Robert ennis

In their interesting and stimulating papers Professors McCarthy and Norris analyze critical thinking from different standpoints. McCarthy attempts to justify the teaching, non-teaching, testing andnon-testing of various aspects of critical thinking at various times. Norris urges the empirical study of critical thinking topics. Each paper has strengths and weaknesses. I shall elaborate.McCarthy, using for the most part an ordinary language approach, distinguishes between episodic and dispositional terms, suggesting that ‘critical thinking’ is only an episodic term, while ‘criticalthinker’ and ‘rationality’ incorporate dispositions (which are not episodes; they are tendencies to behave in certain ways in episodes). She attaches pedagogic significance to this distinction, holding thatwe can teach and test episodic critical thinking, but that we neither can nor should attempt to teach or test for dispositional rationality.

Although McCarthy is correct in identifying thisepisodic sense of ‘critical thinking,’ the word is also used as a label for an area of curricular concern — at least an ability or body of abilities that we attempt to teach. Abilities are not episodes. Itis similar with the word ‘reading.’ The word ‘reading’ can be applied to a particular episode, as in “I am reading this paper,” but we do also try to teach reading in school, just as we try to teachcritical thinking.

In fact her limitation interferes with one of her points. She wants to teach “the episodic ‘critical thinking,’” but that does not make sense. You do not teach episodes. Youteach people how to do well, and to do well, in episodes. That is, you teach skills, abilities, dispositions, and the like.

McCarthy also deals with Harvey Siegel’s attempts to justify criticalthinking. If I understand her correctly, I agree with her points, and made similar ones in an exchange with Siegel several years ago.1

Furthermore, McCarthy argues against the direct teaching of...