In hi book Educating Reason Harvey Siegel tackles different views of Critical Thinking and assesses their merit. On such theory mirrored the criticism that Ed Manak pointed out in class the other day: the decontextualization of critical thinking. Siegel thinks this distinction is only seemingly fatal.
He notes that yes, there are different aspects of thinking, and critical thinking that vary dependent on the subject of thought. However, this does not mean one cannot meaningfully discuss critical thinking or thinking at all without a concept. Siegel likens this to not being able to teach concepts of cycling, because there is no specific bike on which to teach it. There are general concepts, such as break before cornering, not while cornering, or how to lean left and right properly, that can be taught separate of actual instances of biking.
Does Siegel's reply to the criticism of decontexualization succeed?
No comments:
Post a Comment