Critique de Choice

This book is a dialogue between McPeck and certain of his critics. McPeck attacks the validity and legitimacy of college courses called "critical thinking" or "informal logic," maintaining that one does not think (or write, or read) in general; one always thinks about something. This viewpoint has a long history, which the author does not cite. The best route to critical thinking, McPeck asserts, is through the disciplines included in a general education: history, mathematics and the sciences, philosophy, literature and the arts, since each of these involves a distinct way of thinking. His critics maintain that there is such a thing as a general strategy for attacking problems, that it can be taught, and that it is useful in everyday life. They accuse McPeck of being too narrow. Repeatedly, they name such problems as crime and alcoholism, pointing out that these do not fall within the confines of any one discipline, and that they therefore require a general strategy. McPeck's reply is that general strategies require familiarity with many ways of knowing, and that these are best grasped through a general education. The argument is lively; the writers come close to namecalling: "vacuous," "naive," "misleading," "false." The book contributes to an important discussion, since "critical thinking" is currently being merchandised widely. Of interest to all those concerned with the content and design of the college curriculum. -A. W. Foshay, Teachers College, Columbia University