++ Chapter 34 Philosophy and Cognitive Psychology. Contrasting Assumptions Abstract This paper was originally writen forthe Associaton for Saperision an Curiae Development (ASCD) ming, held at Wingspread in 1987 to discus he ASCD publica tar Diensionsof Tanking. Init Paul ertgue the book fore pedagogical and theo retical bias toward a cognitive pycholgial aproach 0 thking. bus tht largely ‘gnore the connbutions of plorophy a well ae thor of afecve and socal piychlo 1 Paul coms the very diferent assumpion thal pilsophers and cognitive pyc ‘gists mae when nayzing the naar of inking ne of the major objectives of the authors of Dimensions of Thinking was to pro duce 2 comprehensive, theoretically balanced, and pedagogically useful thirk- ing skills framework. Unfortunately, the value of the present framework i lim ited by its bias in every important respect toward the approach of cognitive psychology. Virtually all of the research cited, the concepts and terminology used, and the recommendations mado for implementation are taken from the ‘writings of scholars working principally in cognitive psychology. The work and perspective of many of the philosophers concerned with thinking is minimally reported. Those whose work isnot significantly used inelude these: Michael Scriven, Harvey Siegel, Mortimer Adler, John Passmore, Israel Scheffler, Mark Weinstein, R. 5: Peters, Ralph Jobson, J. Authouy Blas Stephen Norris, John Dewey, Vincent Ruggiero, Edward D'Angelo, Perry Weddle, Sharon Bailin, Lenore Langsdort, T. Edward Damer, Howard Kahane. Nicholas Rescher, Paulo Freire, Rol Freeman, John Hoaglund, Gerald Nosich, Jon Adler, name some who come readily to mind) Nor does Dimensions of Thinking incorporate significant philosophical ‘contributions to our understanding of thinking from the great philosophers of the last three hundred years. It fails to mention Immanuel Kant’s work on the mind's shaping and structuring of human experience, Hegel's work on the dialectical nature of human thought, Marx’s work on the economic and ‘ideological foundations of human thought, Nietzsche's illumination of sof: delusion in human thought, or Wittgenstein’s work on the socio-linguistic foundations of human thought. saaPhilosophy and Cogniive Psychology 545 ‘Another perspective conspicuously absent from Dimensions of Thinking is that of affective and social paychology, especially those studies that shed light on the major abstacles or blocks to rational thinking: prejudice, bias, self-deception, desire, fear, vested interest, delusion, illusion, egocentrism, sociocentrism, and ethnocentrism. The significance of this omission should be clear, The point behind the thinking skills movements (in both cognitive pay: chology and philosophy) is not simply to get students to think; all humans think spontaneously and continuously. The problem is to get them to think critically and rationally and this requires insight by students into the nature of uncritical and irrational thought. The massive literature in affective and social psychology bears on this problem; its seminal insights and concepts should be a significant part of any adequate framework for understanding how to reform education to cultivate rational, reflective, autonomous, ‘mpathie thought, (Philosophers, I might add, are often as guilty aa cognitive psychologists of ignoring the work of affective and social psychologists.) Recently, when I did an ERIC search under the descriptors “prejudice or bias or self-deception or defense mechanism”, the search turned up 8,678 articles! ‘This then isa significant omission. ‘More important than the sheer numerical imbalance in scholarship cited Js the imbalance in perspective. There are important differences between ‘those features of thinking highlighted by philosophers in the critical thinking ‘movement and the general approach to thinking fostered by cognitive psy- chologists and the educators influenced by them, And though there is much ‘that each field is beginning to Tearn from the other, that learning can fruit- fully take place only if some of their dffarences are clearly set out and due emphasis given to each. After I have spelled out these differences roughly, 1 will detail what I see as emerging common ground, what I see that givescme hhope that these fields may yet work together. But firs the down side, In thinking of the relatianship between the traditions of cognitive psychol- ogy and philosophy, [am reminded of a couple of remarks by the great 19° Century educator-philosopher John Henry Newman (1912) in his classic Idea of a University 1am not denying, 1am granting, 1am assuming, tat there js reason and teat in the “Yeading ideas” s they are called and “larg views" of scientific ren; Tonly say that, though they speak tut, they do not speak the whole teuth that they speak @ narrow ruth, and think ita broad truth; that theit ddedctions must be eompared with other tths, which are acknowledged 10 be woth, inorder to verity, complete, and comect them. (p. 178) and If diferent studies are useful for aiding, they ar sill more useful for coe recting ech other for as they have thir particular merits severally. s they have their defects. (p.176) In this case, the “scientific” views of cognitive psychologists need to be cor- rected by the insights of philosophers, for the whole truth to be apprehended.546 ‘Conrasrisc Viewnonsts Only when we see the differing emphases, assumptions, and concepts, evan the differing valae priorities of the two disciplines and how the work of ‘those interested in critial thinking reflects them ean we begin to appreciate the distinctive contributions of both cognitive psychology and philosophy to instruction for thinking. Few K-12 educators and their education depart- ‘ment counterparts recognize the possible contribution of philosophy to instruction for thinking because their own educational background was heay- ily biased in favor of psychologically and scientistically-oriented courses. Rarely were they expeded to articulate a philosophical perspective, to reason, ‘and synthesize across distiplinary lines, to formulate their philosophy. More- cover, few feel comfortable with philosophical argumentation and counter- argumentation as a means of establishing probable truth. Well-reasoned philosophical essay's do not seom to them to be research, properly 80 called, because they rarely cite empirical studies. With these thoughts in mind, let us examine 24 contrasting emphases Dotween these two disciplines. I do not assume, of course, that all 24 are always present, but that, on the whole, there is a pattern of differences between the writings of most cognitive peychologists and most philosophers In the ease of Dimensions of Thinking, for example, lam eonfident that had the co-authors been Lipman, Ennis, Scriven, Scheffler, and Paul, a very dif- ferent account of thinking would have emerged, one reflective of the con- traste which [now list. Tendencies of: With respect Cognitive Psychologists Philosopher 1. Approach io tisking Approach thinking Approach thinking nora descriptively. tivly. 2. Methodology Focus on empirical ft. Pocus onthe analysis of gathering. (This snot eases of “well ust- to imply that cognitive fed” thinking im com ‘eychologiss do not least to cates of “poorly formulate theories oF justified” thinking. ‘engage in conceptual snalysis) B. Modes of thinking stud- Focus on expert vesus Focus on rational reflec ied ‘novice thinking, ive thinking, on inter intradiscplinay think disciplinary thinking, ing, and monological, and on molilogical, thinking thinking. ‘Valve emptasis Emphasize the value of Empkasize the values of expertise rationality, autonomy, Selfertism, open mindedness, tu, and empty.