Science for Education Today, 2024, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 100–123
© Golubinskaya A. V., Viakhireva V. V., 2024
UDC: 
165.021+37.015.31+159.928.235

Fundamental theoretical conflicts in the science of critical thinking

Golubinskaya A. V. 1 (Nizhny Novgorod, Russian Federation), Viakhireva V. V. 1 (Nizhny Novgorod, Russian Federation)
1 Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod
Full text (Open Access) — Downloaded 105
Abstract: 

Introduction. The article explores the reasons for the lack of scientific consensus on critical thinking. Despite the fact that this concept has become one of the key ones for modern culture, it has not been properly defined, and organizational decisions remain controversial. In this article, we propose to focus not on the gaps in our knowledge of critical thinking, but on finding the reasons for what exactly prevents consensus on these issues. The purpose of the article is to establish fundamental uncertainties and theoretical conflicts in the science of critical thinking that prevent the solution of terminological and organizational aspects of the problem.
Materials and Methods. The study is theoretical in nature and is based on an agnological approach to the analysis of expert ignorance (R. Proctor, S. Feirstein, etc.). This approach combines traditional methods of logical and philosophical analysis, but is used when the purpose of the study is not to fill the gap in knowledge, but to find explanations why exactly we do not know what we do not know. In order to achieve this goal, the subjects of scholarly debates regarding critical thinking were identified and the prerequisites on which conflicting concepts are based were analyzed.
Results. The study found that the existing organizational debates about how critical thinking should be taught in educational institutions are derived from discussions at a fundamental level. The authors conclude that modern research on critical thinking, despite its apparent thematic proximity to each other, actually reflects different, yet incompatible approaches to nature, psychological mechanisms and standards of critical thinking.
Conclusions. The research led to the conclusion that reaching consensus on practical issues, such as the way to organize critical thinking training, requires prior resolution of fundamental theoretical conflicts about the nature, psychological mechanisms and socio-cultural standards of critical thinking.

Keywords: 

Critical thinking; Uncertainty mapping; Anthological research; The nature of critical thinking; Transferring critical skills; Standards of critical thinking; Approach of involvement; Specialized approach; Naturalism of critical thinking; Constructivism of critical thinking; Universalism of critical skills; Relativism of critical skills

For citation:
Golubinskaya A. V., Viakhireva V. V. Fundamental theoretical conflicts in the science of critical thinking. Science for Education Today, 2024, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 100–123. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2402.05
References: 
  1. Pozdnyakov M. V. Critical thinking: Its essence and presence in the educational programs of Russian universities. Tomsk State University Journal, 2023, no. 492, pp. 68–75. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/492/8 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=55367883
  2. Ennis R. Incorporating critical thinking in the curriculum: An introduction to some basic issues. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 1997, vol. 16 (3), pp. 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryctnews199716312
  3. Wright I. Challenging students with the tools of critical thinking. The Social Studies, 2002, vol. 93 (6), pp. 257–261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00377990209600175
  4. Gann D. A few considerations on critical thinking instruction. The Journal of Saitama City Educators, 2013, vol. 3 (3), pp. 14–18. URL: https://www.academia.edu/4212254/A_Few_Considerations_on_Critical_Thinking_Instruction
  5. Schreglmann S., Karakuş M. The effect of educational interfaces on the critical thinking and the academic achievement. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 2017, vol. 13 (3), pp. 839–855. DOI: http://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.290420
  6. Taghinezhad A., Riasati M. J. The interplay of critical thinking explicit instruction, academic writing performance, critical thinking ability, and critical thinking dispositions: an experimental study. IJERI: International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, 2020, vol. 13, pp. 143–165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46661/ijeri.4594
  7. Zulkifli H., Hashim R. Philosophy for children (P4C) in improving critical thinking in a secondary moral education class. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 2020, vol. 19 (2), pp. 29–45. DOI: http://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.2.3
  8. Williams R. L., Worth S. L. The relationship of critical thinking to success in college. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 2001, vol. 21 (1), pp. 5–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryctnews200121123
  9. Arisoy B., Aybek B. The effects of subject-based critical thinking education in mathematics on students' critical thinking skills and virtues. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 2021, vol. 92, pp. 99–119. DOI: http://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2021.92.6

10. Willingham D. T. Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy Review, 2008, vol. 109 (4), pp. 21–32. DOI: http://doi.org/10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32

11. Halpern D. F. Teaching for critical thinking: Helping college students develop the skills and dispositions of a critical thinker. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1999, vol. 80, pp. 69–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/TL.8005

12. Lehman D. R., Lempert R. O., Nisbett R. E. The effects of graduate training on reasoning: Formal discipline and thinking about everyday-life events. American Psychologist, 1988, vol. 43 (6), pp. 431–442. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.43.6.431

13. Pettersson H. De-idealising the educational ideal of critical thinking. Theory and Research in Education, 2020, vol. 18 (3), pp. 322–338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878520981303

14. Dwyer C. P. An evaluative review of barriers to critical thinking in educational and real-world settings. Journal of Intelligence, 2023, vol. 11 (6), pp. 105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11060105

15. Bensley D. A. Critical thinking, intelligence, and unsubstantiated beliefs: An integrative review. Journal of Intelligence, 2023, vol. 11 (11), pp. 207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11110207

16. Ritola J. Philosophical issues in critical thinking. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1480

17. Pettersson H. From critical thinking to criticality and back again. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 2023, vol. 57 (2), pp. 478–494. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopedu/qhad021

18. Larsson K. On the role of knowledge in critical thinking—using student essay responses to bring empirical fuel to the debate between ‘generalists’ and ‘specifists’. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 2021, vol. 55 (2), pp. 314–322. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12545

19. Leś T., Moroz J. More critical thinking in critical thinking concepts (?) A constructivist point of view. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 2021, vol. 19 (1), pp. 98–124. URL: http://www.jceps.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/19-1-4.pdf

20. Gross M. The unknown in process: Dynamic connections of ignorance, non-knowledge and related concepts. Current Sociology, 2007, vol. 55 (5), pp. 742–759. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392107079928

21. Wehling P. Why science does not know: A brief history of (the notion of) scientific ignorance in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Journal for the History of Knowledge, 2021, vol. 2 (1), pp. 6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jhk.40

22. Firestein S. Sharing the resources of ignorance. Routledge international handbook of ignorance studies (Ed. M. Gross, L. McGoey). Routledge, 2022, pp. 113–117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003100607

23. Firestein S. Ignorance: How it drives science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. URL: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ignorance-9780199828074, URL: https://books.google.ru/books?id=SrK7iS3E8nAC&dq

24. van Gelder T. Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching, 2005, vol. 53 (1), pp. 41–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.1.41-48

25. Baumeister R. The psychology of irrationality: Why people make foolish, self-defeating choices. The Psychology of Economic Decisions: Rationality and Well-Being, 2003, pp. 3–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199251063.003.0001

26. Gracheva D. A. Analysis of task comparability in digital environment by the case of metacognitive skills. Psychological Science and Education, 2022, vol. 27 (6), pp. 57–67. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2022270605 URL https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=50359714

27. Koenig M. A., Echols C. H. Infants' understanding of false labeling events: The referential roles of words and the speakers who use them. Cognition, 2003, vol. 87 (3), pp. 179–208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00002-7

28. Pea R. D. Origins of verbal logic: Spontaneous denials by two-and three-year olds. Journal of Child Language, 1982, vol. 9 (3), pp. 597–626. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000900004931

29. Mascaro O., Sperber D. The moral, epistemic, and mindreading components of children’s vigilance towards deception. Cognition, 2009, vol. 112 (3), pp. 367–380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.012

30. Couillard N. L., Woodward A. L. Children's comprehension of deceptive points. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1999, vol. 17 (4), pp. 515–521. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1348/026151099165447

31. Wimmer H., Perner J. Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception. Cognition, 1983, vol. 13 (1), pp. 103–128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5

32. Dacey A. Come now, let us reason together: Cognitive bias, individualism, and interactionism in critical thinking education. Informal Logic, 2020, vol. 40 (1), pp. 47–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v40i1.6024

33. Janssen E. M. Teaching critical thinking in higher education: Avoiding, detecting, and explaining bias in reasoning. Utrecht University: 2020. 231 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33540/351

34. Lamont P. The construction of “critical thinking”: Between how we think and what we believe. History of Psychology, 2020, vol. 23 (3), pp. 232–251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/hop0000145

35. Gilbert D. T., Krull D. S., Malone P. S. Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1990, vol. 59 (4), pp. 601–613. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.601

36. Brashier N. M., Marsh E. J. Judging truth. Annual Review of Psychology, 2020, vol. 71 (1), pp. 499–515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050807

37. Porot N., Mandelbaum E. The science of belief: A progress report. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2021, vol. 12 (2), pp. e1539. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1539

38. Markovsky B., Cetina K. K. Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Contemporary Sociology, 2000, vol. 29 (3), pp. 556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2653984

39. Böschen S., Kastenhofer K., Marschall L., Rust I., Soentgen J., Wehling P. Scientific cultures of non-knowledge in the controversy over genetically modified organisms (GMO): The cases of molecular biology and ecology. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 2006, vol. 15 (4), pp. 294–301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.15.4.12

40. Böschen S., Kastenhofer K., Rust I., Soentgen J., Wehling P. Scientific non-knowledge and its political dynamics: The cases of agri-biotechnology and mobile phoning. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 2010, vol. 35 (6), pp. 783–811. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243909357911

41. Heidler R. Epistemic cultures in conflict: The case of astronomy and high energy physics. Minerva, 2017, vol. 55 (3), pp. 249–277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9315-3.

42. Papoulias S. C., Callard F. Material and epistemic precarity: It's time to talk about labour exploitation in mental health research. Social Science & Medicine, 2022, vol. 306, pp. 115102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115102

43. Keller R., Poferl A. Epistemic cultures in sociology between individual inspiration and legitimization by procedure: Developments of qualitative and interpretive research in German and French sociology since the 1960s. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2016, vol. 17 (1), pp. 14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-17.1.2419

44. Münster S., Terras M. The visual side of digital humanities: a survey on topics, researchers, and epistemic cultures. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 2020, vol. 35 (2), pp. 366–389. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqz022

45. Stine G. Skepticism, relevant alternatives, and deductive closure. Philosophical Studies, 1976, vol. 29, pp. 249–261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00411885

46. Arum R., Roksa J. Limited learning on college campuses. Society, 2011, vol. 48, pp. 203–207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-011-9417-8

47. Dumitru D. Critical thinking and integrated programs. The problem of transferability. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012, vol. 33, pp. 143–147. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.100

48. Heijltjes A., Van Gog T., Paas F. Improving students' critical thinking: Empirical support for explicit instructions combined with practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2014, vol. 28 (4), pp. 518–530. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3025

49. van Peppen L. M., Verkoeijen P. P. J. L., Kolenbrander S. V., Heijltjes A. E. G., Janssen E. M., van Gog T. Learning to avoid biased reasoning: Effects of interleaved practice and worked examples. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2021, vol. 33 (3), pp. 304–326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2021.1890092

50. van Peppen L. M., Verkoeijen P. P. J. L., Heijltjes A. E. G., Janssen E. M., van Gog T.  Enhancing students’ critical thinking skills: Is comparing correct and erroneous examples beneficial? Instructional Science, 2021, vol. 49 (6), pp. 747–777. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09559-0

51. Monteiro S., Sherbino J., Sibbald M., Norman G. Critical thinking, biases and dual processing: The enduring myth of generalisable skills. Medical Education, 2020, vol. 54 (1), pp. 66–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13872

52. Boreham N. C. The dangerous practice of thinking. Medical Education, 1994, vol. 28 (3), pp. 172–179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1994.tb02695.x

53. Marewski J. N., Gaissmaier W., Gigerenzer G. We favor formal models of heuristics rather than lists of loose dichotomies: A reply to Evans and over. Cognitive Processing, 2010, vol. 11, pp. 177–179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-009-0340-5

54. Kornienko A. A. Expert knowledge in the generated risk society: The conceptual aspect. Bulletin of Tomsk State University. Philosophy. Sociology. Political Science, 2018, vol. 43, pp. 69–79. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17223/1998863X/43/6 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=35424555

Date of the publication 30.04.2024