Critical Thinking

This article analyses letters to the editor written on or about Muslims printed in a British broadsheet newspaper. The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation is applied as a model for explaining and understanding the arguments employed in the sampled letters. Our presentation of pragma-dialectical theory focuses on argumentative reasonableness. More specifically, we introduce the four dialectical stages through which any argument must pass and explain the ten rules of critical discussion that participants must follow throughout if they are to resolve the (...) argument. The article focuses in particular on the letter writers' use of argument schemes-that is, the manner in which these writers use arguments to support their standpoints. We conclude by highlighting the role that unreasonable arguments can play in perpetuating racialized inequalities and hence the importance of analyzing argumentation. (shrink)

In the centennial year of John Dewey’s classic, Democracy and Education (1916), this paper revisits his thesis of the reciprocity of means and ends, arguing that it remains of central importance for debate over the aims of education. The paper provides a Dewey-inspired rebuttal of arguments for an ‘ultimate aim,’ but balances this with a development of the strong overlaps between proponents of pragmatism, intellectual virtues education (Jason Baehr) and critical thinking education (Harvey Siegel). Siegel’s ‘Kantian’ justification of critical thinking (...) as an ultimate aim is critiqued, and contrary to Siegel’s ‘generalist’ focus on logic, the paper concludes with specific suggestions for how the study of ecological rationality and dual-process theories (Gerd Gigerenzer; Keith Stanovich and others) should impact how we teach for critical thinking dispositions. (shrink)

This paper provides an empirical defense of credit theories of knowing against Mark Alfano’s challenges to them based on his theses of inferential cognitive situationism and of epistemic situationism. In order to support the claim that credit theories can treat many cases of cognitive success through heuristic cognitive strategies as credit-conferring, the paper develops the compatibility between virtue epistemologies qua credit theories, and dual-process theories in cognitive psychology. It also a response to Lauren Olin and John Doris’ “vicious minds” thesis, (...) and their “tradeoff problem” for virtue theories. A genuine convergence between virtue epistemology and dual-process theory is called for, while acknowledging that this effort may demand new and more empirically well-informed projects on both sides of the division between Conservative virtue epistemology (including the credit theory of knowing) and Autonomous virtue epistemology (including projects for providing guidance to epistemic agents). (shrink)

Many theories about the teaching of logic and critical thinking take for granted that theoretical learning, the learning of formal rules for example, and its practical application are sufficient to master the tools taught and to take the habit of using them. However, this way of teaching is not efficient, a conclusion supported by much work in cognitive science. Approaching cognition evolutionarily with dual-process theories allows for an explanation of these insufficiencies and offers clues on how we could teach critical (...) thinking and logic more efficiently. In this article, we want to present this approach and explore these leads in order to make some pedagogical recommendations and lay the foundations of a framework. We will put forward an example of the application of this research program with philosophy for children. (shrink)

على الرغم من المحاولات الحثيثة أو المستمرة، في الفكر الغربي، كما في الفكر العربي، للتمييز بين النقد والانتقاد، ولتأكيد إيجابية النقد، لا سلبيته، ما زال الخلط أو اللبس بين النقد والانتقاد قائمًا وبارزًا، في كثيرٍ من الأحيان، حتى في بعض النصوص التي تتضمن محاولة القيام هذا التمييز¬، ولا زالت النظرة السلبية إلى النقد طاغيةً أو حاضرةً بقوةٍ، لدرجةٍ سمحت لفيصل دراج بالقول: «النقد في زماننا شبهة، ممارسة مشبوهة، فعل سيء الصيت.» وقبل مناقشة هذه النظرة السلبية للنقد، وربطها بالفكر النقدي عند (...) العظم، لا بد من التأكيد أن الخلط أو الالتباس بين النقد والانتقاد ليس قائمًا في اللغة العربية والفكر العربي فحسب، بل هو موجودٌ وبقوةٍ في اللغات الأجنبية (الإنكليزية والفرنسية والألمانية) والفكر الغربي عمومًا. -/- وإذا عدنا إلى "معجم اللغة العربية المعاصرة"، نجد في مادة "ن ق د": «نقد الشيء: بيَّن حسنه ورديئه، أظهر عيوبه ومحاسنه [...].» هنا يبدو أن النقد يتناول السلبيات والإيجابيات، لكن سرعان ما نجد: «نقَد الناس: أظهر ما بهم من عيوب [...].» هنا يصبح النقد مختصًّا بما هو سلبيٌّ فقط. والأمر ذاته نجده في شرح فعل "انتقد" والكلمات المرتبطة به اشتقاقيًّا (انتقاد، انتقادي ...إلخ): «انتقد الكتاب وغيره: أظهر عيوبه ومحاسنه، [...]. انتقد سلوك صديقه: استنكره وأبدى رأيًا شاجبًا له [...]. أسلوب انتقادي: يتميز بحدة النقد وإظهار المساوئ دون الالتفات إلى نقاط القوة.» فتارةً يتجسَّد الانتقاد في "إظهار العيوب والمحاسن"، وتارةً أخرى يتمثَّل في "إظهار المساوئ" فقط. -/- والالتباس ذاته تقريبًا موجودٌ في المصطلحات أو المفردات الإنكليزية والفرنسية والألمانية المعبرة عن النقد و/أو الانتقاد، ومعظم ترجماتها العربية. فإذا قبلنا التمييز الشائع بين مفردتي "critique" و"criticism" الإنكليزيتين (وسنقتصر هنا على وضع المقابل الإنكليزي، مع الإشارة إلى انطباق هذا التحليل اللغوي، انطباقًا كاملًا تقريبًا، على اللغتين الفرنسية والألمانية) على أساس أن الأولى تعني النقد (بمعنى إظهار الإيجابيات والسلبيات)، والثانية تعني الانتقاد (الاقتصار على إظهار السلبيات)، فإن هذا التمييز – الذي يستسهل بعض الكتَّاب( ) تبسيطه وإخفاء إشكاليته، أو يوحون، قصدًا أو عن غير قصدٍ، بوجود هذه البساطة – يتداعى إلى حدٍّ كبيرٍ، إذا أخذنا بعين الاعتبار، ليس فقط السيرورة التاريخية لنشوء واستخدام هذين المصطلحين( )، وإنما أيضًا دلالاتهما المتداخلة حاليًّا (من المعلوم أن "criticism"( ) تعني أيضًا النقد المختص أو "النقد الأدبي")، وإحالتهما، في اللغات الإنكليزية والفرنسية والألمانية، إلى فعلٍ واحدٍ "criticize أو criticise"، للتعبير عن فعلي "نَقَدَ" و"انتَقد" في اللغة العربية، وإلى صفةٍ واحدةٍ "critical"، للإشارة إلى ما هو "نقدي" و"انتقادي"، وإلى فاعلٍ، أو اسم فاعلٍ، واحدٍ "critic"، للإشارة إلى "الناقد" و"المنتقد". -/- كيف تعامل العظم - وهو المتقن للغات الأجنبية الثلاث المذكورة آنفًا - مع هذا التداخل الدلالي بين النقد والانتقاد؟ وإلى أيّ حدٍّ، وبأيّ معنىً، اتخذ، أو لم يتَّخذ، النقد عنده طابعًا أحاديًّا، من خلال الاقتصار على السلبيات فقط، أو على الإيجابيات فقط؟ وهل يمكن للتركيز على السلبيات، وإهمال الإيجابيات، أن يكون إيجابيًّا، أو ألا يكون سلبيًّا في المحصلة، على ما في ذلك من مفارقةٍ أو تناقضٍ ظاهريٍّ؟ إنَّ الإجابة عن هذه الأسئلة وغيرها يستلزم التحديد الدقيق والمتعدد المستويات أو الأبعاد، في الوقت نفسه، لمعاني كلٍّ من "النقد" و"الانتقاد" و"الإيجابي" و"السلبي"، إلخ. ويمكن لتعدد التحديدات أو التعريفات أن يسمح بإجابةٍ مركبةٍ وغنيةٍ متعددة المستويات عن هذه الأسئلة السابقة وما يماثلها، بحيث يكون النقد، على سبيل المثال، عند العظم، سلبيًّا على مستوىً أو أكثر، وإيجابيًّا على مستوىً أخر أو أكثر. وهذه الإجابات التي تأخذ شكل "نعم ولا" هو الأقرب إلى ما يمكن أن نسميه ﺒـ "الإجابة الفلسفية"، وهي في كل الأحوال، ليست غريبةً على الفلسفة، كما يؤكِّد العظم. -/- ولتوضيح مدى سلبية و/أو إيجابية النقد عند العظم، ومعنى أو معاني هذه السلبية و/أو الإيجابية، عمومًا، والعلاقة بين بعض صيغ النقد و/أو الانتقاد خصوصًا، سنستند إلى أربعة معايير مختلفةٍ أو متمايزةٍ نسبيًّا: التسويغ أو عدم التسويغ، المحايثة أو المفارقة، التركيز المتوازن على السلبيات والإيجابيات معًا، أم التركيز على السلبيات أو الإيجابيات فقط، وجود أو عدم وجود غرض أو هدف إيجابي. إن المحاكمات أو التقييمات التي تتسم بأنها مسوَّغة، و/أو محايثة، و/أو تركز، تركيزً "متوازنًا، على السلبيات والإيجابيات، و/أو التي تستهدف تحقيق أمر إيجابيٍّ، هي أقرب إلى ما يمكن تسميته، في هذا السياق، بالنقد؛ أما المحاكمات أو التقييمات التي تتسم بأنها غير مسوَّغةٍ، و/أو مفارقةٌ أو خارجيةٌ أو غير محايثةٍ، و/أو تقتصر على التركيز على السلبيات، و/أو لا تستهدف تحقيق أمرٍ إيجابيٍّ، فهي أقرب إلى ما يمكن تسميته، في هذا السياق، بالانتقاد. ومن الواضح أنه، واستنادًا إلى كل المعايير المذكورة، يكون النقد إيجابيًّا، أو أقرب إلى ما هو إيجابيٌّ، مقارنةً بالانتقاد الذي يكون سلبيًّا أو أقرب إلى ما هو سلبيٌّ. لكن تغير معاني السلبي والإيجابي أو "ماصدقاته"، يسمح لنا بزحزحة إشكالية العلاقة بينها (بين قيم السلب والإيجاب ومعانيها) بما يساعدنا على إبراز إيجابية ما نعدُّه، من منظورٍ آخر، سلبيًّا، وإبراز سلبية ما نعده، من منظورٍ آخر، إيجابيًّا. ويبقى أن نلفت الانتباه إلى أن محاولة التمييز بين مفهومي أو فكرتي النقد والانتقاد لا تهدف، ولا ينبغي أن تهدف، إلى الفصل الحاد أو الكامل بينهما؛ إذ يمكن النظر إلى بعض (وربما كل) صيغ الانتقاد على أنها مجرد أنواعٍ متميِّزةٍ من النقد، بوصفه حكمًا تقييميًّا في خصوص موضوعٍ ما. (shrink)

يتمحور البحث حول نقد صادق جلال العظم للتابوهات، عمومًا، وللتابو الجنسي، خصوصًا، وينطلق البحث من التشديد على أهمية النقد في فكر العظم، على مستويي؛ التنظير له، وممارسته في معظم أو جل أعماله، ليحاول، بعد ذلك، إبراز تلك الممارسة النقدية في ميدان التابوهات عمومًا، وتابو الجنس خصوصًا، وانطلاقًا من ذلك؛ تتمثل الأسئلة الأساسية التي يحاول البحث الإجابة عنها، في الآتي: ما أهمية النقد عمومًا، ونقد التابوهات خصوصًا، في فكر العظم؟ ما العلاقة بين النقد والتحريم، من منظور العظم؟ وإلى أي حدٍّ، وبأي (...) معنىً سعى العظم إلى تجاوز (الخطوط الحمر) في نقده لثالوث التابوهات (الجنس والدين والسياسة)؟ ما الذي ينقده العظم، تحديدًا، في ميدان التابو الجنسي؟ وما هي الإشكاليات الأساسية التي يتضمنها ويثيرها هذا النقد؟ للإجابة عن هذه الأسئلة؛ ستتجسد مقاربتنا المنهجية لنصوص العظم، في ما يمكن تسميته ﺒـ "الهيرمينوطيقا النقدية"؛ فهي هيرمينوطيقا، أو تتّصف بالسمة الهيرمينوطيقية، ليس بسبب بعدها التأويلي الصريح، أو اعتمادها على التأويل فحسب، (فبهذا المعنى، كل مقاربةٍ أو دراسةٍ هي هيرمينوطيقيةٌ، لأنها تأويليةٌ بالضرورة)؛ وإنما بسبب افتراضها، أيضًا، أن هذه النصوص تتضمن دلالاتٍ متكاملةً، تجسِّد كليةً متسقةً أو متناسقة العناصر، يمكن الإمساك بها، انطلاقًا من "المقاصد المعلنة" للكاتب، وعلى هذا الأساس، سنحاول، في عرضنا ومناقشتنا لنقد التابو (الجنسي) عند العظم، أن نستند، بالدرجة الأولى، إلى تنظير العظم نفسه حول هذه المسألة؛ أي إلى أقواله المحدَّدة وآرائه الصريحة في هذا الخصوص، قبل أن نضع هذه الرؤية النظرية في مواجهةٍ ثنائيةٍ: مع ذاتها من جهةٍ، (ضمن إطار ما يمكن تسميته بالنقد المحايث)، ومع انتقادات بعض المفكرين الذين دخلوا في حوارٍ أو سجالٍ معه، ومع رؤيتنا للواقع أو الفكر الذي يحاول العظم دراسته، (في إطار ما يمكن تسميته بالنقد الخارجي)، من جهةٍ أخرى. وهذه المواجهة النقدية المزدوجة مع ما هو محايث لفكر العظم، ومفارقٌ له، هي التي تمثِّل أساس البعد النقديِّ في دراستنا لهذا الفكر. (shrink)

لا جدال في مركزية أو أهمية ممارسة النقد والتنظير له في فكر العظم. وللوصول إلى فهمٍ أوليٍّ لهذه الأهمية وتلك المركزية، سنعمل، في هذا النص، على إبراز الصلة الوثيقة لممارسة النقد والتنظير له، في فكر العظم، بخلفيته أو نزعاته العلمية أو العلموية والتنويرية واليسارية – الماركسية؛ ثم سنقوم بتوضيح أو تأكيد الارتباط الوجودي أو الضروري، لهذه الممارسة وذاك التنظير، بسمة أو بحالة «الأزمة» الملازمة للواقع والفكر العربيين المعاصرين.

How are biases encoded in our representations of social categories? Philosophical and empirical discussions of implicit bias overwhelmingly focus on salient or statistical associations between target features and representations of social categories. These are the sorts of associations probed by the Implicit Association Test and various priming tasks. In this paper, we argue that these discussions systematically overlook an alternative way in which biases are encoded, that is, in the dependency networks that are part of our representations of social categories. (...) Dependency networks encode information about how features in a conceptual representation depend on each other. This information determines the degree of centrality of a feature for a conceptual representation. Importantly, centrally encoded biases systematically disassociate from those encoded in salient-statistical associations. Furthermore, the degree of centrality of a feature determines its cross-contextual stability: in general, the more central a feature is for a concept, the more likely it is to survive into a wide array of cognitive tasks involving that concept. Accordingly, implicit biases that are encoded in the central features of concepts are predicted to be more resilient across different tasks and contexts. As a result, the distinction between centrally encoded and salient-statistical biases has important theoretical and practical implications. (shrink)

This is the full version of the Delphi Report on critical thinking and critical thinking instruction at the post-secondary level.

How does one know one's own beliefs, intentions, and other attitudes? Many responses to this question are broadly empiricist, in that they take self-knowledge to be epistemically based in empirical justification or warrant. Empiricism about self-knowledge faces an influential objection: that it portrays us as mere observers of a passing cognitive show, and neglects the fact that believing and intending are things we do, for reasons. According to the competing, agentialist conception of self-knowledge, our capacity for self-knowledge derives from our (...) rational agency—our ability to conform our attitudes to our reasons, and to commit ourselves to those attitudes through avowals. This paper has two goals. The first is exegetical: to identify agentialism's defining thesis and precisely formulate the agentialist challenge to empiricism. The second goal is to defend empiricism from the agentialist challenge. I propose a way to understand the role of agency in reasoning and avowals, one that does justice to what is distinctive about these phenomena yet is compatible with empiricism about self-knowledge. (shrink)

Paper presented at the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking meeting in conjunction with the Central Division of the American Philosophical Association, Chicago, April 2004.

The outcome of criticism is a perception. Does this mean that criticism cannot count as a rational process? For it to do so, it seems it would have to be possible for there to be an argument for a perception. Yet perceptions do not seem to be the right sort of item to serve as the conclusions of arguments. Is this appearance borne out? I examine why perceptions might not be able to play that role, and explore what would have (...) to be true of critical discourse for those obstacles to be circumvented. (shrink)

The protests at the Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA) that began in November 2014 as a reaction to severe cuts in the department of humanities have sparked a broad debate nationally and even internationally about the future of the university and the values and ideals that should define it. It turned out that dissatisfaction was much more widespread in different parts of the university than some had previously thought, and many turned out to share the concerns first put forward in the (...) humanities department, to extend beyond the borders of the university and the country. Increasing focus on getting as many students as possible to graduate promptly has shifted the attention ever more towards quantitative indicators for the evaluation of education rather than qualitative ones, leading to raising the question of whether the quality of education has suffered from these priorities. How did this come about and what could be done to improve this quality? In this essay we briefly consider the history of the university as an institute that aims to combine research and education, subsequently mentioning some more recent challenges for the university, finishing it with a brief description of a ‘circulation model of education’ that we consider to be a fruitful source for answering some of the challenges we identified from the current discussions. In this model circulation rather than unidirectional traffic occurs between different elements: circulation between research and education, between insights of teachers and of students, between disciplines, between general and contextualized knowledge, between disciplinary and experi- ential knowledge, between doing research and (meta-)reflection upon research, and so on. (shrink)

There are empirical grounds to doubt the effectiveness of a common and intuitive approach to teaching debiasing strategies in critical thinking courses. We summarize some of the grounds before suggesting a broader taxonomy of debiasing strategies. This four-level taxonomy enables a useful diagnosis of biasing factors and situations, and illuminates more strategies for more effective bias mitigation located in the shaping of situational factors and reasoning infrastructure—sometimes called “nudges” in the literature. The question, we contend, then becomes how best to (...) teach the construction and use of such infrastructures. (shrink)

The subject of the paper is a polemic between Leonard Nelson and Ernst Cassirer mainly concerning the understanding of the critical method in philosophy. Nelson refutes the accusation of psychologism and attacks the core of the philosophy of the Marburg School of Neo-Kantianism. In response to those allegations, Cassirer feels obliged to defend the position of his masters and performs this task brilliantly. The present paper considers similarities and differences in the positions of both sides in this debate. I try (...) to evaluate the arguments of both sides and argue that they took basically the same positions, while the existing discrepancies did not justify such an intense polemic. If the disputing sides had approached the discussion in a less emotional way, it could have led to substantive and interesting conclusions. (shrink)

The paper is devoted to an analysis of the epistemology of Johannes Volkelt, its main arguments and the relation of Volkelt's theory of certainty to Kant and other contemporary philosophers, such as Edmund Husserl. Volkelt's problem of scepticism is closely related to the positivist principle, which aimed at limiting all knowledge to our individual sphere of representations. This principle in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason means the unknowableness of the thing in itself. Volkelt seeks for answer to the question about (...) the trans-subjective knowledge. He finds a basis for the certainty in the dispresuppositional theory of the transsubjective minimum. The acceptance of the trans-subjective minimum determines too the possibility of metaphysics. (shrink)

We argue that common knowledge, of the kind used in reasoning in law and computing is best analyzed using a dialogue model of argumentation (Walton & Krabbe 1995). In this model, implicit premises resting on common knowledge are analyzed as endoxa or widely accepted opinions and generalizations (Tardini 2005). We argue that, in this sense, common knowledge is not really knowledge of the kind represent by belief and/or knowledge of the epistemic kind studied in current epistemology. This paper takes a (...) different approach, defining it in relation to a common commitment store of two participants in a rule-governed dialogue in which two parties engage in rational argumentation (Jackson & Jacobs 1980; van Eemeren & Grootendorst 2004). A theme of the paper is how arguments containing common knowledge premises can be studied with the help of argumentation schemes for arguments from generally accepted opinion and expert opinion. It is argued that common knowledge is a species of provi- sional acceptance of a premise that is not in dispute at a given point in a dia- logue, but may later be defeated as the discussion proceeds . (shrink)

This article brings forth a new perspective concerning the relation between stupidity and thinking by proposing to conceptualise the state of non-thinking in two different ways, situated at the opposite ends of the spectrum of thinking. Two conceptualisations of stupidity are discussed, one critical which follows a French line of continental thinkers, and the other one which will be called educational or ascetic, following the work of Agamben. The critical approach is conceptualised in terms of seriality of thinking, or thinking (...) captured by an apparatus, whereas the ascetic-educational approach is discussed by tracing the links between studying and stupidity. Both accounts assume that stupidity as non-thinking is a condition for thinking, either placed before thinking emerges or as an after-thought. However, the political implications concerning the role of philosophy in the public realm are divergent: for the critical approach, the task of the philosopher is to criticise the world, whereas for the ascetic approach, the task is to work on one’s own self and hope that the world will be changed through thinking. The wider aim of this article is to contribute to the debate concerning the public role of the intellectual starting from the assumption that there is a duty to think publicly and then clarifying what this duty entails in relation to the self and the others. (shrink)

This book (128 pp.) serves as an introduction and manual to guide students through the interdisciplinary research process. We are becoming increasingly aware that, as a result of technological developments and globalisation, problems are becoming so complex that they can only be solved through cooperation between multiple disciplines. Healthcare, climate change, food security, energy, financial markets and quality of life are just a few examples of issues that require scientists and academics to work in a crossdisciplinary way. As a result (...) of these developments, an interdisciplinary approach is becoming increasingly popular in higher education and must be considered an absolute necessity. Young academics are being called on to step beyond the boundaries of traditional disciplines in order to contribute to addressing fundamental problems and solving challenges facing society. There is a need for people who are not afraid to ask critical questions, who can work together well and can look beyond the boundaries of their own field. This means students need to learn more about how they can integrate and apply knowledge, methods and skills from different fields. Interdisciplinary research projects and practical training courses offer students more than one perspective on the same subject. Comparing and contrasting, connecting, adding and adapting concepts, theories and methodologies from different disciplines ultimately results in new insights and better answers to complex problems. (shrink)

It is quite common to object to an argument by saying that it “proves too much.” In this paper, I argue that the “proving too much” charge can be understood in at least three different ways. I explain these three interpretations of the “proving too much” charge. I urge anyone who is inclined to level the “proving too much” charge against an argument to think about which interpretation of that charge one has in mind.

La oposición a una estricta separación entre las dimensiones dialéctica y retórica de la actividad argumentativa es una de las aportaciones más destacadas y peculiares de la denominada escuela holandesa sobre argumentación. Frans H. van Eemeren y Peter Houtlosser reaccionaron contra una separación estricta entre dialéctica y retórica en varios trabajos, pero uno de los más inspiradores es sin duda su artículo “William the Silent’s argumentative discourse” (1998) presentado en la ciudad de Ámsterdam con ocasión de la cuarta conferencia organizada (...) por la International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). Sobre este tema siguieron investigando para presentar un análisis de la perspectiva dialéctica inherente al caso de Guillermo I de Orange en un congreso de la Japan Debate Association en Tokio (van Eemeren y Houtlosser, 2000). (shrink)

Our thesis is that reasoning plays a greater—or at least a different—role in understanding oral discourse such as lectures and speeches than it does in understanding comparatively long written discourse. For example, both reading and listening involve framing hypotheses about the direction the discourse is headed. But since a reader can skip around to check and revise hypotheses, the reader’s stake in initially getting it right is not as great as the listener’s, who runs the risk of getting hopelessly lost. (...) We also consider how representing the content of discourse and dealing with its pragmatic logic differs in reading and listening. (shrink)

In their book EVALUATING CRITICAL THINKING Stephen Norris and Robert Ennis say: “Although it is tempting to think that certain [unstated] assumptions are logically necessary for an argument or position, they are not. So do not ask for them.” Numerous writers of introductory logic texts as well as various highly visible standardized tests (e.g., the LSAT and GRE) presume that the Norris/Ennis view is wrong; the presumption is that many arguments have (unstated) necessary assumptions and that readers and test takers (...) can reasonably be expected to identify such assumptions. This paper proposes and defends criteria for determining necessary assumptions of arguments. Both theoretical and empirical considerations are brought to bear. (shrink)

Research using current literature on legal reasoning was conducted with the goals of (a) determining what skills are most important in good legal reasoning according to such literature, (b) determining the extent to which existing Law School Admission Test item types and subtypes are designed to assess those skills, and (c) suggesting test specifications or new or refined item types and formats that could be developed in the future to assess any important skills that appear [by (a) and (b)] to (...) be measured in a limited or minimal way by the current LSAT. So far as can be determined, such systematic research using legal reasoning literature has never been previously conducted. This report presents the findings of this research. (shrink)

In his book, On Reflection, Hilary Kornblith criticizes what he regards as a chronic tendency in philosophy towards inflating the significance of reflection in ways that manifest a combination of philosophical naiveté and scientific ignorance about how reflection actually works. In these comments, I respond to Kornblith's challenge by sketching an account of the philosophical significance of reflection in the theory of epistemic justification.

This chapter is guided by the hypothesis that the point and purpose of using the concept of justification in epistemic evaluation is tied to its role in the practice of critical reflection. In section one, I propose an analysis of justification as the epistemic property in virtue of which a belief has the potential to survive ideal critical reflection. In section two, I use this analysis in arguing for a form of access internalism on which one has justification to believe (...) a proposition if and only if one has higher-order justification to believe that one has justification to believe that proposition. In section three, I distinguish between propositional and doxastic versions of access internalism and argue that the propositional version avoids familiar objections to the doxastic version. In section four, I argue that the propositional version of access internalism also explains and vindicates internalist intuitions about cases. In section five, I conclude with some reflections on the relationship between critical reflection, responsibility and personhood. (shrink)