Teaching critical thinking: some new lessons from cognitive science

Last year I wrote a short article (in Dutch) about critical thinking (aimed at a broad audience) for the Flemish magazine De Geus. I posted the longer version (including footnotes) here. Here you can find the English translation of this long version. The title of the English translation is a homage to Tim van Gelder's well-known article.

In an interview the Belgian America correspondent Michiel Vos talked about the growing polarization in US politics.[1] American political discourse, he says, is increasingly characterized by war language. Political opponents are diabolized (sometimes literally). Conspiracy theories about Satanic groups are no longer an exception. Among our northern neighbors, controversial politician Thierry Baudeut recently expressed belief in a "conspiracy of evil reptiles".[2] In Belgium, conspiracy theories proliferated during the corona crisis. The corona measures were seen by some as a sinister plan by a hidden elite bent on taking away our freedom. How should society deal with such views? One possible answer is that we should put more effort into teaching critical thinking. If we teach students at a young age to think logically, analyses arguments and recognize fallacies, they will hopefully be better armed against such conspiracy theories. 

However, in the past decades, this view on the nature of critical thinking has been the subject of criticism. While most critics do not want to deny the importance of logical analysis, the critical assessment of arguments and the ability to recognize fallacies, they believe that this interpretation of critical thinking is too narrow and may have a negative impact. It leads to an individualistic and self-centered attitude, where taking a critical stance towards others quickly becomes more important than openness to other perspectives and opinions. This, in turn, causes a greater emphasis on engaging in and winning debates rather than trying to understand or communicate with the other person.

For instance, feminist philosopher and educator Barbara Thayer-Bacon argues that critical thinking is too often interpreted in a destructive way, and that there is a need to develop a more constructive form of critical thinking.[3] Other feminist thinkers have also questioned an overly conflictual and individualistic interpretation of critical thinking. The work of the American bell hooks is often used as inspiration in this regard.[4] However, criticism did not only come from feminist quarters. The philosopher Richard Paul also argued for the development of a richer and "stronger" interpretation of critical thinking. Teaching the classical, "weaker" version, he said, just led to students getting better at defending the views or prejudices they already held.[5] More recently, philosopher Andy Norman, in an interview in De Morgen, also expressed his skepticism about the classical way of teaching critical thinking. Norman was interviewed on the occasion of the publication of his book Mental immunity (2022). The article discussed the attack of the Capitol and the popularity of conspiracy theories among Trump supporters. According to Norman, the classical approach can lead to a pervasive critical attitude, where people get suspicious of everything. Conspiracy thinking then becomes the ultimate critical attitude.[6] Closer to home, Stefaan Blancke made a similar point in an article on the website of The Humanist Alliance. Blancke underlines the importance of learning to trust and engage with others.[7]

So it is clear that the classical interpretation of critical thinking is criticized  from different quarters. The question then is what the better way of (thinking about) critical thinking is. On that front, the critics are not always clear. Stefaan Blancke writes that we should no longer learn to think critically, but "just learn to trust more and in the right way. So not blind trust, but also not principled suspicion."[8] But how do you translate this into concrete educational practice? Debates about the interpretation of critical thinking are still ongoing in the relevant literature. Research on the effectiveness of different teaching methods for teaching critical thinking is also still in its infancy.[9] So I won’t make the audacious claim of presenting the new approach to teaching critical thinking in this article. 

What I will try to do, however, is to create an opening to think differently about the conceptualization and teaching of critical thinking. In doing so, I will approach the literature on critical thinking from a different angle. The lens I will use is that of a group of new approaches within cognitive science. This will not only allow me to present different critiques delivered on the classical interpretation of critical thinking in a more systematic way. It will also allow me to consider what this implies for our teaching practices.

The four e's in cognitive science

The group of new approaches in cognitive science that I will take inspiration from is often summarized under the heading "4E": embodied cognition, embedded cognition, extended cognition and enacted cognition.[10] In the article, I will focus on the first three.

While there are differences and debates between these views on cognition, they all share the desire to move away from a so-called Cartesian approach to cognition, named after the French philosopher René Descartes. In his philosophy, Descartes made a radical separation between mind and body. Critics say classical cognitive science is Cartesian because it is still based on that strict distinction between the human mind, the human body and the outside world. While the mind receives information about the world through the senses, thinking itself is entirely internal. Cognition is seen as the inner process by which the mind processes sensory information. This is done through certain abstract rules of thought that guide the functioning of the mind. By applying these rules to the information obtained, the mind arrives at certain conclusions. This approach is sometimes called the computational approach, because it views the mind as an internal computer that gets certain data as input, performs a calculation on that data, and then gives a certain output. Rodin's sculpture The Thinker provides a good representation of this view. The thinker sits still and is introspective. It also shows the individualistic and isolated vision of thinking this implies. Rodin's thinker sits alone. He does not interact with others or with his surroundings.

Image from Descartes's L'Homme.*

The classical interpretation of critical thinking is consistent with this classical approach to cognition. Critical thinking is seen as a process by which an individual receives certain views or opinions as input, then applies certain rules to this input and finally arrives at an output: accepting or rejecting the view or opinion. Teaching critical thinking then consists in teaching those (thinking) rules: applying formal logic, recognizing and building argumentative structures and detecting fallacies.  In what follows, I will show how each of the new approaches within cognitive science offers inspiration to move beyond this (too) narrow interpretation of critical thinking.

Embodied thinking: the importance of habits and emotions 

Embodied cognition emphasizes the embodied nature of thinking. Thinking is not only something that happens in the brain, but also depends on our bodies and what we can do with the body. This approach shows us two ways in which the classical interpretation of critical thinking falls short. First, it shows how merely teaching rules and lists fallacies is insufficient. Embodied cognition points to the importance of skills and habit formation. Knowledge is not just knowing that, but also (and perhaps especially) knowing how. A person may know what it is to think critically, but this does not make her a critical thinker. Critical thinking is a skill that needs to be formed and maintained through a lot of practice. Turning critical thinking into an attitude, one that one naturally adopts in various situations, requires even more practice and habit formation.

This point was already made in the classical literature on critical thinking. Nevertheless, it may be useful to repeat it. In education, we sometimes still find a typical Cartesian reflex whereby it is assumed (explicitly or not) that providing information is enough to change pupils' attitudes. Suppose we want to teach pupils to take care of their environment. We organize a theme day where we teach them about the importance of sorting waste and the bad effects of littering. The Cartesian idea behind this is that it is important to teach pupils that it is bad to just throw your empty pack of chewing gum on the street. Once this little rule is stored in their internal computer, it will affect their thinking and thus their behavior. The problem, however, is that knowing that something is bad does not necessarily make people change their behavior. Most smokers know that it is better not to smoke, yet this does not lead to a change in behavior. Someone who was taught in a class somewhere what critical thinking is and that it is important to question your own views critically will not necessarily put this into practice. As mentioned, this is already taken into account in the classical approach to critical thinking. One will not only teach students what critical thinking is, but also give them exercises to apply that knowledge. Yet this approach is often limited to one class or at most a lecture series on critical thinking. Embodied cognition invites us to take seriously the importance of habit formation and not limit critical thinking to a stand-alone course, but to embed and practise it in different contexts. I will return to the latter when I talk about situated thinking.

A second thing embodied cognition draws attention to is the role of emotions. By emphasizing the embodied nature of thinking, we are reminded that we are not computers but living and feeling beings. Our emotions play a role in our thinking and the views we hold. In the classical view of critical thinking, these emotions were at best treated as an obstacle to thinking. To really think critically, you have to distance yourself from emotions and soberly assess the views of yourself or others. However, the question is to what extent this is possible and desirable. Let's start with judging the views of others. When discussing the conspiracy theories circulating among Trump supporters, the emotions underlying these people's views are regularly pointed out. They are angry at the political establishment, feel abandoned and harbour a deep distrust of existing institutions. Others are motivated by the fear that their freedom is at stake and threatened by all sorts of sinister powers. Of course, this is not to say that these views are true, nor that they are justified in thinking these things. But if the aim is to counter polarisation and promote dialogue, it will be important to take these emotions into account. Pointing out the errors in their argumentation or presenting them with an elaborate argumentative scheme will not change their views. A different communication strategy will be needed.

The defender of the classical interpretation of critical thinking might suggest that the problem is mainly due to a lack of rationality among Trump supporters. What is needed is the promotion of rationality through education. However, the question is to what extent so-called rational people reason and argue completely free of any emotion. I already mentioned how philosopher Richard Paul noticed that students in his critical thinking course merely got better at defending the views they already held. Others pointed out that the classical interpretation meant that critical thinking was quickly reduced to debating, where there are clear winners and losers. In debates, however, emotions are rarely absent. One feels the urge to win, gets angry or feels fear of being humiliated. Pride may keep someone from admitting they are wrong. Ironically, ignoring or even disregarding this role of emotions just increases their influence. Someone who sees herself as a rational thinker will be reluctant to admit being influenced by emotions. Therefore, she will make all the more effort to defend her views by all available means or to attack the opponent's view.

Therefore, it is important to recognize the role of emotions and include them in the analysis. Furthermore, learning mindfulness skills can be an important addition here. In mindfulness, one learns to become aware of one's own thoughts and emotions in a non-judgemental way. One trains oneself to recognize and explore feelings without drawing certain conclusions from them. At first glance, it may seem strange to link an exercise in non-judgement to critical thinking, where making a judgement seems to lie at the heart of the exercise. Yet the complementarity between mindfulness and critical thinking is increasingly cited in the literature. Those with experience in recognizing their own feelings will be quicker to notice when the desire to win takes over in a discussion or pride gets in the way of admitting being wrong. Moreover, one will be more able to have empathy with the interlocutor's feelings and the way they are connected to certain views. This does not necessarily lead one to agree with the interlocutor, but it can help to conduct the conversation in a more productive manner.

The importance of context

The enacted cognition or enactivism approach emphasizes thinking as an activity and as something that is co-shaped by interaction with the environment. Thinking cannot be separated from our ability to interact with our environment. Moreover, manipulating our environment leads to new sensory impressions, which gives us new information that in turn can lead to new actions. Thinking is inextricably linked to this coupling between ourselves and our environment. The embedded cognition or embedded cognition approach is sometimes also called situated cognition or situated cognition. Central to this approach is the fact that thinking always happens in a particular environment or context and depends on this context. Thinking is not an abstract activity, but is embedded in a specific context that makes cognition possible.

In the critical thinking literature, there have been great debates about the extent to which critical thinking can be seen as a skill in its own right. In other words, does it make sense to talk about "critical thinking" as if it were a subject that can be taught like geography? Or should we rather think of "critical thinking" as something that cannot be separated from specific subjects? "Critical thinking" within mathematics may not be the same as "critical thinking" within history. While the debates are still ongoing, there is consensus on the indispensable role of factual knowledge about the domain under consideration. There are few, if any, supporters of classical critical thinking who will claim that a course in critical thinking transforms someone into a kind of super-thinker who will suddenly be able to say relevant things in all debates. (Although it should be added that in certain cases this idea still seems to play a role implicitly, either in the way critical thinking is presented, or in the way self-proclaimed “critical thinkers” behave in public discourse.)  Nevertheless, the idea often still seems to prevail that one can teach critical thinking in isolation, after which it is just a matter of adding the relevant factual knowledge. Again, this is linked to the Cartesian ideas we discussed above. However, research shows that critical thinking classes are more effective when students get to work with concrete real-life examples, rather than abstract problems or texts prepared for a critical thinking course. Connecting this with the insights from embodied thinking, situated thinking teaches us that it is best for students to practice thinking critically in different contexts and on different topics. There is no point in pigeonholing critical thinking into one box or one subject and hoping that students will then naturally understand how to apply it in a specific context.

Beyond individualism: distributed critical thinking

Situated cognition assumes that thinking is always embedded in a particular environment. Extended cognition takes this a step further and argues that certain objects or external actions can be part of the thinking process. An often-cited example is that of using pen and paper to perform a complicated multiplication. A related approach to extended cognition is that of distributed cognition or distributed thinking. This emphasizes the social and material nature of thinking and points to examples where a group and tools together can be seen as a thinking entity solving a problem. In a work on navigational practices on a naval ship, cognitive scientist Edwin Hutchins shows how the crew manages to successfully navigate the ship. Navigation happens through the interplay between instruments and crew members. All contribute to solving the problem, but no one part of the system possesses all the knowledge of or a complete overview of the process. Thinking is distributed or divided between instruments and crew members.[11]

The notion of distributed thinking provides a counterweight to the individualism implicit in the classical interpretation of critical thinking. It makes us aware of the fact that not every individual must and can possess all relevant knowledge. It also shows us how a group of people can solve certain problems through cooperation. Distributed thinking thus shows us not only the inevitability but also the productive side of relying on the knowledge of others. It thus provides a framework for reflecting with students on how, in practice, we often (if not always) have to rely on the knowledge of others. At the same time, we can thereby show that this trust need not necessarily be blind. From the perspective of distributed thinking, it is not a problem that we as individuals are unable to justify every possible claim. The crucial question is whose knowledge and expertise we can rely on. This opens an opportunity to address in class the fact that we rely on so-called experts in our daily lives. We can also address the fact that within science, an important degree of trust in the work of colleagues is crucial. At the same time, trust is something that can always be violated. Indeed, there are plenty of examples of experts making mistakes or scientists committing fraud. Trust always involves a certain amount of risk. It is important not to gloss over this risk. If we put up an image of scientists as prophets who always speak the truth or the scientific enterprise as some kind of factory of infallible facts, we give ammunition to conspiracy theorists and science denialists. Any example of error or doubt can then be used to either cast doubt on science as a whole or to present an alternative false certainty as real science.

So from the perspective of distributed thinking, the question is not only, "What risk is there in relying on the knowledge of others?" but also, "What risk is there in not wanting to rely on the knowledge of others?" If we are unwilling to rely on the expertise of others, we as a society will have to miss out on a lot of things. Rather than framing "critical thinking" in terms of being able to individually justify views, distributed thinking invites us to think about how we as a society can minimize possible breaches of trust. Rather than an individual responsibility, critical thinking then also becomes a social, distributed responsibility. Here there is then an opportunity to go deeper with students into social mechanisms that already exist to enable this kind of distributed critical thinking and the way they are institutionalized in our society. These include issues such as freedom of the press, freedom of expression, peer review in science, research committees and so on. From the lens of situated thinking, we can be further inspired to transpose this to the school context of students. How can concrete steps be taken there to enable distributed critical thinking?

From the school context to the social context

Here, however, we encounter an inherent limitation to teaching critical thinking from the 4E perspective. The school is also a specific context, which is itself embedded in a broader context. This means, on the one hand, that learning to think critically within a school context does not automatically lead to the ability to think critically within a social context. Moreover, there are not only social mechanisms that promote critical distributed thinking, but also mechanisms that counteract it. As a teacher, you have no control over these mechanisms once students have left the school gate. Take the online debating culture. On Twitter, debates more often revolve around attacks and counterattacks. The mechanism does not encourage nuance. Likes and retweets are not gained by admitting you are wrong or taking a nuanced position, but by taking bold positions or highlighting your opponent's mistakes. Investigative journalist Max Fisher's book The Chaos Machine (2022) shows how social media administrators did take the lessons of embodied cognition to heart, albeit with less positive consequences.[12] Social media companies get their biggest revenue from ads. The more people use social media, the more users see ads. Anger appears to be one of the emotions that encourages people most to interact with certain posts and thus to (continue to) use the media. Consequently, in most debates on Twitter, people are bent on verbally tackling their opponent as quickly as possible, rather than an exchanging views and trying to understand each other's point of view.

It is not my intention here to offer a cultural pessimistic discourse on the demise of debate culture. But anyone who recognizes the importance of emotions and habit formation for thinking cannot help but worry about the effects such mechanisms have. We see similar effects not only on social media, but also in traditional media. In recent decades, these have increasingly had to hold their own in a digitized context. The phenomenon of the clickbait article is the most visible consequence of this. But public debate as it takes place in the traditional media also seems to have less and less room for nuance. Debates still take place, of course, but often only take the form of a back-and-forth discussion between a clearly delineated pro and con side. Anyone with any experience of writing such pieces knows that it is easier to publish a piece with an outspoken position or a clear attack than a more moderate (and therefore often more complex) piece. Recently, a number of pieces appeared in De Morgen highlighting the role the media plays in the polarization of politics.[13]

As a teacher, it will therefore be important to make students aware of these mechanisms and teach them skills and habits that enable them to resist. At the same time, the analysis shows the limits of the teacher's influence. From a 4E perspective, it is not enough as a society to focus on teaching critical thinking within the school context. There are also mechanisms outside school that ensure that certain behavior is acquired or unlearned. If we distance ourselves from an individualistic view of critical thinking, we see that it is not enough to try to transform pupils into critical thinkers if they end up in a context in which critical thinking is made impossible. If we really want to commit to teaching critical thinking, we will also have to retrain ourselves as a society.

---

[1] Michiel De Vos, interviewed by Pieter Gordts, “‘Dit land is politiek ziek’, Amerika-correspondent Michiel Vos na de aanval op zijn schoonvader Paul Pelosi”, De Morgen, 30-10-2022, https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/dit-land-is-politiek-ziek-amerika-correspondent-michiel-vos-na-de-aanval-op-zijn-schoonvader-paul-pelosi~b871ec75/.

[2] Rien Emmery, “"Een samenzwering van kwaadaardige reptielen": ophef in Nederland over uitspraken van politicus en complotdenker Thierry Baudet”, VRT NWS, 18-10-2022, https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2022/10/17/baudet-reptielen/, consulted 07-11-2022.

[3] Barbara J. Thayer-Bacon, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively. New York and London: Teachers College Press, 2000.

[4] See for example bell hooks, Teaching To Transgress. New York: Routledge, 2014.

[5] Richard Paul, ‘Teaching Critical Thinking in the “Strong” Sense: A Focus On Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis’. Informal Logic 4, no. 2 (1981): 2–6. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v4i2.2766, pp. 2-3.

[6] Amerikaans filosoof Andy Norman: ‘Het trumpisme is een soort immuunstoornis’”, De Morgen, interview by Joël de Ceulaer, 14 oktober 2022, https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/amerikaans-filosoof-andy-norman-het-trumpisme-is-een-soort-immuunstoornis~b7ff0901/, consulted 2/11/2022.

[7] Stefaan Blancke, “Kritisch denken kritisch bekeken: tijd voor meer vertrouwen?”, humanistischverbond.be, 22 Juli 2020, https://humanistischverbond.be/blog/354/kritisch-denken-kritisch-bekeken-tijd-voor-meer-vertrouwen/, consulted 2/11/2022.

[8] Ibid.

[9] In an influential meta-analysis from 2015, the authors emphasize the necessity of further research and also point at the complexity of undertaking research on critical thinking, due to the fact that it is often defined differently in different contexts. See Philip C. Abrami, Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Persson. ‘Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-Analysis’. Review of Educational Research 85, no. 2 (2015): 275–314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551063.

[10] For an overview, see Albert Newen, Leon De Bruin, and Shaun Gallagher, eds. The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. See also Mark Rowlands, The New Science of the Mind. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2010.

[11] Edwin Hutchins, Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1996.

[12] Max Fisher,The Chaos Machine: The Inside Story of How Social Media Rewired Our Minds and Our World (London: Hachette UK, 2022)

[13] Brent Bellefroid, “Aan de pers wil ik zeggen: negeer die ruziemakers in de politiek”, De Morgen, 26 oktober 2022, https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/aan-de-pers-wil-ik-zeggen-negeer-die-ruziemakers-in-de-politiek~b33e2ceb/, consulted 07-11-2022; Bart Eeckhout, “Het idee dat nabijheid van politici de kloof met de burger zou dichten, is ontspoord: over de stap opzij van Kitir”, De Morgen, 19 oktober 2022, https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/het-idee-dat-nabijheid-van-politici-de-kloof-met-de-burger-zou-dichten-is-ontspoord-over-de-stap-opzij-van-kitir~b499939a/, consulted, 07-11-2022.

* In recent literature, a more sympathetic reading of Descartes has emerged, pointing towards a more embodied Cartesian philosophy. For a discussion of this literature, see Barnaby R. Hutchins, Christoffer Basse Eriksen, and Charles T. Wolfe. 2016. ‘The Embodied Descartes: Contemporary Readings of L’Homme’. In Descartes’ Treatise on Man and Its Reception, edited by Delphine Antoine-Mahut and Stephen Gaukroger, 287-304. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46989-8_18.