Book Review INFORMAL LOGIC XIY.2&3, Spring & Fall 1992 Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking and Education by Harvey Siegel GARETH B. MATTHEWS University of Massachusetts/Amherst Siegel, Harvey. Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking and Education. New York and London: Routledge, 1988, paperback, 1990, 191pp. + xiii. Harvey Siegel's little book is a gem. In his almost ideally lucid discussion of criti- cal thinking, Siegel displays the virtues of the very activity he has under discussion. Without having to rely on jargon or canned formulations, Siegel first lays out and assesses the major competing concep- tions of critical thinking; he then develops and defends his own conception and, in succeeding chapters, answers effectively two important objections that have been offered against critical thinking as an edu- cational objective. In the final two chapters of his book Siegel applies his conception of critical thinking to two important issues in educational practice: (a) whether science education should be based on Thomas Kuhn's characterization of science and (b) whether it is a good idea to test students at specified stages in their schooling for "minimum competency." In a postscript, Siegel offers a brief sketch of a theory of rationality. In Chapter I Siegel presents and criti- cizes (1) Robert Ennis's "pure skills" con- ception of critical thinking, (2) Richard Paul's more holistic and philosophical conception, and (3) John McPeck's subject-specific conception. At the end of Chapter I and throughout Chapter 2 Siegel presents and defends (4) his own "reasons" conception of critical thinking. Siegel finds Ennis's detailed considera- tion of distinct proficiencies in critical thinking both admirable and helpful; but he considers Ennis's idea that critical thinking consists simply in the tendency to utilize such proficiencies too confining. As for Paul, Siegel argues that his conception relies too much on philosophically conten- tious issues about world-views, egocen- trism and self-deception. No doubt it would have been appropri- ate at this point in Siegel's review to con- sider the unabashedly philosophical approach to critical thinking advocated by Matthew Lipman through his Philosophy- for-Children Program. That might have forced him and his readers to consider why, exactly, it is unfortunate, if indeed it is unfortunate, to make one's conception of critical thinking rely on philosophically contentious issues or concepts. Instead, Siegel moves directly to McPeck, whom he criticizes for claiming that "teaching critical thinking simpliciter is a conceptual impossibility. tI (19) Siegel rejects McPeck's claim and his "insistence that logic (formal or informal) is either largely or entirely irrelevant to critical thinking." (24) Siegel's own suggestion is that "a criti- cal thinker is one who is appropriately 206 Gareth B. Matthews moved by reasons." (23) He argues that such a person "must have a good under- standing of, and the ability to utilize, prin- ciples governing the assessment of reasons." (34) Such principles include sub- ject-specific principles, as McPeck empha- sizes, but also subject-neutral ones, that is, logical and methodological principles. So the study of logic belongs to the study of critical thinking. But being "appropriately moved by reasons" is supposed to mean, not just knowing principles, but much more besides; it also means having atti- tudes, dispositions, habits and traits of character that express a "critical spirit-" For Siegel, critical thinking is not just one academic subject among others; it is also a regulative ideal for all true educa- tion. Siegel seeks to justify this ideal as an expression of respect for students, as a way of empowering students to create their futures, and as a needed preparation for democratic citizenship. In Chapter 4 Siegel considers, and re- jects (for what seem to be good reasons) the objection that educational ideals like critical thinking, or rationality, cannot be justified independently of a prior ideologi- cal commitment. In Chapter 5 he considers and rejects (again, for what seem to be good reasons) the objection that "a student [must] become indoctrinated in order to become a critical thinker." (78) In Chapter 6 Siegel explains how the conception of science that Thomas Kuhn presents in his influential work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is "in_ compatible with the ideal of critical think- ing." (93) Siegel then criticizes, boldly, what be calls "Kuhnian science education" for being relativistic; he defends, in its place, "critical science education." Although Siegel's position here is very attractive, I must say that the issues raised by Kuhn's account of scientific revolution are far too intricate and complex to be dealt with satisfactorily in the short com- pass Siegel allows himself. Finally, in Chapter 7, Siegel attacks the practice of testing students at selected grade levels to determine their mastery of specified competencies. His objection to this practice is that such testing assumes that "education is a matter of getting students to master the mechanics of linguistic and computational skills, and sufficient occupational skills for holding a place in the current economic order." (125) To anyone who is, like Siegel, committed to critical thinking as a central educational ideal, such goals will be much too limited. There is unlikely to be a more crisply stated or cleanly argued position on critical thinking than the one presented in this lit- tle book. Of course Harvey Siegel has not written the final word on this topic. There can be justified protests from those who in- sist that critical thinking must be taught in a more richly philosophical setting than Siegel allows. And there can be reasonable objections that his position on science edu- cation is based on a discredited picture of how science really works. More generally, some readers will find Siegel's ideal thinker ("one who is appro- priately moved by reasons") too rationalis- tic to be attractive. There is surely room for a conception of critical thinking that re- quires critical thinkers to open even their most deeply-held beliefs to the scrutiny of critical examination, yet does not require of their motivational structure that it rest on reasons "all the way down." Still, this is a splendid book. Many readers will be persuaded by it. And those who are not will be forced by the sheer clarity of Siegel's presentation to say exactly what they disagree with and why. GARETH B. MATlHEWS DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS/AMHERST AMHERST, MA 01003 0