Post by Dr. Jeffrey Bond

Let's think critically about modern education's love affair with "critical thinking." But why would anyone be critical of critical thinking? Consider, if you will, what "critical thinking" was intended to replace: right reason. So what's the difference?

Critical thinking lacks a telos, as if thinking critically is an end in itself. But what about right reason? At its most basic, right reason is an orderly and valid thought leading to knowledge. As such, it is epitomized by philosophy or scientific inquiry. So whether we are discussing planets or poetry, we must reason rightly, that is, invoke a science proportionate to the subject matter under consideration. Now right reason, by dint of being right, is not only the habit of proceeding correctly in our scientific thinking, but it is also the habit of science itself. The expression "habit of science" refers to a virtue inhering in the intellect that consists in the very content of knowledge about this or that subject matter. In short, reason is right precisely so long as it both proceeds well and, in the process, attains its object, which is science or knowledge. Hence, right reason at the same time is perfective of the individual human subject and yields an objective content that is universally true. So, if we think rightly about critical thinking, we should reject it in favor of the right reason.

In order to make this practical for a teacher, let’s explain the difference in HOW a teacher would approach a lesson using the right reason vs. using critical thinking. -- I have some ideas, but would love to hear yours. Perhaps an example of the same subject in a lesson and how these two ways look quite different when teaching the same lesson. (Adrienne Freas)

Spelling out the difference in detail would take more than a single comment, but it really comes down to the difference between sophistry and philosophy. Perhaps the following would serve as a practical example:

I once endured a presentation by an educational specialist who was making a lot of money traveling around the country promoting the "Socratic seminar." The key to a successful Socratic seminar, she said repeatedly, is to make sure the students understand that there is "no one right answer." With that as the predetermined end, she encouraged the teacher, as if it were a goal in itself, to get the students to express their opinions about the text and to raise objections to challenge and contradict the opinions of their peers. Hence, the goal of such a class—what it meant to train them to be critical thinkers—was the mere expression of opinions where the students learned to keep asking "why" and never rest in the truth. In this scenario, the teacher's job is to bless everything that is said and to make sure that no one position prevails, as if there were no better and worse interpretations of a text. The result of this approach is what Socrates warned us about in the Republic: when students get their first taste of dialectic, they misuse arguments "as though it were play, always using them to contradict; and imitating those men by whom they are refuted, they themselves refute others, like puppies enjoying pulling and tearing with argument at those who happen to be near” (539b). Some will respond, I am sure, that the above is an unfair parody of critical thinking, but I think it illustrates well what critical thinking means for most folks out there in the educational world. If someone endorses critical thinking because they think it is synonymous with right reason, I have no quarrel with that person, but then I wonder why he is reluctant to use the traditional expression, "right reason." Most likely it is because, when push comes to shove, that person has a problem with the word "right" when it comes to reasoning.

A genuinely Socratic lesson, however, if we are to take Socrates seriously as he appears in the Platonic dialogues, would aim at truth, and the disagreements that naturally arise would be evaluated for the sake of reaching truth, or at least eliminating what is not true. Here, the teacher would ask the right questions in the right order and assist the students in the effort to ascend from opinion to truth, as explained in Socrates' divided line. The fact that not every class would come to the truth--and here it obviously depends greatly on the text in question--would not mean that there was no truth, but only that it can be extremely difficult to ascertain it.

One can only imagine how the educational specialist (read: sophist) mentioned above would have responded if Socrates had suddenly appeared and pointed out that her original principle--that there can be no right answer--is self-contradictory since it presents itself as the one right answer and an answer that tyrannically rules out the possibility of arriving at the truth. But for the sophistical expert in critical thinking, such a Socrates would have missed the whole point of a "Socratic seminar." Ah, what a fool Socrates was to think one should forfeit one's life for philosophy when one cannot ultimately distinguish between opinion and truth!

Dr. Jeffrey Bond holds a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in Political Philosophy. LCCA thanks Dr. Bond for his contribution to our blog and his wisdom and insight into right reasoning.