Maughn Rollins Gregory

Crash Course in Logic is a booklet designed to introduce basic principles of logic and critical thinking to students so they can better express their ideas. Many high school and college students have trouble constructing theoretical arguments and writing clearly because they are not acquainted with the forms of reasoning that are presented in this booklet. Intended as a supplement to other instructional material for a variety of courses, this booklet will guide students through a mini-course on logic that includes many examples and exercises. With knowledge of the basic forms of reasoning, students will have the tools necessary to solve problems and evaluate arguments as well as articulate their own ideas and insights clearly. Crash Course in Logic will be of great value to teachers of any subject who are searching for an accessible way to teach critical thinking and reasoning to their students

In pragmatist social theory communities faced with significant troubles or opportunities inquire after their advantage and reconstruct their habits and their environments. Three programs of philosophical practice—Socratic Dialogue, the Philosophy Café and Philosophy for Children—cultivate citizenly virtues necessary for this process. They facilitate dialogue and open-ended inquiry, give practice in cognitive and social skills, and institute shared authority. However, certain factors limit the programs’ effectiveness for citizenship education. They tend to construe social problems and opportunities in strictly discursive terms; they do not encourage empirical experiment with philosophical judgments; and they do not extend the shared governance of the dialogue to other aspects of social life. None of these are limitations of the programs’ stated objectives.

John Dewey was not a philosopher of education in the now-traditional sense of a doctor of philosophy who examines educational ends, means, and controversies through the disciplinary lenses of epistemology, ethics, and political theory, or of agenda-driven schools such as existentialism, feminism, and critical theory. Rather, Dewey was both an educator and a philosopher, and he saw in each discipline reconstructive possibilities for the other, famously characterizing "philosophy . . . as the general theory of education" (1985, p. 338). Dewey wanted each discipline to overcome its tendency to alienate knowledge and theory from experience and reconstruct itself as an enterprise aimed at personal and collective ..

Gregory reports on an evaluation study of nine different educational programs for small-group discussion, funded by the US Department of Education. The researchers evaluated Philosophy for Children very highly on each of the five discourse features: (1) Teachers' and students' use of authentic questions, uptake and questions that elicited high-level thinking (generalization, analysis and speculation); (2) Teachers' and students' use of questions that elicited extra-textual connections (affective, intertextual, and shared knowledge); (3) Students' elaborated explanations; (4) Students' exploratory talk; and (5) Use of "reasoning words" such as "because," "so," "if," "I think," "dis/ agree," in contexts of verbal reasoning.

As conceived by founders Matthew Lipman and Ann Margaret Sharp, Philosophy for Children is a humanistic practice with roots in the Hellenistic tradition of philosophy as a way of life given to the search for meaning, in American pragmatism with its emphasis on qualitative experience, collaborative inquiry and democratic society, and in American and Soviet social learning theory. The programme has attracted overlapping and conflicting criticism from religious and social conservatives who don’t want children to question traditional values, from educational psychologists who believe certain kinds of thinking are beyond children of certain ages, from philosophers who define their discipline as theoretical and exegetical, from critical theorists who see the programme as politically compliant, and from postmodernists who see it as scientistic and imperialist. The paper is written as a dialogue in order to illustrate the complex interactions among these normative positions. Rather than respond to particular criticisms in depth, I indicate the general nature of my position regarding them and provide references to published material where they have been made and responded to over the past 40 years.