Reviewing a couple wee guides to critical thinking.

One of the first things that happens when you get a faculty mailbox in a philosophy department is that unsolicited items start appearing in it. There are the late student papers, the book catalogs, the religious tracts — and occasionally, actual books that, it is hoped, you will like well enough that you will exhort all your students to buy them (perhaps by requiring them for your classes).

Today, I’m going to give you my review of two little books that appeared in my faculty mailbox, both from The Foundation for Critical Thinking. The first is The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools, the second The Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation, both written by Richard Paul and Linda Elder.

Continue reading

Experience, common sense, and a guy who probably shouldn’t be answering the phone.

I must report the following, although the protagonist wants to be left out of it. (I will allow as how the protagonist has a credit card, lives in my house, and isn’t me, but I won’t divulge any further identifying details.)
Anyway, it starts out as one of those FedEx horror stories — far too common to merit a blog post — but then turns into some sort of parable about common sense. I may, however, need your help in teasing out just what the moral of the story is.

Continue reading

Marketing philosophy to admitted students.

My university had events on campus today for newly admitted students. My department tapped me (and two of our fabulous philosophy students) to man the Philosophy Department table at the College of Humanities and Arts open house.
Hundreds of admitted students — many with their parents — milling around in a room with such enticing major departments as English & Comparative Literature, Art & Design, Music & Dance (yes, the cool ones have ampersands), and we were supposed to sell Philosophy.
We opted for brazenness, and wrote in big letters on the white-board/easel we had brought with us:

Continue reading

Being Socratic is nothing without the hemlock?

Do people routinely assert that the tools and activites of your field are utterly worthless in real life? Do they go so far as to say that what you’re doing is worse than nothing, because it distracts from the real tasks that need tackling?
Or is it mostly just philosophers who get this kind of reaction?
While there are some issues on which some philosophers focus that don’t have what I’d describe as wide appeal (problem of universals, anyone?), I’d like to think at least some of what philosophy has to offer is portable to all manner of questions and thus could be useful in real life. But perhaps I’m mistaken. So, let’s kick off the debate:

Continue reading

In the case that we need a geek taxonomy …

You may as well know that I’m as susceptible to peer pressure as the next geek.
This means that even though I myself was dismissive about the prospects for creating an accurate and/or useful taxonomy of my people in the tribe of science, now that my sibling ScienceBloggers are soliciting information to flesh out the taxonomies of anthropologists, physicists, and biologists, I don’t want to be left out.

Continue reading