Philosopher Michael Bergmann (Purdue) calls my attention to this essay that tries to debunk claims regularly made by philosophy departments about the benefits of learning critical thinking and analysis, as reflected, in part, in standardized test scores. (A sidenote: the author Neven Sesardic is a right-wing crank who has even written a whole book expressing disbelief that philosophers might not all be anti-Marxist zealots like he is. I even make a brief appearance in the book, based on a fraudulent misrepresentation of a post on this blog. Be that as it may, this piece should stand or fall on its own merits, though be advised that honesty may not be this guy's strong suit.)
Here's the crux of the piece, once you get past all the huffing and puffing:
In reality, however, there is no justification for such claims. Getting higher test scores after studying philosophy does not show that higher scores are the result of studying philosophy. For all we know, it may be that philosophy students are brighter than average to begin with, and that this is why they perform so well on the tests. If that were true, their high scores would have nothing to do with their studying philosophy courses. Therefore, as long as this alternative hypothesis is not ruled out, no inference about practical benefits of philosophy is logically permissible….
Notice the irony. In their very attempt to promote philosophy as a great way to improve one’s critical thinking and logic, philosophers have so massively fallen prey to one of the most common and easily detectable logical fallacies—post hoc, ergo propter hoc (that is, A is followed by B, therefore, A caused B). This should give us pause about rushing to accept the idea that philosophy improves thinking.
But wait, doesn’t philosophy focus very heavily on logic, analysis of arguments, fostering a critical approach, etc.? Shouldn’t this fact alone make us expect that exposure to philosophy would almost certainly lead to some improvement in thinking and reasoning skills? Not necessarily.
In other words, there is no evidence adduced that philosophy does not have the benefits claimed; the only claim is that alternative explanations for the data have not been ruled out. (Sesardic says "there is no justification for such claims," but he hasn't shown that at all.) It is possible that training in philosophy does not have the salutary effects claimed. It is also possible that it does have these effects: after all, as Sesardic recognizes, the subject-matter would seem to be related to acquiring certain kinds of analytical skills that might manifest themselves in precisely the data noted. Is it really a failure of "philosophical reasoning" for departments on their websites to note the correlation and assume it is an instance of causation? Might this just not be prudence on behalf of a discipline that does, in fact, teach useful intellectual skills, but is too often derided by outsiders?
Sesardic's primary method of argument is well-illustrated by this passage:
Prominent Yale philosopher Shelly Kagan writes that “of all the various fields and disciplines, there is one field that most centrally emphasizes the skills in question [improved critical thinking, communicating and being creative and original], and it is, indeed, philosophy” and that “one reason to study philosophy is that there is nothing better at improving your ability to think for yourself…” (He offers no justification for these claims.)
Can Sesardic really not think of a justification? Here's a possibility: read a good philosopher on some topic, and then read a non-philosopher on the same topic. Repeat for different topics. I have an hypothesis: one might notice that the quality of argument, analysis and clarity is superior in the philosophical writing. (I disagree with Kagan that philosophers are more creative and original, that is just empty self-congratulation.)
Professor Bergmann suggested I open this for discussion. The discussion will be moderated; only comments related to the issues raised by the essay are invited. Comments may take awhile to appear; please be patient.
Leave a Reply to Roger Albin Cancel reply