4 ms·

Many comments here are about the value of higher ed generally and are fascinating to read, but I'm interested in critical reasoning particularly, and this study

Many comments here are about the value of higher ed generally and are fascinating to read, but I'm interested in critical reasoning particularly, and this study doesn't surprise me. (1) Critical reasoning is rarely taught directly, especially to students who don't major in or take a philosophy course. (2) Even when critical reasoning is taught directly, it's poorly taught. Compare an introductory text on critical reasoning from fifty years ago with one today. You will find that the former feels like it's written for a user of reasoning (which is as it should be written) and the latter is written for explainers of reasoning (colleagues or future academics, I guess?). Jargony, technical, prolix, etc. (3) Too many professors in the humanities are influenced by a conception of argumentation-as-narrative rather than argumentation-as-truthseeking, or deny there's a distinction or that the latter is possible. Quality of indirect/incidental critical reasoning education is not what it used to be. (4) STEM education overemphasizes formal logic. Most of our daily reasoning that's worthy of being called "logic" is informal logic. Outside of university is more important, but things don't look great there either, for reasons everyone here is already familiar with. Echo chambers. Loss of nuance as deliberation is framed in terms that can easily be liked/hearted/shared/retweeted. Curious what, if anything, folks here think could be done to turn things around. [Edited for clarity.]

TeMPOraL 9y ago
I agree with 1-3, but about 4 - I think that's mostly a stereotype about STEM, not the real thing. First, most STEM education doesn't feature that much of formal logic, if any at all. Secondly, actual experience in STEM is probably the best way to internalize that reality is fuzzy and messy (and a good education will teach you that math has tools for handling exactly that, known as probability theory).
- raleighm 9y ago
  I actually agree with both points. I wasn't clear but I was referring to experiential learning, not the explicit curriculum. I agree about actual experience - nothing could replace it but I do think there are things that could accelerate the learning process.
- kerbalspacepro 9y ago
  I want to extend what you're saying- STEM gives the illusion of experience with formal logic to those within it. There is a reason why the Salem Hypothesis exists.
foldr 9y ago
>STEM education overemphasizes formal logic. Few people with STEM degrees have taken a single course in formal logic.
Sniffnoy 9y ago
I think your point (4) has substantial problems. I mean, as other commenters have already noted, hardly anyone in STEM studies formal logic. But OK. Let's suppose you mean "informal formal logic" -- not actual formal logic, but that sort of essential sense of how predicate logic works, that it becomes a backbone of much of your thinking. Math teaches that, as do subjects which are essentially math; but does the rest of "STEM" teach that? I'm not sure that's even true. Many quantitative disciplines look terribly sloppy from my point of view. But let's get to something more interesting. Your point (4) appears to implicitly making the claim that learning formal logic (or rather, "informal formal logic") doesn't help much with informal logic. I don't think that's right at all. Learning that sort of formal logic is a great way to learn informal logic, and I think this works much better than the other way around. Doing any sort of serious math, you will learn how an argument really works, how to take it apart. Largely you will learn this from the numerous errors you and other people will make. ("Oops! I swapped the quantifiers!") You will see contradictions presented to you and have to find the mistake. I think it's easier to learn to spot errors in this setting, where you can say certainly what's right and what's not, and then move to the fuzzier setting. Like, the arguments I see most people making most of the time are so bad, and they'd be better if they had experience with actually finding holes in arguments, and learned to apply this to their own. Well, that's what a mathematician does. In an informal setting, of course, almost everything is potentially a hole -- and so of course you learn to explicitly lay out your assumptions, ask the reader to bear with you or spot you an inference, and otherwise explicitly acknowledge where you're making a jump. Because really, the worst errors in informal reasoning also pop up in formal reasoning. The biggest problem I typically see with people's arguments is equivocation. That's something you learn to spot doing math! And because terms in math are overloaded, you learn to break things down, to say, "OK, we've got 'continuous' in this sense, and 'continuous' in that sense...". Learning to spot equivocations and break down concepts would help people a lot. My experience is that mathematicians, being familiar with this sort of thing, are in fact better at informal logic than most people, by a substantial amount. I mean, I know there's the idea of the engineer who attempts to perform (informal) formal logic on e.g. politics, taking various statements as axioms and writing down the conclusions, without noticing that the terms used in the axioms aren't used in a consistent manner, or that the axioms are ill-specified, or that the terms don't connect to anything we actually care about, etc., and coming to ridiculous conclusions. And it's possible some forms of STEM teach that, this taking of imprecise things and treating them as if they were precise, because such people certainly exist (they're easy enough to find on the internet). But my experience is that a mathematician instead learns to notice equivocations, notices imprecision, and to actually do the work of taking things that are ill-specified and making them well-specified (when possible). Basically, pretty much all the advantages people talk about for learning philosophy, to me seem to come up in math as well. The one big exception, I think, is learning not to take texts at face value, to wonder what the author is trying to accomplish by writing this. A math paper may contain errors, but you can typically assume it's a good-faith effort at truthseeking. Whereas that is something that's definitely necssary in other fields.
lemming 9y ago
Can you recommend a text on critical reasoning? It's something I often feel I'm quite bad at.
- zigzigzag 9y ago
  I don't know of a text off-hand, but this infographic is helpful: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster There's more to critical reasoning than understanding logical fallacies of course. But knowing how to avoid and recognise them is a basic part of it.
- pas 9y ago
  https://intelligence.org/rationality-ai-zombies/ https://intelligence.org/rationality-ai-zombies/
- raleighm 9y ago
  These are good: The Art of Reasoning: An Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking (Fourth Edition) 4th Edition https://www.amazon.com/Art-Reasoning-Introduction-Critical-Thinking/dp/0393930785 https://www.amazon.com/Art-Reasoning-Introduction-Critical-T... Reflections on Reasoning 1st Edition https://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Reasoning-Raymond-S-Nickerson-ebook/dp/B00G6TC2AK/ https://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Reasoning-Raymond-S-Nicke...
  - lemming 9y ago
    Thank you!
- raleighm 9y ago
  Also these audio/video resources seem good: http://www.wi-phi.com/front/Critical-Thinking http://www.wi-phi.com/front/Critical-Thinking http://argumentninja.com/podcast-episodes/ http://argumentninja.com/podcast-episodes/ And "The Great Courses" has a number of courses on logic, critical thinking and argumentation.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

I agree with 1-3, but about 4 - I think that's mostly a stereotype about STEM, not the real thing. First, most STEM education doesn't feature that much of formal logic, if any at all. Secondly, actual experience in STEM is probably the best way to internalize that reality is fuzzy and messy (and a good education will teach you that math has tools for handling exactly that, known as probability theory).

raleighm 9y ago
I actually agree with both points. I wasn't clear but I was referring to experiential learning, not the explicit curriculum. I agree about actual experience - nothing could replace it but I do think there are things that could accelerate the learning process.
kerbalspacepro 9y ago
I want to extend what you're saying- STEM gives the illusion of experience with formal logic to those within it. There is a reason why the Salem Hypothesis exists.

foldr 9y ago

>STEM education overemphasizes formal logic. Few people with STEM degrees have taken a single course in formal logic.

Sniffnoy 9y ago

I think your point (4) has substantial problems. I mean, as other commenters have already noted, hardly anyone in STEM studies formal logic. But OK. Let's suppose you mean "informal formal logic" -- not actual formal logic, but that sort of essential sense of how predicate logic works, that it becomes a backbone of much of your thinking. Math teaches that, as do subjects which are essentially math; but does the rest of "STEM" teach that? I'm not sure that's even true. Many quantitative disciplines look terribly sloppy from my point of view. But let's get to something more interesting. Your point (4) appears to implicitly making the claim that learning formal logic (or rather, "informal formal logic") doesn't help much with informal logic. I don't think that's right at all. Learning that sort of formal logic is a great way to learn informal logic, and I think this works much better than the other way around. Doing any sort of serious math, you will learn how an argument really works, how to take it apart. Largely you will learn this from the numerous errors you and other people will make. ("Oops! I swapped the quantifiers!") You will see contradictions presented to you and have to find the mistake. I think it's easier to learn to spot errors in this setting, where you can say certainly what's right and what's not, and then move to the fuzzier setting. Like, the arguments I see most people making most of the time are so bad, and they'd be better if they had experience with actually finding holes in arguments, and learned to apply this to their own. Well, that's what a mathematician does. In an informal setting, of course, almost everything is potentially a hole -- and so of course you learn to explicitly lay out your assumptions, ask the reader to bear with you or spot you an inference, and otherwise explicitly acknowledge where you're making a jump. Because really, the worst errors in informal reasoning also pop up in formal reasoning. The biggest problem I typically see with people's arguments is equivocation. That's something you learn to spot doing math! And because terms in math are overloaded, you learn to break things down, to say, "OK, we've got 'continuous' in this sense, and 'continuous' in that sense...". Learning to spot equivocations and break down concepts would help people a lot. My experience is that mathematicians, being familiar with this sort of thing, are in fact better at informal logic than most people, by a substantial amount. I mean, I know there's the idea of the engineer who attempts to perform (informal) formal logic on e.g. politics, taking various statements as axioms and writing down the conclusions, without noticing that the terms used in the axioms aren't used in a consistent manner, or that the axioms are ill-specified, or that the terms don't connect to anything we actually care about, etc., and coming to ridiculous conclusions. And it's possible some forms of STEM teach that, this taking of imprecise things and treating them as if they were precise, because such people certainly exist (they're easy enough to find on the internet). But my experience is that a mathematician instead learns to notice equivocations, notices imprecision, and to actually do the work of taking things that are ill-specified and making them well-specified (when possible). Basically, pretty much all the advantages people talk about for learning philosophy, to me seem to come up in math as well. The one big exception, I think, is learning not to take texts at face value, to wonder what the author is trying to accomplish by writing this. A math paper may contain errors, but you can typically assume it's a good-faith effort at truthseeking. Whereas that is something that's definitely necssary in other fields.

lemming 9y ago

Can you recommend a text on critical reasoning? It's something I often feel I'm quite bad at.

zigzigzag 9y ago
I don't know of a text off-hand, but this infographic is helpful: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster There's more to critical reasoning than understanding logical fallacies of course. But knowing how to avoid and recognise them is a basic part of it.
pas 9y ago
https://intelligence.org/rationality-ai-zombies/ https://intelligence.org/rationality-ai-zombies/
raleighm 9y ago
These are good: The Art of Reasoning: An Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking (Fourth Edition) 4th Edition https://www.amazon.com/Art-Reasoning-Introduction-Critical-Thinking/dp/0393930785 https://www.amazon.com/Art-Reasoning-Introduction-Critical-T... Reflections on Reasoning 1st Edition https://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Reasoning-Raymond-S-Nickerson-ebook/dp/B00G6TC2AK/ https://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Reasoning-Raymond-S-Nicke...
- lemming 9y ago
  Thank you!
raleighm 9y ago
Also these audio/video resources seem good: http://www.wi-phi.com/front/Critical-Thinking http://www.wi-phi.com/front/Critical-Thinking http://argumentninja.com/podcast-episodes/ http://argumentninja.com/podcast-episodes/ And "The Great Courses" has a number of courses on logic, critical thinking and argumentation.