Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Dr. Howard Gabennesch’s “no-holds-barred” critical thinking
|
For his students, Dr. Howard Gabennesch’s name is synonymous with critical thinking. “Back in 1968 I read a book called Invitation to Sociology by an important sociologist named Peter Berger, and that really got me started in what I would later come to realize consciously, and articulate explicitly, as critical thinking,” Gabennesch said. Though critical thinking has influenced his teaching from the start, he has specifically incorporated it into his teaching in the last 15 years. “I started off using a critical thinking approach to teaching sociology, and then I realized the biggest contribution I could make to my students’ education was to use sociology as an instrument to teach critical thinking,” he said. “That’s how I’ve viewed my teaching goals ever since.” His article, “Critical Thinking: What is it Good for? (In Fact, What is it?),” will appear in a forthcoming issue of Skeptical Inquirer: The Magazine for Science and Reason. In the article, Gabennesch discusses his approach to critical thinking, in which “everything is scrutinized and there are no sacred cows.” “My understanding of critical thinking is quite a bit different and broader than the standard,” he said. His concept starts with the cognitive skills dimension, but also includes what he calls the worldview and values dimensions. He writes: “Proficiency on the skills dimension is essential for anyone who claims to be a critical thinker, but one could excel at reasoning while failing at other dimensions of critical thinking.” A skeptic’s worldview In the article, Gabennesch quotes Berger: “It can be said that the first wisdom of sociology is this – things are not what they seem.” “I would alter the wording slightly – things are not always entirely what they seem – and propose it as the first wisdom of critical thinking,” Gabennesch writes. “The recognition that the world is often not what it seems is perhaps the key feature of the critical thinker’s worldview.” He offers “no-holds-barred” examples to illustrate the fact that we often underestimate the extent to which things are not what they seem: • From the beginning, AIDS has been exaggerated as a significant threat to heterosexuals in the U.S. • It is far from clear that Abraham Lincoln cared deeply about social equality between whites and blacks. • Martin Luther King, Jr. cheated on his doctoral dissertation and on his wife. • We fall out of love with our children less often than with our lovers/spouses because our children carry our genes. • Despite what is widely assumed by professionals in the counseling and education industries, self-esteem has not been shown to be causally related to academic and behavioral outcomes. Giving ideas that one finds personally distasteful their day in court requires a third aspect of critical thinking: the values dimension. Intellectual due process The values dimension of critical thinking can be the most difficult aspect of all, because it requires the ability to “disconnect one’s head from one’s gut,” as Gabennesch often tells his students. He lists some of the requirements of the values dimension: • Being unwilling to subordinate one’s thinking to orthodoxies that demand to be swallowed whole - at the risk of being charged with heresy; • Refusing to dismiss possible merits in ideas that otherwise may be deeply repugnant - at the risk of appearing immoral; • Being capable of saying “I don’t know” - at the risk of appearing unintelligent; • Being willing to judge the truth value of ideas sponsored by demographic and cultural groups to which one does not belong - at the risk of being accused of prejudice; • Being willing to change one’s mind - at the risk of appearing capricious; • Being open to the arguments of adversaries - at the risk of appearing disloyal; • Having an acute awareness of the limits and fallibility of one’s knowledge - at the risk of seeming to suffer from that dreaded malady, low self-esteem. “Subjecting ideas to intellectual due process can require more integrity, humility, tolerance of uncertainty, and courage than most of us find easy to summon,” he writes. Is it worth it? In Gabennesch’s view, the benefits of critical thinking outweigh the social costs. He quotes Stephen Jay Gould, “…unless we rigorously use human reason…we will lose out to the frightening forces of irrationality, romanticism, uncompromising ‘true’ belief, and the apparent resulting inevitability of mob action…Skepticism is the agent of reason against organized irrationalism - and is therefore one of the keys to human social and civic decency.” Gabennesch writes, “So by cultivating genuine critical thinking, we strengthen the crucial underpinnings of democracy. People who are careful about the truth are less likely to be fooled by the ideologies that justify illiberal practices or promise simple solutions. “Moreover, such people are more likely to recognize the value of intellectual and ideological diversity - they understand that the truth comes in pieces and is unlikely to be found in one place…Ultimately, intellectual due process is no less integral to democracy than is due process of law.” Barnes & Noble Booksellers and Borders Books & Music in Evansville carry Skeptical Inquirer. Copies also can be ordered on the Web. |
Copyright © 2013 University of Southern Indiana. All rights reserved.