Who are these people who want me to think this way?

Or is your comment a rhetorical device?

Sorry - I was distractedly spinning apples in my mind. Granny Smith, but I changed its colour to blue, just to be different. Then I went off on a sidetrack, about spinning it from inside to outside...

Understood.
I am interested in your actual response.

A concerted engagement with the texts is needed if one is to decide for oneself. — Paine

Could be. Not being a philosopher, I’m mainly interested in behaviour.

Ok. I'll indulge in a little flow of consciousness, if that is alright.

I spent a few hours yesterday looking at Classics undergrad courses. They are a bit scarce. ANU did offer pretty much just what I was after a few years back, but it seems to have dropped off. I might contact them next week and check.

This, because I've sometimes regretted not having studied Greek and Latin. It'd help me make sense of the likes of Anscombe and Nussbaum.

But philosophy did not stop at Aristotle, or even Aquinas. They are interesting, even fun, but not necessary.

So back to:

Not so sure philosopher and critical thinker are one and the same. — jgill

JGill is right, critical thinking is not tied to philosophy. I used critical thinking most extensively as an undergrad, in studying archeology and anthropology. But whereas other subjects make use of critical thinking, philosophy, perhaps exclusively (but psychology?), makes critical thinking it's topic. If you are thinking about how best to think, you are no longer doing maths or environmental studies, but something else.

It's a mistake, then, to think that because philosophy is not taught explicitly, it's not taught at all.

It's a mistake, also, to think that because critical thinking is not taught explicitly, it's not taught at all.

When I taught technology, I did so using a design, make and appraise model, quite explicitly. I also took that model further, using it in teaching how to write essays, plan meals, or mediating disputes. What is that, if not critical thinking? But I didn't call it that.

So good thinking is not limited to philosophy, but it is the place where may be made explicit. And philosophers have much to say as to what makes thinking good or bad.

But teaching this stuff formally, as part of the curriculum, is unnecessary and probably counterproductive. Only some folk will have the stomach for it. The rest will reject it.

This, because I've sometimes regretted not having studied Greek and Latin.

Me too. I wonder if the absence of a middle voice in English completely alters our understanding of the ancient Greek texts. I suppose it does. Would be nice to read them in the original.

But philosophy did not stop at Aristotle, or even Aquinas. They are interesting, even fun, but not necessary. — Banno

Do you think there are philosophers who are more necessary than Plato and Aristotle?

It's interesting to me that you often complain (with Midgley) about the sorry state of philosophy, but I'm not sure you have a remedy to hand. Now, I've no doubt that folks like Hare and Wittgenstein are better at resisting the problems than their contemporaries, but they are at the same time enmeshed in the same sorts of problems that tend to plague 20th century English-speaking philosophy.

But teaching this stuff formally, as part of the curriculum, is unnecessary and probably counterproductive. Only some folk will have the stomach for it. The rest will reject it. — Banno

As an analogy, a society without cabinetmakers will tend to be comparatively lacking in all that relates to quality cabinets. Sure - others can fill in the gaps. General carpenters and those who specialize in other disciplines can manage to throw together a cabinet in a pinch, and these cabinets will be more or less passable. But without the specialization and its outflow into the society a lacuna will form.

Actually in our age of hyper-specialization overarching disciplines like philosophy become especially important. I think you are over-associating philosophy with logic, but even in the case of logic the analogy holds. For example, Scientism is full of scientists who "throw together logic in a pinch," and it's not so much that their logic is incorrect, but rather that it's incomplete, and they end up mistaking logic for scientific logic. When those disciplines which anchor all disciplines—such as logic—become unmoored and conflated with sub-disciplines, then all of the sub-disciplines that rely on the anchor suffer.

Do you think there are philosophers who are more necessary than Plato and Aristotle? — Leontiskos

How should this be understood - "Is there someone such that without them there would be no philosophy in any possible world?" Well, no, there isn't. Philosophy is only incidentally about individuals.

There'd be a difference between acknowledging the need for cabinet makers and insisting that everyone be taught cabinet making in primary school. And yes, urbane life would be much less comfortable without plumbers; but while it is helpful to be able to change a washer, it doesn't follow that we all need to be plumbers.

In so far as logic gives us a way to talk about language, and philosophy has language as its principle tool, Logic must be central to philosophy.

Good post.

Once we would have done Greats, but now it is difficult to even find a teacher. I'm not entirely sure that this is not a change for the better - although I do have trouble with Universities that do not have an Arts or Humanities faculty. Are they really universitas magistrorum et scholarium?

Am I right in thinking of you, Ben, as an Englishman? — Banno

You would be incorrect.

Here's some data that might be reassuring. More folk are better educated than ever before.

Critical thinking is more of a middle-class concern, perhaps, on the global scale. — Banno

Surely critical thinking is best exemplified by those at the elite end of the system for one reason or another. Otherwise how do they trump the rest of us in the power-finance struggle?

Moreover, you say more folk are better educated than ever before. Where does the dunning-kreuger effect play into this? Absorbing misinformation and calling it education does not an educated person make. Flat earthers were a non-issue in the previous century. So it's clear something within the endeavour to become better thinkers has gone awry. And that invariably comes down to the quality of education and the reliability of sources.

So perhaps philosophy is a prophylaxis against propaganda; it's just that we will never be able to agree on what "philosophy" should mean. — Leontiskos

Perhaps that us the crux if the issue itself.

I agree. I think context is almost everything in education. For a true knowledge of any subject the who, what, why, when, where and how's of said subject must be addressed to fully contextualise the education.

Sadly I think arbitrary fact recycling and disconnected informational points are the method of choice for too many educators. That's why I suggested philosophy as a doorway to allowing students to develop their own frameworks, apply them, familiarise themselves with criticism and rebuttal, allow them to defend ideas or acceot new ones and overall to develop a sense of discursive enlightenment, not mere fact learning.

Context is the existence we live in. Association is the way we position individual facts within that context and form practical or insightful relationships between information.

Lots of propaganda masquerades as "critical thinking" where the sole purpose of the "thinking" is to cast suspicion or doubt on the facts, e.g. to undermine the possibility to criticize false or nonsensical claims etc. — jkop

I agree. For if we can assume nothing (ie have no trusted facts) and apply "critical thinking" to every shred of knowledge we are offered, we must go back to first principles again and again in an exhaustive and inefficient cycle.

In an ideal world, facts stand as the ever continuing basis for fresh education upon which we can grow, develop or build a greater level of knowledge.

Unfortunately not all facts remain accepted as such. And some facts are likely erroneous to begin with. Science is in a forever fluctuating paradigm shift.

So without the 100% certainty of fact, one must at least lend some credence to the ability to think rationally. To apply logic. Which is another set of skills beyond mere fact absorption and assimilation.

One would imagine a refined reasoning ought to lead to the same "facts" if such facts are indeed true.

Is anyone on earth an expert on global education? Who would even know 1% of what takes place in the realm of education on the planet? — Tom Storm

I think the point here was not having a global education oneself. One does not need to know the intricate details of every item on every syllabus across the globe to establish a general comparative study of international education systems. This is somewhat a strawman commentary on a point I never actually made.

Your argument is analagous to saying a "linguist" ought to be fluent in every human language. When in fact they usually study the different frameworks for language and their grammar, and how they compare to one another.

My daughter's generation (she is 27) were very much given a discussion/debate/discourse model of education. But as I hinted above, different countries do different things.

What we probably need to do is cite specific educational approaches as implemented and then subject them to some evidence based scrutiny rather than just present untheorized opinions on 'education'. — Tom Storm

Well I'm also 27 and from the proverbial "west". And my education in school was heavily based on fact and rote learning. With the exception of English - in which we had to develop opinions and comprehensive analysis of a literary work by our own accord.

The opinion may indeed be "untheorized" on a global scale. I can concede to that of course. But in my nation as with my neighbouring one, the concensus is that rote learning is alive and well in many "big players" of the west. And this I based on personal experience having undergone that education system along with many friends from other not too dissimilar western countries.

I am however delighted to hear your daughter benefited from a more nuanced and discursive method of education. I would have loved this format had I had the opportunity myself.

Perhaps that us the crux if the issue itself. — Benj96

On my view philosophy is twofold: disposition and competence. The philosophical disposition has to do with wonder and inquiry, and this can be inculcated even from a very young age. Philosophical competence has to do with the intellectual virtues and the knowledge that they then make possible. In oneself, it has to do with the ability to learn new knowledge, and both extend and transcend one's philosophical framework(s). In relation to others, it has to do with the ability to engage and bridge different paradigms, and to cooperate, challenge, and act as midwife. This competence requires more maturity and cannot be achieved in any substantial way at a young age.

The disposition precedes the competence, but we find individuals of all different kinds. Some lack both disposition and competence; some have both; some have only one or the other (to various degrees). Critical thinking is but one part of philosophical competence, as is logic.

Philosophical disposition and philosophical competence are vaguely related to Pierre Hadot's ideas of philosophical praxis and philosophical discourse, but disposition is meta-praxis and competence is meta-discourse, in the sense that they are not restricted to a single school of philosophy.

Propaganda is large-scale psychological manipulation. It leans more heavily on psychology than it does on philosophy, although the two fields can overlaps in certain places.

Education and intelligence don't appear to be a good predictor of susceptibility.

The antidote to propaganda is to know oneself better than the propagandist; and "to know oneself" is such a complicated and multi-faceted endeavor that I don't think it can be taught in a school environment.

This is somewhat a strawman commentary on a point I never actually made. — Benj96

Ha! No, I'd say it is more a reasonable response to what you asked -

Pray tell, what is your opinion on the state of global education. — Benj96

But in my nation as with my neighbouring one, the concensus is that rote learning is alive and well in many "big players" of the west. — Benj96

Consensus? Which big players? I wish I had had more rote learning and less discursive lessons. At school, the flaccid discussions bored me, so I paid little attention. Talk is cheap.

I would imagine rote learning has been replaced in many countries - especially those which emphasise conceptual understanding versus facts.

I'd be interested if you had any empirical data on the prevalence of rote learning versus other styles in world education practices.

According to ChatGPT - if this is correct - we have this:

Some countries where rote learning has historically been more prevalent include:

China: Traditional Chinese education has often emphasized rote memorization, especially in subjects like mathematics and language.
India: Rote learning has been a significant part of the education system in India, particularly in subjects like mathematics and science.
Japan: Japanese education has traditionally valued memorization and repetition, although recent reforms have aimed to encourage more critical thinking and creativity.
South Korea: Rote learning has been a common method in South Korean education, particularly for preparing for standardized tests.
Singapore: Singapore's education system has historically placed a strong emphasis on rote learning, although there have been efforts in recent years to promote more holistic learning approaches.
Some Middle Eastern countries: In some Middle Eastern countries, rote learning has been prevalent, particularly in religious education and language studies.

And France?

Not so sure philosopher and critical thinker are one and the same. — jgill

That's true. IMO, teaching critical thinking is the priority. It could be taught in a more general philosophy class, but it wouldn't need to be.

Singapore: Singapore's education system has historically placed a strong emphasis on rote learning, although there have been efforts in recent years to promote more holistic learning approaches.

So let's take it as an example.

Here's a graph of Singapore's GDP since 1960


The OECD notes three phases in Singapore's eductaion policy.

• Survival-driven phase: 1959 to 1978
• Efficiency-driven phase: 1979 to 1996
• Ability-based, aspiration-driven phase: 1997 to the present day

Edit: Given a lag of a few years while students grow into the workforce, these three phases can be seen in the GDP. Prima facie autonomy had the greatest effect on GDP. It would be interesting to follow through on this.


Critical thinking and philosophy do not figure in this report. Singapore consistently ranks highly in PISA scores. And not just by a little bit:


Here's the US:


And Australia:


Singapore ranks 69th on the Economist Democracy Index. But both Japan (16th) and South Korea (22nd), also on your list, rank above the USA (29th) on that index. Australia is in 14th place.

What to conclude here? Not much. We do know that education leads to democracy. See for example Analysis Of The Relationship Between Democracy And Education Using Selected Statistical Methods

Other factors remain unconsidered on this thread - student agency being the obvious one. Students who learn to take responsibility for their education may well be less disposed to authoritarian demands.

Where does the dunning-kreuger effect play into this? — Benj96

I don't see how it does. Dunning-Kruger may be explicable in terms of regression to the mean, or at least reducible to the better-than-average effect.

Interesting. Aust and US are more similar that I would have guessed. I remember having critical thinking taught to me in around 1983. It was also called 'argument analysis'. I found if fairly easy but many students really struggled to follow the concepts.

Aust and US are more similar that I would have guessed. — Tom Storm

Australia consistently outperforms the US, however our results are in decline. We've had the answer before us for decades - our private school system is overfunded, resulting inequity and a burgeoning bottom-end in standardised tests. Gonsky was never implemented*.

We also have a tendency to adopt one-size-fits-all approaches from the UK and the USA, rather than say the autonomous open approaches of Scandinavian countries. Put simply we tell teachers what to do instead of allowing them their professional judgement.

Here's a quick list of the points I would make:

• Critical thinking is not peculiar to philosophy. It is learned in other subjects.
• Globally, critical thinking has a low priority, even in those countries with outstanding results in education.
• Other factors, such as student autonomy, may have a much greater impact on resistance to authoritarianism
• Comments here tend to the parochial and anecdotal. The topic can be made subject to empirical research, and there are results available for discussion.
• Those on a philosophy forum are likely to over-value philosophy.

*...because Gillard was beholding to the Catholic education system, and Turnbull to the private elite. A proper political fuckfest.

Pray tell, what is your opinion on the state of global education. — Benj96

Facts are great. Sure. But they're easily dispensed with little incentive to understand from where or why they arise — Benj96

Totally. To add to your observation, I have found that, not only is it fact based rather than "skill" based; but, the "skills" which are taught are not focused on how to think, but rather, how to grow up gainfully employed, even for kids at elementary levels. Of course, I am not so naive as to deny the value; but, like you, I think teaching how to think must be a priority, beginning in early years.

Which is why I support philosophy as a fundamental pillar of education. And yet many nations or education systems do not offer philosophy as a primary or secondary level module. If it were up to me it would be mandatory and fostered from an early age. — Benj96

A somewhat interesting, recent article on the topic: "Who Should Study Philosophy"?