by, and
for the people—requires something further: an educated and informed electorate.
Hence, for the past two centuries, basic skills of literacy and
mathematics, plus training in civics, geography, history, and the sciences,
have been routinely taught to all schoolchildren in what would become
known as "the developed world." Indeed, education is
virtually
synonymous with development. Each advances the other, and neither
can progress for long without the other.
The Current Situation: Where We Are Now
By virtue of general skills in literacy and
math, we have become a civilization of reasonably competent
communicators and figurers. These basic skills multiply our
ability to learn everything else, and to function productively in modern
society.
Still, there is a problem. For although
literacy and math enable us to store, transfer, organize, and manipulate ideas
with great ease, they tell us very little about how to formulate, evaluate,
test, and apply ideas reliably, effectively, and wisely.
Yes, we learn a little about structured thinking when we learn the
sciences or a trade. But if we aren't taught the basic principles
of reasoning itself, we tend to fumble rather badly at it when trying to
apply it to anything for which we have not been specifically trained,
be it embroidery or economics, plumbing or politics. The really worrisome part is that this
fumbling sort of reasoning all too often ends up in places of power,
such as in the leadership of business, banking, and government, with
sometimes catastrophic results. Yet we fail to appreciate the true
extent of our peril until we consider all this against the backdrop of
our era: ballooning population, dwindling resources, emerging societies,
competing ideologies, festering strife, wholesale lapses of ethics, tools of both intentional and
unwitting mass destruction, and the frightful implications of it all.
The
Objectives: What We Must Avoid, And Where We Must Go
If we are to continue to enjoy the blessings of
self-governance and prosperity, we must each also accept the obligation
that secures those blessings: to become more consistent and realistic
thinkers, more responsible decision-makers, and more reliable
problem-solvers. We can no longer be content with being a society
of mediocre thinkers, driven solely by hope and fear, and led by charismatic
orators and clever schemers. Even if most of us lack the
desire and ambition to become wise planners ourselves, we must at least
cultivate our thinking ability to a level that we can reliably identify
and choose such capable people as our leaders, while consigning
grandstanding demagogues
unsuited to that serious task to some other line of work. To that
end, we must all share to some extent in that obligation to become more
consistently rational, or else
continue to suffer the inevitably escalating consequences of blindly
ideological and clumsily irrational leadership in an increasingly
perilous and unforgiving world.
Now, as to the transformation process itself,
there are some concerns worth addressing:
-
Teaching logic in high school might place
an additional burden on already strained faculty and facilities.
Granted, there is the transitional matter of additional instructor training and
the modification of materials. However, we might reasonably expect
that the minimal investment here would be more than
offset by the fact that critical thinking—like reading and math—makes
learning everything else not only easier and more efficient, but also
more thorough and enduring through deeper understanding. We
would expect this to result in a reduction in time needed for review,
and thus more time available for productive learning.
-
Some worry that teaching logic might turn people into unemotional
automata.
But this overlooks that humans are emotional by nature. Even
with a firm grasp of logic, they will still choose to be influenced by
emotion a great deal of the time. The difference is that, when
presented with important decisions, they will be equipped to deal with
them more intelligently and realistically. In doing so, the
tendency will be for them to improve their chances of success and to
reduce instances of failure, and thus to attain a higher level of
overall happiness and emotional satisfaction.
-
Any effort to
propagate critical thinking skills among the general public would be
strongly opposed.
This is indeed a problem. Many (though fortunately not all) business and religious leaders,
advertisers and speculators, pundits and politicians take a parasite's view of the public's gullibility, not as
a frailty
to be remedied, but as a resource to be exploited. Their own
livelihoods hinge on their ability to mislead others, so we would
expect them to campaign vigorously against any effort to bolster
general reasoning skills. But that is precisely one of our
goals: to serve the overall public interest and enhance general
well-being, by enabling ordinary people to avoid falling victim to
wily predators, misguided ideologues, and even their own
ill-considered impulses. And we think that wise and
conscientious leaders will be on our side, because they envision the
long-term benefits, both social and economic, of a competently
rational work force, consumer base, and electorate, just as they
appreciate the enormous benefits of a society in which reading,
writing, and basic math are accepted and expected as necessary skills.
The
Requirements: What We Need in Order to Get There
If we mean to promote a society of realistic
thinkers, responsible decision-makers, and reliable problem-solvers,
then we must adjust our system of public education to incorporate the
cultivation of those skills generally, not just with respect to specific
occupations. Most children develop the ability to
reason abstractly by age 11 or 12. Waiting until the second or
third year of university to introduce the study of critical thinking per se
wastes half a dozen years of potentially guided development, and allows
sloppy thinking habits to invade and take hold instead. High
school is an ideal environment to introduce critical thinking as part of
a standard curriculum, guiding young minds straightaway into coherent
methods of thinking, just as they have already been guided
systematically into techniques of written communication and basic
mathematics, with all of the individual and social benefits that these
skills imply.
To implement such a program, we will obviously
need secondary-school educators trained specifically in critical
thinking methods, plus books and materials adapted to the high school
level. However, an hour or so of class time per week would probably
suffice, if coupled with practical applications of critical thinking in
other classes. After all, most kids learn to reason minimally well on
their own. For everyday issues, they mostly need only learn to
recognize and avoid logical errors—the elimination of which alone would
multiply the quality and reliability of reasoning several-fold—and to
take advantage of some common techniques of logic, which would advance
effectiveness and creativeness in virtually any field.
Meanwhile, we should endeavor to enhance the
critical thinking skills of our existing adult population. The
prospect of making people healthier individuals, more
productive workers, smarter consumers and borrowers, more intelligently critical
citizens and voters, and more
competent and competitive members of the global community is to
everyone's legitimate advantage. Programs to attain this goal
should be engaging, motivating, not excessively challenging, and inexpensive—or even free (i.e., paid
for by the provider). This
website is a modest pioneering venture in that direction.
However, it might be hoped that similar projects will be set up—in
classrooms, in home-study courses, in televised and on-line
programs—universally accessible, and produced (unlike this one) by
professional educators and accredited institutions. It's a worthwhile
investment in general human well-being, both humanitarian and economic.
=SAJ=
|