Remember actor Jack Webb's expression in the late 60s police drama Dragnet: "Just the facts, ma'am."  There was wisdom in that phrase and method in his cool demeanor.  His inference was that in the legal world only legitimate facts lead to correct conclusions and, therefore, to appropriate verdicts and sentences.  Sgt. Joe Friday (Webb), and his sidekick, Bill Gannon (actor Harry Morgan), were implementing one of the basic tenets of critical thinking, arriving at conclusions based on the legitimacy of one's research.  "Legitimacy" is the operative word here, for at the very heart of the critical thinking process is the eradication of faulty thinking patterns and, in particular, those known as fallacies.

Why is this process important in today's teaching climate?  Educators need to teach critical thinking skills to help students make sense of this world. With controversies like the 2000 election, the McVeigh execution, the Megan's Law Internet connection, and, above all, the September 11^th tragedy, there can be little doubt that improved critical thinking could provide a means of combating tendencies that might very well come to undermine some of our basic democratic rights on no firmer foundation than raw emotion, popular opinion, ideology and certain inflexible "traditions." Paul (1993a) states that the goal of critical thinking is "to cut through the propaganda, the information blitz and make sense of the world." It is hard to imagine a climate more in need of making sense of the world than the current one.

Jacob Bronowski, in his famous book The Ascent of Man, refers to the lack of critical thinking in terms of a misplaced sense of absolute "certainty" about things, claiming to have all the answers, possessing "corners on the truth" (dogma) that can even lead to a fascistic mentality.  Psychologist Jack Gibb also refers to the defensive behavior of "certainty" (Adler and Towne, 1994).  He stresses, in opposition to this, an optimally supportive behavior, "provisionalism"--what the great American philosopher Charles S. Peirce called "fallibilism," the understanding that we can't be certain of anything absolutely. Taking this position allows one to be flexible enough so that if a certain viewpoint seems logically valid and sound, it can be tentatively adopted as accurate (although absolute certainty will never be claimed).  This, not incidentally, is exactly the method of experimental science.

  Bronowski  (1973) also believes that the opposite of a putative "certainty" is the process we call the search for knowledge-which might serve as a definition of that part of science and philosophy called the inquiry process. Inquiry, the search for fallible knowledge, means truly engaging in the thinking process.  In short, critical thinking may be a vastly superior approach to acquiring answers to difficult questions than believing uncritically what one hears on the evening newscast.  Yet, it requires will and effort! So an important question is: are students today being "dumbed down" by the media while at the same time receiving little, if any, education in a method for rational discourse?  If this is the case, then we propose a remedy: critical thinking across the curriculum.

DEFINITIONS AND IMPORTANCE

Brown and Keeley (1998) refer to critical thinking as an evaluation system for the arguments of oneself and others. Browne, Freeman and Williamson (2000) feel that the "sponge method" of students uncritically turning to the Internet is questionable at best in terms of actually finding accurate knowledge.  The result is the steady decline in the quality of student work--for example, in research papers--as well as a notable increase in the amount of plagiarism. 

So what is critical thinking? Ennis (1996) states that it's "a process, the goal of which is to make reasonable decisions about what to believe and what to do" (p. xvii).  Paul (1993b) further claims that critical thinking keeps thinkers free of  "prejudices, hate, irrational jealousies and fears, stereotypes and misconceptions" (¶ 11).  He, like Bronowski, whose family members were killed in Auschwitz concentration camps, believes that only through critical thinking can the public evaluate what the media disseminates as "truth" and avoid the totalitarian mentality that led to Nazism and perhaps terrorism itself.  Even an uncritical flag-waving Americanism is potentially a dangerous thing. 

There are significant differences between simple persuasion and critical thinking.  One can be persuaded to the untruth just as well as the truth. For example, a person can easily take a position, find several pieces of evidence to back up that position, and then conclude that the position taken was sound.  Employing critical thinking, the arguer has to view both (or even several) sides evenly, pointing out seeming "validities" on either side.  These, however, are based on research, premises that are reasonably supported, evidence, or any of the other terms used to refer to the elements of an argument based on facts.  Sometimes, a conclusion may be "the lesser of two evils."   That's why controversies surrounding such issues as abortion, drug legalization and Megan's Law are so difficult to resolve: there is seeming validity on both sides.  Some basic questions for each of the aforementioned topics respectively refer to where life begins (perhaps an unanswerable question), how the United States may or may not differ from countries where certain drugs are legal and rates of drug abuse and crime have gone down (as, most generally, they indeed have), and the constitutionality of having sex offenders register with police and community once they have served their sentences (which were supposed to have "balanced the equation" for them with society).

            The authors of this article have had students in CUNY classes say that they "don't like" or even "refuse" to look at both sides of an issue, such as abortion or the death penalty.  Because of their ideological convictions, they feel "certain" about the issue and would rather not employ critical thinking approaches.  Sometimes, they even decide to withdraw from a critical thinking-centered class rather than to have to deal with the internal conflict this approach apparently creates.  In any given class, students are not necessarily required to employ such methods outside of actual classes in critical thinking  (it being merely suggested by the instructor or an author).  Yet, they are so apparently bludgeoned by societal propaganda that these mere suggestions make them see the instructor as a kind of demon, trying to lead them astray, swaying them to the "sin" of thinking independently.  Has propaganda gone so mainstream that educators who suggest these approaches are now seen by some students as outcasts living somewhat on the peripheral edges of society?  Nikiforuk (1996) refers to this phenomenon of being deprived--or even depriving oneself--of the evidence in controversial matters as "intellectual starvation," and he beseeches teachers to "advance the disciplines of questioning, discussion and service" (¶ 4) in the interest of providing adequate intellectual nutrition, so to speak.  Pilger (1998), in a book review of Pierre Bordieu's On Television and Journalism, reports that journalists worldwide claim to be free-thinking and fair, but their medium has become "an outlet.where predigested conformity is guaranteed" (¶ 3).  Thus, everyone works to manipulate thought using such techniques as meaningless but persuasive clichés and one-sided sound bites.  Opposed to this, critical thinking is the process of using logic and reasoning to resolve controversies.  It is certainly not "mere" opinion, nor "popular" opinion.  Anything religious, political, or ideological cannot serve as grounds for resolving issues and solving problems.  It, therefore, ought to be seen as a valuable educational tool for use by the vanguard of those committed to reasonable decision-making in today's academic environment and beyond.

THE ROLE OF EMOTION

            Critical thinking appears to be as emotionless as the stars of Dragnet with their flat interrogative styles.  In confronting difficult issues, unrestrained emotions can lead to a kind of "hyperbolic quasi-reasoning" that is problematic in formulating accurate conclusions.  Cederblom and Paulsen (1996) say, in short, that the expression of even strongly held and fully articulated opinions about an issue is very far from critical thinking.  For opinions can be "fixed" by emotions produced by fallacious reasoning.  They refer to the expression of opinions as "mere disagreement versus critical thinking" (p. 3) and claim, "Mere disagreement is applied to separate individual statements, and they are judged solely against the background of the reader's or listener's own beliefs.  Critical reasoning requires us to examine the structure of an entire argument, taking some statements as justifications for believing others" (p. 4).  Johnson and Blair (1994) reiterate that opinion is mere unexamined belief or simply a strong "attitude" about something.  They cite emotion-based opinions as a cause for fallacious reasoning: "The act of reasoning is rarely carried on in a situation that lacks an emotional dimension" (p. 191). They go on, however, to suggest that it is an "emotional commitment" that makes us "undertake a careful and rational review of the arguments"(p. 191) and stress that emotions may not be entirely "bereft of cognitive content."  Nevertheless, they conclude that the reliance on emotions alone can lead to a "cognitive malfunction," creating a kind of causal link to faulty reasoning. In summary, though emotion need not be entirely separated from our thinking, and indeed has some value, many people allow their emotions to dictate their thinking.

            At verdict and sentencing stages of trials, judges admonish jurors to avoid introducing their emotions into the processes and their outcomes. If jurors follow the laws and fit the evidence to a conclusion, such findings will be sound and valid.  The same logic applies to the classroom.  If one uses factual premises and logic to flush out faulty ideas, one generates sound reasoning, and the development of that learning pattern ought be a significant purpose of higher education.  Again, that doesn't mean that emotion cannot be integrated into the situation once the conclusion is derived by means of rational consideration and rational discourse. There can be the expression of a great deal of emotion in real world situations-for example, by means of vocal inflection-to reinforce a rationale.  Emotion works separately and yet goes hand-in-hand with critical thinking in the ways just discussed. Nietzschean polarities of Dionysian emotion and Apollonian reason thus can unite for a one-two cognitive punch that can overcome any absolute, "certain," dogmatic, even quasi-totalitarian rigidity of position while allowing for the proper function of human emotion.

HISTORY OF CRITICAL THINKING

            According to the Foundation for Critical Thinking, Socrates may be seen as the father of the field, for he discovered  "a method of probing questioning [so] that people could rationally justify their confident claims to knowledge" (p. 1).  Paul (1993a) lists various names of thinkers throughout history that used those principles which have coalesced into the study of critical thinking: Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, Jefferson, Thoreau, Peirce, James, Dewey, Sumner, Piaget, and others.

            Paul (1993a) considers Edward Glaser, who wrote the 1941 book An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking, to have pioneered the modern field, but it's earliest contemporary roots can be traced back to Charles S. Peirce (pronounced "purse"), the American scientist and originator of American pragmatism (including James, Royce, Mead, etc.)  At the University of Chicago, Peirce directly and significantly influenced John Dewey. Kurfiss (1988) views John Dewey (along with Robert H. Ennis) as the major forerunners of the modern field.  Dewey gave consideration to a belief "in the light of the grounds that support it" (p. 7), resulting in a "warranted" belief which yet remained provisional, allowing for new facts and information to modify it.  Ennis deemed critical thinking  "the correct assessment of statements" (Kurfiss, 1988, p. 7).  According to Gibson (1995), two significant contemporaries in the long list of contributors to the critical thinking movement are Richard Paul and Diane Halpern.  Both of these scholars are concerned with the norms associated with appropriate thinking and the "rational aspects of human thought" (Gibson, 1995, ¶ 3).  Halpern (1996) gives a working definition for this mental activity: "Critical thinking is the use of those cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desired outcome.  It is used to describe thinking that is purposeful, reasoned and goal directed" (p. 5).  She attests to its relevance in making decisions, solving problems and formulating inferences.  Gibson (1995) adds that critical thinking is synonymous with Paul's notion of fair-mindedness since this important element leads to developing flexible reasoning skills for students: "They reflect on their own thinking, pinpoint pitfalls in their search strategies and source evaluations, change strategies when appropriate, and improve their thinking over time" (¶ 22).   Thus, the fairness doctrine, giving equal attention to all sides of an issue, is especially important for laying the groundwork for the process of critical thinking.  However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that such fairness is difficult to achieve in today's atmosphere of what might be called "media brainwashing."

DEDUCTIVE, INDUCTIVE AND RETRODUCTIVE (ABDUCTIVE) REASONING

            Deductive reasoning bases itself completely on facts that are correct at the time one is arguing and that, therefore, lead to necessary conclusions in logic and quasi-necessary ones in life.  Halpern (1996) states that deductive reasoning begins with statements "known or believed to be true" (p. 122) after extensive research, so that if the beliefs are true, then the conclusion is true.  Thus, the movement is from general truths to specific conclusions: "All people are mortal; therefore, Socrates is mortal."  Mayberry (1999) sums up deductive reasoning by stating that "the internal relationship among the premises and conclusions are proper, so the argument is absolutely valid" (p. 51).  Take for example, the matter of smoking.  Although inductive studies were the foundation for the formulation of the premises, the movement to the certain conclusion makes it a deductive matter--at this point, there can be little doubt that smoking is hazardous to the health of most if not all people.

            Most arguments, however, are more fully inductive.  They are generated from empirical research-case studies, polls, observations, experiments-and the evidence, the gathering of facts, brings about a probable or likely conclusion.  A researcher comes up with a hypothetical solution (this "hypothesis formation" is frequently called abduction) that weighs the facts for the most likely reasons accounting for some hitherto unexplained phenomenon.  Peirce also called hypothesis formation "retroduction" since it is the only form of reasoning that moves from the facts backwards to their probable cause.  Thus, the movement in induction is specific (specific evidence) to a general, probable conclusion.  If the premises are true, then the conclusion is likely to be true.  The characteristic form of this in science is, of course, the actual testing of a hypothesis.

        The "gathering" metaphor exemplifies the process-research gathered on both sides of the issue.  Such resources as the CQ Researcher, Taking Sides, and the Opposing Viewpoints Series come to mind as examples of inductive "gathering" undertakings.  Halpern (1996) calls inductive reasoning a series of observable realities that are collected to "support or suggest a conclusion" (p. 122). In science, the measuring tool is usually statistical.   Mayberry (1999) refers to inductive reasoning as making generalizations on the basis of individual instances (p. 51).  When repeated patterns are consistently observed, the instances come to suggest probable conclusions.

            Deductive arguments follow from premises that guarantee the validity of the conclusion to the extent that the premises are themselves true.  Inductive arguments occur when the premises lead to a conclusion that is possible, likely or probable, but not guaranteed.  We might use deductive reasoning to identify an article or book as accurate or inaccurate based on an accumulation of concrete evidence that we can readily point to.  We might use inductive reasoning for illustrating patterns of regular behavior established by observations, and the latter can be used in a variety of fields from brokerage analysis to theatrical acting.  We might use abduction-hypothesis formation-to formulate alternative solutions to a problem or issue we are considering. Indeed, abduction can be seen as a creative act by which we imagine, based on what we already know. There might be, in fact, a valid answer to the problem under consideration, and there might be a legitimate resolution to the issue at hand.

            That would get one to the various specific applications of critical thinking. However, before the diverse fields in which critical thinking can be employed are considered, the pivotal matter of reasoning "fallacies" needs to be considered.

CRITICAL THINKING FALLACIES
            To help simplify the matter, let's consider an issue with two clear-cut sides, the kind of issue that "debates" take up. Now, if one could superimpose a structure on to the critical thinking involved analogous to that of essay writing, the body, the largest part, would be the citation of the issues on both sides of the topic being considered and then the uncovering of fallacious reasoning so that finally one arguer's premises outweighed the other's in terms of logical soundness.  A fallacy is then a flaw in the rational properties of an argument (Gronbeck, German, Ehninger & Moore, 1992, p. 293).  Cederblom and Paulsen (1996) reiterate that there are "arguments that tend to persuade but should not persuade" (p. 152), and this is often the consequence of just how powerfully fallacies can lead thinkers astray.  Hinderer (1992) goes on to clarify that fallacies are arguments "that should not persuade a rational person" (p. 250), that is, in our context, a critical thinker.  Various researchers list the fallacies in various ways, sometimes in terms of evidence, reasoning, language or appeal.

            Kahane (1992) lists the following fallacies:

• Attacking the Person ("ad hominem, " name calling, is-faults, "argumentum ad personan"): arguing that the person's point of view should be questioned due to bad character traits.  EXAMPLE: Rush Limbaugh is a stupid pig; therefore. . .
• Irrelevant Reason: Arguments that stray from the issues or topic, in other words, mixing "apples and oranges." EXAMPLE: Raise the speed limit to at least 65mph even if there is an increase in fatalities because enough lives are f you believe in "the miracle of the Brooklyn Bridge," why not believe in Biblical miracles?
• Appeal to Ignorance: using ignorance or lack of knowledge or surety to settle a debate. EXAMPLE: No one knows if legalizing drugs would reduce crime, so why do it?

Johnson and Blair (1994) list these additional fallacies:

• Begging the Question: Literally means: "grant the conclusion," in other words restating conclusions as premises.  Look for conclusions that support conclusions.  EXAMPLE: Abortion is murder; therefore, it's wrong.
• Red Herring: Adversarial responses that sidetrack in an attempt to nullify arguments.  EXAMPLE: You gave me a bad grade because you are racist (or sexist, or homophobic, etc.).
• Two Wrongs: An action comes under criticism, and an arguer defends it with a similar set of actions performed without criticism.  EXAMPLE: "An eye for an eye."
• Questionable Cause: One thing leads to another, prevents it, causes it, makes it happen.  EXAMPLE: Heavy Metal music causes suicide.
• Post Hoc Propter Hoc: Literally means: "after this, because of this."  Faulty movement from correlation to cause.  Also known as "sequential fallacy."  EXAMPLE: It's a fact that since we have changed to Celcius, the weather has been irregular.
• Ambiguity: A word or phrase with two or more meanings.  EXAMPLE: Homosexuality is not "normal."
• Vagueness: A cloudy, blurry image.  The meaning of the premise is indeterminate and makes the conclusion impossible.  EXAMPLE: The "criminal element" runs the government.

Rybacki and Rybacki (2000) list these additional fallacies:

• Appeal to Popular Opinion ("ad populum" argument): judging an argument via the amount of people for or against it.  EXAMPLE: 70 percent of Americans favor capital punishment, so it must be morally sound.
• Appeal to Authority: Citing and abiding by someone who is popular but not an expert on the topic or controversy.  EXAMPLE: Since all the Spice Girls are pro-choice, so am I.
• Appeal to Tradition (Appeal to Sacred Tradition, Genetic Fallacy): Judging a conclusion based on the belief that has been around for a very long time.  EXAMPLE: We've never had women as priests, so we're not going to start now.

Finally, Gronbeck et al. (1992) add the following fallacies:

• False Division: There is only one way to divide a process or idea.  EXAMPLE: HIV-infected individuals should be quarantined.
• Persuasive Definition: If one accepts a definition, an argument is over.  EXAMPLE: Real men don't eat quiche.
• Non-qualification: Dropping important qualifications that may not have been validated by tests or case studies.  EXAMPLE: Tests prove that baking soda toothpaste helps fight cavities.
• Appeal to Ideology: Using the political, religious or ideological slant ("value orientation") of an arguer to sway all premises to that way of thinking.  EXAMPLE: As a conservative Republican, I'm pro-life and pro-capital punishment.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Cederblom and Paulsen (1996), in addition to reiterating the fallacies previously mentioned, speak of:

• Prejudicial Language: Use of language that biases the receiver of the argument in favor of the arguer's position with any evidence to adopt the position.  EXAMPLE: When it comes to issues like euthanasia and surrogate motherhood, Philadelphians are naïve and backward.
• Straw Person: citing the opposing position as weaker than it really is to make the affirmative position look stronger.  EXAMPLE: Ban guns since those who oppose the idea don't believe that many crimes involve guns; however, statistics prove otherwise.
• Appeal to Pity: Trying to secure empathy, understanding or pity to resolve an argument.  EXAMPLE: We need universal health coverage; my teeth are falling out!
• Appeal to Force: Stressing that the arguer will be hurt in some way or he or she doesn't agree or comply.  EXAMPLES: We teach morals and values here; get some!

Finally, Chaffee (2000) lists the following:

• Overgeneralization ("Hasty generalization"): Beliefs acquired by limited evidence.  EXAMPLE: All men are dogs, and all blondes are dumb.
• False Dilemma: Two alternatives are given; one is clearly problematic, so the other must be appropriate.  (There may be several alternatives.)  EXAMPLE: Either we ban gay marriages/unions, or we will destroy the sanctity of the family.
•  Slippery Slope: Objecting to actions on the grounds that if one thing happens or occurs, it will set off a chain reaction and lead to less desirable actions until some atrocity results.  In others words, if we do this, this will happen, then this will happen, then this..  EXAMPLE: If we legalize drugs, then all of New York City  will be high, then the police will get "stoned," and there will be anarchy in the streets, and everyone will die, and it will be the end of civilization as we know it.

COUNTEREVIDENCE

            What finally happens when the "premises are true, but the conclusion is false"?  Cederblom and Paulsen (1996) refer to these negations of seemingly valid conclusions as counterexamples and X-factors.  A critical thinker needs to search for them at the conclusions of arguments.  All views and evidence may seem logical, and the premises discussed may lead to or infer the conclusion; however, there's a glitch.  Whereas counterexamples are simply pieces of evidence that run counter to the thrust of arguments, X-factors are subtler factors.  Questions as to demographics used, conditions involved or available, or the people in charge of the studies can uncover X-factor counterevidence.  It would seem then that though the premises appeared true, they may not have been.  Thus, X-factors can relate to any hidden agendas of arguers or the organizations they represent.  In politics, for example, X-factors can be uncovered in the strategies of candidates and their advisors, as well as in the accompanying "spins" from media moguls who may have their own vested interests in such candidates.  Some self-proclaimed "balanced" media organizations profess to cater to Paul's notion of "fairmindedness" (Paul 1993a, p. 204).  Nevertheless, X-factor counterevidence may be used to invalidate such claims, just as it may be used to falsify advertisements about anything from acne medication to toothpaste.

SOME EXAMPLES ANALYZED

            Here are five examples of fallacious statements-three made by students, and two made in editorials.

• "Nationalized Healthcare?  That's socialism!"

PRIMARILY: Persuasive Definition

ALSO: Red Herring

 Attacking the Person (You Communist!)

 Vagueness (What do you mean?  In theory, practice?)

 Appeal to Popular Opinion

 Appeal to Tradition

 Appeal to Ignorance

 Overgeneralization

 Appeal to Ideology

 False Division

• "You want universal health coverage?  Why?  We've got the goNormal style='margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent: .25in;line-height:200%'>                   Red Herring: (You don't believe this fact?  You Commie!)

   

  • "People can wear fur coats because they're just dumb animals because the Bible says so, but I'm not going to get into religion."

         PRIMARILY: Appeal to (sacred) Tradition

          ALSO:  Prejudicial Language ("dumb")

                       Red Herring (bringing up religion)

                       Questionable Cause (bringing up religion will incite)

                    

  • Dr. John C. Willke, in his article "The Abortion Pill Is Dangerous; Ban It," states: "Those who bleed heavily (at least 1%) will simply continue to bleed and many will die.  Probably thousands will die this way..  We totally object to its use for killing innocent little people." (Yaremchuk, 1992, p. 192)

          PRIMARILY: Appeal to Ideology (Willke was President of the National

        Right to Life Committee.)

                     ALSO: Begging the Question (killing innocent little people)

                      False Dilemma

                    

   Implementing an understanding of these fallacies when discussing issues in class

   is an excellent device for the interactive exercise of critical thinking skills.  In preparing students for writing research papers, for example, one can emphasize that there is no need to identify each fallacy by using the terminology listed above, except perhaps for the sake of the rhetorical effect of noting, say, an occasional "slippery slope argument," or an argument that "begs the question."  One can cleverly incorporate the fallacies into discussion so that the terminology of the field is not blatant and obvious.

              Kurfiss (1988) remarks that critical thinking can be implemented without much difficulty in many disciplines: the sciences, mathematics, engineering, the humanities, literature, philosophy, foreign language, and social sciences.  For example, in science, math and engineering classes, one can use the principles and strategies of problem-solving, akin to the analytical problems on GRE or SAT tests. In addition, the various forms of experimentation, design, hypothesis, analysis, synthesis and decision-making can be discussed and applied.  For the humanities (including art and literature), critical thinking can be employed, for example, in finding the basis for a discussion of textual and visual analysis. One can even use critical thinking principles for journal entries in poetry, prose and drama classes to offer "insights and new interpretations" (Kurfiss, 1988, p. 77). 

              In philosophy, the questioning of various "truths," values and ideas for practical living can be analyzed to "acknowledge the legitimacy of ideas different from [a student's] own."  Philosophy, psychology and history classes can analyze dogmatic behavior in the interest of revising or sharpening ethical and moral standards, evaluating behavior, or understanding causes and contexts of historical accounts, documents and policies (Kurfiss, 1988, p. 81).  Critical thinking can give students the basis for rational discussion, for example, of nuclear disarmament (Kurfiss, 1988, p. 81), or, in a history class, the Cuban Missile Crisis from the differing viewpoints of American, Soviet and Cuban societies.  Even foreign language, anthropology and education classes can benefit in regard to interpreting, understanding, and valuing diverse cultures and groups in American society and around the world.

              Can critical thinking help in other less obvious disciplines, such as in the performing arts, for example, with theatre students?  Any subject that relates to communication (and which doesn't?) can incorporate such tenets of reasonable discourse.  Let facts guide such explorations as those leading to logical conclusions about character in a play.  A basic Stanislavskian acting technique is observation and imitation (Moore), a research methodology not unrelated to inductive reasoning.  In media courses, especially those directed toward the news media, critical thinking could be prominent as constantly available to check the accuracy, for example, of our leaders' facts and the soundness of their arguments.

              With all the seeming benefits of introducing critical thinking into courses, why do instructors appear reluctant to teach and implement such approaches?  Haas and Keeley (1998) and Paul (1993a) state that unfortunately most textbooks do not stimulate critical thinking, and teachers really don't want to undertake such risky activities as discussing controversial topics in relation to their students' lives and values.  One of the writers of this article took a class in Morals and Ethics where abortion and euthanasia were never taken up beyond the confines of religious dogma.  In addition, many instructors view critical thinking as "inconsistent with content coverage" (Haas and Keeley, 1998, ¶ 5).

              Most importantly, teachers need to learn the methods themselves; otherwise, they "may pass on to students their own moral blindness and closemindedness" (Stancato 2000, ¶ 5).  Still, if it remains "controversial" for an instructor to implement critical thinking tenets, any given professor might possibly feel that a "bad reputation" could follow him or her all the way to a tenure committee.  Stancato (2000) feels that a positive relationship ought to hold between this kind of quasi-controversy and student learning. Especially since students are accessing the Web as their main source of information, teachers and administrators ought to form some sort of an alliance to assist students in avoiding questionable authority figures and false "accuracy" that is rampant in that medium (Lynch, Vernon and Smith, 2001).   Statistics can lie, of course. 

              Instructors need to open their own minds, as well. Bess (1997) feels that academics should constantly question their beliefs and ideas about society and education.  Workshops on reasoning and fallacies are also in order.  Yet, Browne and Meuti (1999) state that although such workshops are often the means to get instructors "riled up," the principles are "soon forgotten" and things return to "normal." Something more is needed to reinforce and assess critical thinking throughout the year, perhaps along the lines of the various  "Writing Across the Curriculum" programs across the country.           

  As a start to such an endeavor, a series of specific learning objectives for students can be proposed.  The first objective is to develop the ability of the student to discuss major controversies to form logical conclusions based on the process by which they derive those conclusions.  The second is the ability of the student to define and use critical thinking terminology: fallacies, premises, conclusions, deductive and inductive reasoning, counterexamples and X-factors, and validity and soundness.  An additional objective is the ability of the student to identify fallacious reasoning in newspapers, magazines, books and media presentations, as well as in class speeches and classroom discussions.  A pioneer of critical thinking in two- and four-year colleges, John Chaffee, author of Thinking Critically, has recently initiated such year long "Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum" seminars for faculty at LaGuardia Community College.

   

  CONCLUSIONS
              Students are not being taught the methods for adequately assessing the legitimacy of the positions held on the issues of the day impacting upon their lives.  Kurfiss (1988) believes that faculty in all disciplines need to contribute to nurturing the thinking ability and intellectual development of their students.  As observed, the principles and methods can be taught generically or in ways that are discipline-specific.  Critical thinking needs to be taught across the curriculum.  Ennis (1996) eloquently states the reason:  "If the people in a democracy do not make reasonable decisions in voting and the conduct of their public lives, then the democracy in which they live is threatened.  Once democracy is lost, it will be very difficult to recover" (p.xvii). 

  Adler, R. & Towne, N. (1984).  Looking out, looking in.  4^th ed. New York: Holt,

       Rinehart, and Winston.

  Bess, J. L., Ed. (1997). Teaching well and liking it: motivating faculty to teach effectively.

        Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

  Bronowski, J.  (1973). The ascent of man.  Boston: Little, Brown.

  Browne, M. N., Freemen, K. E., & Williamson, C. L.  (2000). "The importance of

       critical thinking for student use on the internet" College Student Journal 34 (3), 391.

        Retrieved July 18, 2001 from INFOTRAC: Expanded Academic ASAP database.

  Browne, M. N.  & Keeley, S. M.  (1998).  Asking the right questions: a guide to critical

        thinking.  5^th ed.  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

  Brown, M. N. & Meuti, M. D.  (1999, June).  "Teaching how to teach critical thinking."

        College Student Journal 33 (2), 162. Retrieved July 18, 2001 from INFOTRAC:

        Expanded Academic ASAP database.

  Cederblom, J. & Paulsen, D. W.  (1996).  Critical reasoning.  4^th ed.  Belmon

  Ennis, R. H. (1996).  Critical thinking.  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

  The Foundation for Critical Thinking.  "A Brief History of the Idea of Critical

        Thinking." Retrieved July 20, 2001, from

        http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/cthistory.html.

   

   

   

  Gibson, Craig.  (1995, Fall).  "Critical thinking: implications for instruction" RQ 35 (1),

        27-35.  Retrieved July 19, 2001 from INFOTRAC: Expanded Academic ASAP

        database.

  Gronbeck, B. E., German, K., Ehninger, D., & Moore, A. H.  (1992). Principles of

        Speech Communication. 11^th Brief ed.  New York: Harper Collins.

  Haas, P. F. & Keeley, S. M.  (1998, Spring).  "Coping with faculty resistance to

        Teaching critical thinking."  College Teaching 46 (2), 63-67.  Retrieved July 19, 2001

        from INFOTRAC: Expanded Academic ASAP database.

  Halpern, D. F.  (1996).  Thought and knowledge: an introduction to critical thinking,

       Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1996.

  Hinderer, D. E. (1992).  Building arguments.  Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

  Johnson, R. H. & Blair, J. A.  (1994).  Logical self-defense.  New York: McGraw-

        Hill.

  Kahane, H.  (1992).  Logic and contemporary rhetoric: the use of reason in

        everyday life.  6^th ed.  Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

  Kurfiss, J. G. (1988).  Critical thinking: theory, research, practice, and possibilities.

        ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2. Washington, DC: Association

        For the Study of Higher Education.

  Lynch, D., Vernon, R. F., and Smith, M. L.  (2001, Spring-Summer).  "Critical

        thinking and the web" Journal of Social Work Education 37 (2), 381.  Retrieved July

        18, 2001 from INFOTRAC: Expanded Academic ASAP database.

   

   

  Mayberry, K. J. (1999).  For argument's sake: a guide to writing effective arguments.

        3^rd ed. New York: Longman.

  Moore, S. (1984).  The stanislavski system.  New York: Penguin.

  Nikiforuk, A. (1996, March).  "Better read than (brain-)dead" Canadian

        Business 69 (3), 111.  Retrieved July 17, 2001 from INFOTRAC: Expanded

        Academic ASAP database.

  Paul, R. W.  (1993).  Critical thinking: what every person needs to survive in a

        rapidly changing world.  Rev. 3^rd ed.  Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for

        Critical Thinking.

  Paul, R. W.  (1993, September-October). "The logic of creative and critical thinking"

        American Behavioral Scientist 37 (1), 21-39.  Retrieved July 19, 2001 from

         INFOTRAC: Expanded Academic ASAP database.

  Peirce, C. S. (1998).  The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings.   

         Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

  Pilger, J.  (1998, August).  "A 'j'accuse' against French journalism says the more you

        watch tv, the less you know.  Does that strike a chord?"  New Statesman

        127,  31.   Retrieved July 17, 2001 from INFOTRAC: Expanded  Academic ASAP

        database.

  Rybacki, K. C. & Rybacki, D. J. (2000).  Advocacy and opposition: an introduction

        to argumentation.  Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

  Stancato, F. A. (2000, September).  "Tenure, academic freedom and the teaching

        of critical thinking"  College Student Journal 34 (3), 377.   Retrieved July 18, 2001

        from  INFOTRAC: Expanded Academic ASAP database.

  Yaremchuk, William A. (1992).  Critical discourse.  New York: McGraw-Hill.

  PAUL CAMERON is an assistant professor of Communications at Kingsborough Community College.  GARY RICHMOND is an instructor of Humanities at LaGuardia Community College.