There may be some Dopers that need to come to grips with that but I am not one of them. It goes without saying that some people are religious and intelligent at the very same time.
Clearly some religions people have sufficient critical thinking skills in most areas of their lives, yet they choose to suspend critical thinking when it is necessary for their psychological self-preservation. They are so close, and yet so very far.
Even as a kid in the late 60s and early 70s in California I understood that the various efforts to teach us science and “new” math and later algebra and geometry and chemistry, physics and biology were primarily about teaching us critical thinking skills.
In the educational philosophy we follow (homeschooling), you start teaching logic at around 10 with daily puzzles, etc. and move up to basic formal logic at 11-12. The middle grades are called the logic stage and all subjects are focused on developing critical thinking–asking why about everything. So that might make you happy. 
You know your kid is entering the logic stage when he starts asking suspiciously, “How do you know?” Kids generally will be spotty about this for a few years–they’ll get all critical about one subject early on and then have to be dragged kicking and screaming into it in another subject. It takes a lot of practice, since they’re pretty young–they’re ready to start thinking, but they aren’t actually very good at it yet.
I took AP US history, many of our activities did indeed involve analysis of both sides of events, roleplaying of congressional sessions where members of the class were asked to play the POV of civil war era southern extremists whoes agendas would be mightily offensive in most classrooms. It was AWESOME.
You want an argument? Okay, I’ll give you an argument: current pedagogy IMO goes too far toward teaching critical thinking, doesn’t sufficiently emphasize the utility of having a bunch of facts under your belt.
Our new math curriculum is a good example. It’s a great curriculum, really emphasizes students building their own understanding of math through the use of manipulatives, games, movement activities, and so forth. But our second-grade curriculum finishes the year without ever teaching kids an algorithm for adding multidigit numbers (y’know, carry the one and so forth). In fact, kids don’t learn algorithms until fourth grade.
In my opinion, that’s too late. Sure, be sure kids understand why carrying (or in modern parlance “regrouping” or in my classroom “trading”) works. Be sure they understand that in 54+29, you never add 5+2, but technically add 5 tens plus 2 tens, plus another ten you got by trading ten ones for one ten. Force them to slow down and talk it through until they’ve internalized that place-value goodness. But for god’s sake, give 'em an algorithm! Don’t make them solve every problem using some clever-but-clunky method they’ve discovered themselves of making ten then making hundred, or of counting up by hundreds, then tens, then ones, or whatever cool method they’ve thought of. Algorithms are efficient and useful–let them learn them!
Similarly, NCLB means neglecting social studies in class. Social studies is to a large degree a study of facts. And that’s okay: you need to have those facts before you can apply your critical thinking to them.
Absolutely teach critical thinking. But it’s not the only point of education: kids also need to learn how to acquire and retain knowledge, not just how to evaluate knowledge.
…and I took AP European History. We did not do critical thinking exercises. It wasn’t part of the curriculum and therefore it wasn’t necessary. This is the normal modus operandi in public high schools.
Again, I’m not talking about exceptional situations like your AP class, I’m talking about the typical school curriculum.
In my experience with a third and forth grader, it IS being taught. Its part of their MCAs (standardized testing). Now, not all third and forth graders get it. And its pretty simple - logic puzzles and telling fact from fiction from opinion. But its there as early as third grade - and part of the assessment we do for the horrible NCLB.
Very true. Chemistry faculty have told me that they expect grad-school applicants from China to have near-perfect chemistry GRE scores, because (almost) all they do is memorize chemistry. However, language issues aside, the huge gap in scores does not correspond to a gap in performance with US-educated students once everyone actually starts working in lab.
Exactly right.
I’d be fearful that an official “critical thinking” curriculum would result in another failed fad of education. I lived through the first “New Math” back in the 60’s and I still do not know how spending that time working in base 3 through 11 helped me (and still have to think before I answer 7X6). My eldest son lived through “whole language” in the 90’s in which content of what was read or written was considered to be all that mattered. In both cases the tendency was for policy to be driven by those who embraced a movement wholeheartedly rather than controlled by those who could implement with moderation.
We do need to know how to add subtract and multiply and divide. There is something to be said for some plain old rote memorization of the times table. Some spelling words just need to be practiced a few times.
In an ideal world the two are both done. Children learn to read and learn how to think about what they read. They learn how to spell and how to use an adverb properly, and they learn to have thoughts worth expressing. They learn math facts and they learn how to set up a problem. They learn some basic scientific facts but also how the process actually works and how to evaluate new information.
I agree that the better teachers currently succeed in doing both at the same time. The most frequent place it falls down is in science education in most cases, even in “good” schools.
I think a far more neglected topic is creativity. With a downturn in the economy, or with an upturn, or whenever conservatives are in power, art and music programs are plundered.
Einstein reportedly said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
Art and music classes play an essential role in training students to learn that they can be creative, and that creativity and imagination enhance all that they do. But those classes are inevitably the first cut out of any program.
Critical thinking skills are important, but how valuable are they really without imagination to apply them?
I haven’t seen any evidence showing “creativity” is a teachable skill.
To create an environment that fosters or encourages creativity, yes, but to actually teach it, I’m not sure.
Extremely valuable. To know that James Inhofe’s claims about climatology can be disregarded because he touts creationist TV weathermen as ‘international scientists’ who tell him what he wants you to hear requires little imagination.
Personally I don’t think it takes much in the way of critical thinking skills either, but some people think he’s not a liar so maybe I’m wrong about that.
Why do I get the feeling that YOUR cherished beliefs would not be given much scrutiny in the “Critical thinking” classs you’d like to mandate?
Too often, proposed “Critical Thinking” courses are to the Left what “Intelligent Design” classes are to the Religious Right: thinly disguised attempts at sneaking propaganda into the school curriculum, disguised as scientific thinking.
I’m not sure if you can have a class that “teaches” how to be creative, but you can have experiences that end up having taught you to be more creative. For example the experience of having had lived abroad fosters creativity.
I think the most basic way to think of it is to remember that creative thinking is what you called it: a skill. Skills get better with practice. Explicitly teaching how to shoot a free throw is less important than getting out there and doing it a few thousand times. If you are in an environment that encourages or requires you to think outside of your usual box with regularity you get used to doing that.
I would like to emphasize that some subjects require a different balance than others. Having children grow up into adults who remember how to deal with electron shells, or how RuBisCO works within the Calvin cycle really is not vital to the sort of scientific literacy that all citizens should have, whereas having them learn how the scientific process works, how to evaluate new information, how to spot junk science, and how to learn new science as it develops, is. For science the process is more important to learn than the list of facts, and in fact, teaching science as a memorization of isolated facts is doing the exact opposite of teaching science. Geometry should be emphasizing the process of proofs and deductive reasoning, more than memorizing formulae and applying them. The former will serve citizens better in the future than the latter. There is a place to emphasize the skill of critical thinking as the tool utilized to learn the facts.
And like creativity, the skill is learned not by being lectured about it but by being required to use it repetitively along the way as you master facts as well.
Used to be formal education was the trivium and quadrivium … it taught you to think, not just regurgitate crap out of books at the teacher to pass the tests.
trivium:
Logic is concerned with the thing as-it-is-known,
Grammar is concerned with the thing-as-it-is-symbolized, and
Rhetoric is concerned with the thing-as-it-is-communicated.
quadrivium:
arithmetic
geometry
music
astronomy
You were sort of expected to read whatever was laying around when you were being taught to read, history was fairly slapdash and depended on what you could get around you until printing opened up the possibilities.
I’m honestly struggling with how this makes any sense. Critical thinking only favors the “Left” when the thing we’re talking about is critical thinking (like, soft atheism/agnosticism), or when the Right is relying on lapses in critical thinking to draw people away from the Left. In either case there’s no reason whatsoever to think that the Left’s “cherished beliefs” would not be subject to scrutiny; they would benefit from it, as being the things that survive the filter. (Or at least, for lefts to be using critical thinking as a propaganda class, it must be presumed that they believe their beliefs to be more argumentively robust.) So it makes no sense at all to claim that critical thinking itself is favoritism or left-wing propoganda.
(Well, unless the assertion is that non-critical thinking is synonymous with the right-wing position, and that rationality itself is left-wing. But it’d be surprising to hear that from a right-winder…)
The implication that critical thinking is not scientific thinking is also a mind-bender.
Critical thinking is a lovely skill for those who have a mind for it. I share the concern that a new wave of emphasizing how to think over learning facts will result in such a soft curriculum that we create a generation of ignorant thinkers–assuming we are successful at teaching the critical thinking skills.
We should not forget that half the population has an IQ under 100. I’d like to see us focus less on not leaving any child behind on standardized tests based on standardized curriculums and focus instead on having a variety of pathways so that a kid can come out of school ready to contribute to society. For some that might be critical thinking, and on to higher book learning. For others it might be a trade pathway.
If you’re struggling with what I said, your own critical thinking skills aren’t as strong as you assume.
I’m saying that your definition of “critical thinking” reflects your own prejudices.
WHY do you think “critical thinking” classes are essential? I infer it’s because you think America is filled with stupid rednecks who’ve been brainwashed by their narrow-minded, religious, conservative families, and you think schools have a duty to undo the alleged damage these parents have done, and reprogram their kids.
“Not fair,” you say. “I only want to make kids think more clearly.” I think that’s a smokescreen. I think you want to do a LOT more than that, just as the people who propose “a moment of silence” at the start of the school day want a lot more than silence.
Whoa whoa whoa - since when are there multiple definitions of critical thinking?
Is there “right wing” critical thinking? (That isn’t a deliberate misnomer or joke, I mean.) I don’t think there is. I think that the word has a meaning. And I think that if you think it doesn’t have a single meaning or that I’m skewing it to favor my predjudices then that exemplifies a bias that you are allowing to corrupt your argument ways that suggest that by my definition of critical thinking, you shouldn’t be criticizing others about it.
I favor critical thinking because I think it leads to better results and tends to weed out bad ideas, largely by making people less gullible. Now, my own critical thinking points out that a lot of people are right-wingy because they’re not thinking very good and because they are gullible. These people should not be thinking this badly - it’s a bad idea and bad for the country for people to be this wrong-headed and mindlessly suggestible.
Now, if it’s impossible to be right-wing without being illogical and uncritical, then critical thinking is indeed an attack on the right wing, in much the same way that cars are an attack on squirrels that run under their tires. But I don’t support critical thinking with the aim of purging the right wing. I aim to purge stupidity in general.
Personally I think there are elements of conservatism that can survive intelligence being applied to them. You appear to disagree, but despite that, it remains the fact that conservatism isn’t my target. Stupidity is. Including the sort of stupidity that thinks that critical thinking has a political agenda.
Well, it’s fair to point out that critical thinking often has had a political agenda. For just one example, the concept was widespread in Mao’s China - though it seems rather little of the criticism was directed at the system that organized the classes.
I think you are very naive if you truly believe that in the real world such a class can be thoroughly objective, with an agenda uninfluenced by the beliefs of those who organize and administer it.