Everyday Criticality : Questioning, Expertise, and the Embodiment of Critical Judgment

The development of critical disposition, and particularly the disposition to question assertions, has long been viewed as an essential goal of education. Its importance is expressed not only in numerous normative educational visions, but by contemporary policy documents, studies of teacher attitudes, and even popular educational literature. Indeed, the movement to educate for higher-order, critical thinking that has developed over the past four decades views questioning as perhaps the central activity of skilled cognition. As such, the disposition to question assertions – or what I have come to call “criticality” - transcends both the classroom and any specific academic or vocational discipline. It is essential to all good thinking, whether such thinking concerns scientific research, workplace decision making, or the navigation of everyday life. While there has been little conceptual analysis of criticality per se, there exists a substantial and relevant literature concerning the nature of critical disposition. In this dissertation, I analyze the two dominant conceptions in the literature as they relate to criticality, evaluating them with regard to both our held critical ideal of appropriate questioning, as well as a paradox that arises from the nature of the critical act itself – what I call the paradox of criticality. I argue that both conceptions fail to justify our critical ideal and offer little insight into how we can end the iterative questioning of critical behavior without paradoxically engaging in an “acritical” act. I propose that any understanding of criticality capable of supporting a commitment to appropriate questioning must view critical behavior as a form of judgment. With this in mind, I incorporate Hubert Dreyfus’ theory of expertise into a phenomenological analysis of critical recognition to develop a conception of criticality that views such recognition as an act of judgment that itself relies on the embodiment of previous judgment. I then turn to the literature on neurocognition and consciousness for empirical backing of this conception, arguing that both dual cognition and global workspace theory provide substantial justification for a commitment to it. I conclude with a discussion of the educational ramifications of the expertise conception and the role that didactic philosophy might play in an education for criticality

Thinking As Two - Philosophy, Critical Thinking, and Community of Inquiry

Supporters of the philosophy for children movement often claim that philosophy is the ideal subject to teach children if we seek to improve their critical thinking. Claiming that only philosophy encompasses the whole of the critical thinking enterprise, and that it alone teaches meta-cognition, these proponents argue for its inclusion in both elementary and secondary school curricula. Yet, if we accept a mainstream description of critical thinking as an activity demanding both aptitude and disposition, the discipline of philosophy, independent of any particular pedagogy, does not offer the unique ability to improve either aspect of the critical thinker. Indeed, matched with the "wrong" pedagogy, the teaching of philosophy does nothing to encourage the disposition to think critically. The pedagogy of Community of Inquiry, however, does encourage such a disposition, even independent of its use in teaching philosophy. As a public model of the process of critical thinking, this pedagogy acts as the "training wheels" of the critical thinker, allowing the individual to both observe and participate in the process. The expectation of the educator is that exposure to the model will, in time, result in its internalization. While philosophy itself may not improve either critical aptitude or disposition, the nature of the discipline does uniquely enable efficient, productive, and extended practice of Community of Inquiry in an educational context. And it is this indirect link between philosophy and critical thinking, a link mediated by the pedagogy of Community of Inquiry, that should be cited by proponents of philosophy for children

Thinking As Two - Philosophy, Critical Thinking, and Community of Inquiry

Supporters of the philosophy for children movement often claim that philosophy is the ideal subject to teach children if we seek to improve their critical thinking. Claiming that only philosophy encompasses the whole of the critical thinking enterprise, and that it alone teaches meta-cognition, these proponents argue for its inclusion in both elementary and secondary school curricula. Yet, if we accept a mainstream description of critical thinking as an activity demanding both aptitude and disposition, the discipline of philosophy, independent of any particular pedagogy, does not offer the unique ability to improve either aspect of the critical thinker. Indeed, matched with the "wrong" pedagogy, the teaching of philosophy does nothing to encourage the disposition to think critically.The pedagogy of Community of Inquiry, however, does encourage such a disposition, even independent of its use in teaching philosophy. As a public model of the process of critical thinking, this pedagogy acts as the "training wheels" of the critical thinker, allowing the individual to both observe and participate in the process. The expectation of the educator is that exposure to the model will, in time, result in its internalization. While philosophy itself may not improve either critical aptitude or disposition, the nature of the discipline does uniquely enable efficient, productive, and extended practice of Community of Inquiry in an educational context. And it is this indirect link between philosophy and critical thinking, a link mediated by the pedagogy of Community of Inquiry, that should be cited by proponents of philosophy for children

on the relevance of cognitive neuroscience for community of inquiry

Abstract: Community of inquiry is most often seen as a dialogical procedure for the cooperative development of reasonable approaches to knowledge and meaning. This reflects a deep commitment to normatively based reasoning that is pervasive in a wide range of approaches to critical thinking and argument, where the underlying theory of reasoning is logic driven, whether formal or informal.  The commitment to normative reasoning is deeply historical reflecting the fundamental distinction between reason and emotion. Despite the deep roots of the distinction and its canonization in current educational thought contemporary cognitive neuroscience presents a fundamental challenge to the viability of the distinction and thus to any effort that sees education for reasonable judgment to be based on the remediation of cognition in isolation from its roots in the emotions. Cognitive neuroscience looks at the deep connections between emotion and memory, information retrieval and resistance to refutation. This conforms with earlier studies in experimental psychology, which showed resistance to changing beliefs in the face of evidence, including evidence based on personal experience. This paper will look at the recent research including speculations from neurological modeling that shows the depth of connection between, emotions, memory and reasoning. It will draw implications for dialogic thinking within a community of inquiry including systematic self-reflection as an essential aspect of critical thinking. Resumen: La comunidad de investigación se ve a menudo como un procedimiento dialógico para el desarrollo cooperativo de enfoques razonables de conocimiento y significado. Esto refleja un profundo compromiso con el razonamiento normativo que está presente en una amplia gama de enfoques del pensamiento y el argumento crítico, donde la teoría subyacente del razonamiento se basa en la lógica, ya sea formal o informal. El compromiso con el razonamiento normativo es profundamente histórico y refleja la distinción fundamental entre la razón y la emoción. A pesar de las profundas raíces de la distinción y su canonización en el pensamiento educativo actual, la neurociencia cognitiva contemporánea presenta un desafío fundamental a la viabilidad de la distinción y, por lo tanto, a cualquier esfuerzo que considere que la educación para un juicio razonable se base en la remediación de la cognición aisladamente de su raíces en las emociones La neurociencia cognitiva analiza las conexiones profundas entre la emoción y la memoria, la recuperación de información y la resistencia a la refutación. Esto se ajusta a estudios anteriores en psicología experimental, que mostraron resistencia a las creencias cambiantes frente a la evidencia, incluida la evidencia basada en la experiencia personal. Este documento analizará la investigación reciente que incluye especulaciones de modelos neurológicos que muestran la profundidad de la conexión entre las emociones, la memoria y el razonamiento. Dibujará implicaciones para el pensamiento dialógico dentro de una comunidad de investigación que incluya el autorreflexión sistemático como un aspecto esencial del pensamiento crítico.  A comunidade de investigação é mais freqüentemente vista como um procedimento dialógico para o desenvolvimento cooperativo de abordagens razoáveis de conhecimento e significado. Isso reflete um profundo compromisso com o raciocínio normativamente fundamentado que é difundido em uma ampla gama de abordagens para o pensamento e o argumento críticos, em que a teoria subjacente do raciocínio segue a lógica, formal ou informal. O compromisso com o raciocínio normativo é profundamente histórico, refletindo a distinção fundamental entre razão e emoção. Apesar das raízes profundas da distinção e de sua canonização no pensamento educacional atual, a neurociência cognitiva contemporânea apresenta um desafio fundamental à viabilidade da distinção e, portanto, a qualquer esforço que considere a educação como um juízo razoável baseada na remediação da cognição isolada das suas raízes nas emoções. A neurociência cognitiva analisa as conexões profundas entre emoção e memória, recuperação da informação e resistência à refutação. Isso está de acordo com estudos anteriores em psicologia experimental, que mostraram resistência à mudança de crenças em face de evidências, incluindo evidências baseadas em experiências pessoais. Este artigo examinará a pesquisa recente, incluindo especulações de modelagem neurológica que mostra a profundidade da conexão entre emoções, memória e raciocínio. Ele vai trazer implicações para o pensamento dialógico dentro de uma comunidade de investigação, incluindo a autoreflexão sistemática como um aspecto essencial do pensamento crítico.La comunidad de investigación se ve a menudo como un procedimiento dialógico para el desarrollo cooperativo de enfoques razonables de conocimiento y significado. Esto refleja un profundo compromiso con el razonamiento normativo que está presente en una amplia gama de enfoques del pensamiento y el argumento crítico, donde la teoría subyacente del razonamiento se basa en la lógica, ya sea formal o informal. El compromiso con el razonamiento normativo es profundamente histórico y refleja la distinción fundamental entre la razón y la emoción. A pesar de las profundas raíces de la distinción y su canonización en el pensamiento educativo actual, la neurociencia cognitiva contemporánea presenta un desafío fundamental a la viabilidad de la distinción y, por lo tanto, a cualquier esfuerzo que considere que la educación para un juicio razonable se base en la remediación de la cognición aisladamente de su raíces en las emociones La neurociencia cognitiva analiza las conexiones profundas entre la emoción y la memoria, la recuperación de información y la resistencia a la refutación. Esto se ajusta a estudios anteriores en psicología experimental, que mostraron resistencia a las creencias cambiantes frente a la evidencia, incluida la evidencia basada en la experiencia personal. Este texto analizará la investigación reciente que incluye especulaciones de modelos neurológicos que muestran la profundidad de la conexión entre las emociones, la memoria y el razonamiento. Dibujará implicaciones para el pensamiento dialógico dentro de una comunidad de investigación que incluya la autorreflexión sistemática como un aspecto esencial del pensamiento crítico