from the editors 

in this issue 

The world does seem to be divided into 
lumpers and splitters-those determined to 
find common features shared by things nor-
mally considered disparate, and those who 
take delight in drawing distinctions between 
things ordinarily grouped together. Some 
theorists are inclined to lump informal logic 
and critical thinking together; others think 
they should be split apart. For purposes of 
strict theoretical fidelity, we need to get the 
lumps and the splits right, and if informal 
logic and critical thinking belong in two 
separate fields, then so be it. But for purposes 
of intellectual nourishment and cross-
fertilization, we think it best to place the two 
of them in the same forum, without worry-
ing too much about theoretical purity. Cer-
tainly that is the editorial policy of this jour-
nal, regardless of its current name. . 

All of this is both to make a general pomt, 
and to introduce the articles gathered by 
serendipity into this issue-three by title on 
critical thinking, and the fourth by content at 
home in critical thinking . 

Mark Weinstein offers a wide theoretical 
perspective in which to situate critical think-
ing. He is after The Big Picture. Tziporah 
Kasachkoff gives a critique of some standard 
analyses, plus her recommended revisions, of 
a couple of concepts situated centrally in the 
field: explaining and justifying. Her aim is to 
Correct the Conceptual Map. Karen Warren 
questions some assumptions of critical think-
ing from a feminist perspective. Her objec-
tive is to Correct the Conceptual Focus. And 
Arthur Millman takes the widespread conten-
tion that attitudes are essential to critical think-
ing and tries to give it more substance than 
it has sometimes received. His project is to 
Fill in the Details. 

The Reply in this issue by Roderick Girle 
is his response to Seale Doss's critique of for-
mal logic in his article, "Three Steps Toward 
a Theory of Informal Logic," in Vol. VII, 
Nos. 2&3 (Spring and Fall 1985), 127-135. 

a plea 

We were recently at a conference of jour-
nal editors, where we learned (surprise! sur-
prise!) that no journal has enough subscribers. 
But we really do not have enough subscribers! 
Perhaps due to our former dilatoriness-now 
a thing of the past, as faithful subscribers 
know-this journal reaches only a tiny frac-
tion of its potential audience. Will you do 
what you can to help by encouraging col-
leagues and other friends to subscribe? 

don't throwaway your informal logic 
mailing envelope yet! 

Since informal logic has been getting 
caught up, more than one Volume has been 
appearing during the calendar year and in con-
sequence more than one bill has been issued 
to subscribers paying by the single Volume . 
In the circumstances it is natural for some 
confusion to arise about just what your 
subscription payments have covered. On your 
mailing label, in the upper righthand corner, 
there is a capital letter followed by a slash, 
followed by a number . The letter to the left 
of the slash is a code for internal ad-
ministrative purposes, and need not concern 
you. The number to the right of the slash 
is for your information as a subscriber. 
That number is the number of the latest 
volume for which your subscription is paid 
up, according to our records. Thus the code 
"PlIO" , "SIlO" or "1/10" means that your 
are paid up to the end of Volume X (the 
volume of which this issue is the first 
number). If the number following the slash 
is "09" then you owe for Volume X. If the 
number following the slash is " II " or " 12" , 
then you are paid up not only for Volume X, 
but also for Volume XI or Volume XII, 
respectively . It is time to send a payment to 
continue your subscription when you have 
received the third issue of the Volume whose 
number corresponds to that number on your 
mailing label. If you already threw away your 
envelope and you are unsure of where your 
subscription stands, please write to the 
Managing Editor and he will gladly inform 
yoo . 0