A Pedagogical Tool for Teaching Critical Thinking and the Rational Use of Documents

"From these observations on what man has heretofore been, and what he is at present, we shall be led to the means of securing and of accelerating the still further progress, of which, from his nature, we may indulge the hope."
Condorcet, Esquisse d’un tableau historique des progrès de l’esprit humain (Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind), 1795 (p. 4 of foreword).

Abstract: The aim of this article is to introduce a new pedagogical tool consisting of a table showing an evolutionary outline of both critical thinking and the rational use of documents through history. The table shows, by extrapolation into the future, how we can design new "citizen knowledge" in line with our era. Finally, we conclude with the possible impact of this new tool on the future of the collegial institution.
Keywords: training the individual, citizenship education, political and social thought, pedagogy, critical and rational thinking, history, progress.
I have taught philosophy at collegial level since 1990. I came to realize that the teaching of critical thinking goes hand in hand with that of the rational use of documents (or, more generally, of resources, online and off) and that, as a result, the teaching of the latter is essential to meeting the objectives of the philosophy courses. However, how do we teach the most rational use of documents possible to beginners in philosophy? To do this, using the “philosophy and rationality” course as a base, I designed and used a chronological table of the main forms of critical thinking and of the use of documents in history. Since 2001, this pedagogical tool has proven itself indispensable to my teaching.
 

The Table
It is a synoptic table that allows you to, firstly, observe the successive historical forms of critical thinking and then view this alongside the rational use of documents in history (second part of the table).
N.B.: The outline is presented as a pedagogical tool for teaching at collegial level; it is not exhaustive and does not necessarily have demonstrative value in itself. Its value could be notably in its applicability to future aspects of pedagogical or other knowledge (see note 1).
 

Table of the evolutionary outline of critical thinking and of the corresponding form of knowledge

Extrapolation into future eras:

Extrapolation into future eras:

* The Great Hypertext, or hyper-encyclopedia, of citizen knowledge, used here as a hypothesis, is defined as a hyper-accessible encyclopedia, i.e. accessible anywhere in the world, which is also hyper-complete, i.e. as complete and up to date as possible in terms of articles or subjects, and hyper-thorough, i.e. as exact, objective, verified and unambiguous as possible. It does not exist yet, but Wikipedia seems like it could be a future candidate in this regard. Wikipedia currently exists in over 270 languages, has over 21 million articles, of which more than 4.4 million are in English and 1.4 million in French, is consulted by more than 16 million visitors every day, as well as being freely accessible and freely usable everywhere (except in China, where other hyper-encyclopedias are in operation). It is based on wiki technology, which facilitates the creation of articles. The way Wikipedia works (even if it is open to criticism in terms of accuracy) means readers are made aware of accuracy issues by means of very visible critical commentary appearing in a banner or by other means, and elucidating the shortcomings of articles, particularly in regards to references and contents. Students can thereby be encouraged to use information from Wikipedia on the condition, for example, that they evaluate the degree of accuracy involved in using such a source. It therefore seems plausible that the current Wikipedia is evolving long-term into this more hypothetical hyper-encyclopedia, which will represent the scientific knowledge of tomorrow. Cf. Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wikipedia (references included). In addition, several pedagogical projects involving Wikipedia have so far been set up in CEGEPs and French and Swiss colleges and schools:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wikipedia (references included). In addition, several pedagogical projects involving Wikipedia have so far been set up in CEGEPs and French and Swiss colleges and schools: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/cat%c3%a9gorie:projet_p%c3%a9dagogique
 

Explanation of the Table
The first column of the table contains the names of successive eras, each representing an approximate historical period during which thinkers generated certain specific forms of argued criticism in the form of judgments about general beliefs. This criticism focuses on certain types of subjects (column 2) that are added at each new era. In each era, starting from the 2nd (the Pre-Socratic era), there is sometimes a tendency to criticize a new type of subject in particular. We know that certain Pre-Socratic thinkers criticized mythical beliefs (column 2). On the other hand, there is nothing to indicate, based on existing documents, that thinkers of this era criticized racism or sexism, and more generally, social exclusion. In fact, it is even difficult to imagine on what basis they could have done so. It is during the modern period that this criticism would then be founded and developed. The modern period is distinguishable in the table by its relative complexity in terms of criticism and by a conception of knowledge marked by specialization (columns 2 and 3). The fourth column of the table shows the different practical means of accessing knowledge that were added from one era to the next. The large-scale use of printing followed by compulsory education, established during the early stages of modernity in the West, probably played a role in the expansion of the practice of modern criticism since, in the fight against various forms of social exclusion, it became important that knowledge reached the masses. This tendency continued even more with democratic access to higher education and citizen general training—which clearly was and continues to be the mission of the CEGEPs in particular (see note 2). Finally, in the fifth column (see second part of the table), the same table shows the historic succession in the usage type of documents based on their content and form, the most recent becoming dominant, just like the new conception of knowledge that corresponds to it (see note 3).
 

The joint evolution of critical thinking and the rational use of documents
In the case of the Pre-Socratics, being able to learn about mathematical or logical proofs undoubtedly led to the decline of unfounded opinions and beliefs (columns 2 and 3). Then, in the so-called classical period, the existence and diffusion of treatises and philosophical systems, particularly Platonism and Aristotelianism, will have contributed to the propagation of the devaluation of the fragmentary knowledge of the Pre-Socratic schools, including sophisms and argumentations that were now too brief in the eyes of philosophers (idem). In the modern period, specialized research work, firstly in physics (first and foremost, the classical mechanics of Galileo, Newton, etc.), resulted in the rejection of entire chapters of Aristotelian or Ptolemaic classic treatises, particularly astrological works (idem). Refuting such works practically, based on a specialized field of research, enabled a certain legitimacy to be given to the corresponding discipline. This typically modern process was expanded to other fields of research, particularly the social sciences, which enabled the rejection of several other doctrines, including pseudosciences and ideologies, particularly on racial or gender inequality.
 
Era 5: A new citizen knowledge?
Could the table suggest future avenues with regard to critical thinking and the use of documents? In fact, it speaks for itself on several points. As a whole, the table shows that criticism deepens and grows by stigmatizing past forms of knowledge (columns 2 and 3). Each era saw a major overhaul of what had been thought of as rational up until that point, not only in the contents of knowledge, but also in the normal use of documentation.

The two main trends of rational and critical thinking:
a) Criticism progresses: its form and the subjects it covers increase from one era to the next and gradually take on significance (column 2). If this trend continues, we must wait for a new dominant form of criticism to emerge. Based on our table, this would logically be criticism of specialized knowledge in its current form and of the corresponding type of exclusion, intellectual exclusion.
b) A new form of knowledge appears at each stage: Previous forms of knowledge are put into perspective or even rejected (column 3) in each new era based on a certain internal logic in the way they relate to the main works of researchers (column 5). The form and content of these works is directly dependent on the possibilities afforded by the dominant method of accessing documentation (column 4). Based on the table, the next form of knowledge would no longer be that of knowledge which is splintered and dispersed across several independent disciplines (column 3), but that of a unified knowledge capable of representing itself according to its epistemological characteristics and its ethical and political characteristics. This would be, in short, "citizen knowledge". The true scholar would no longer be the focused specialist but a kind of polymorphous researcher whose interests are encyclopedic to some extent.

Based on trend 'a',, it seems likely that new dominant forms of criticism will appear. Where the use of documents is concerned, it is plausible that there will be greater demand for accessibility, diversity and breadth of content. Specialist knowledge would be strongly criticized for the way in which it is inaccessible to any non-experts, including other specialized researchers. This exclusion includes in particular what is already referred to as the digital divide, whether it exists within a society, between regions of the world, or elsewhere. According to the logic of the table (column 2), a new dominant criticism of intellectual exclusion would then impose itself, going hand in hand with criticism of specialized knowledge. As for the use of documents (column 5), not only would we no longer rely on a single work or system, but there would also be a greater tendency towards criticism of the so-called truth based on the sources of a single "scientific" discipline. This would be made possible by means of universal direct access to all documentary resources. The new corresponding type of knowledge may have already begun to appear in domains such as political ecology or gender studies, for example, where multidisciplinarity is seen as indispensable.

Based on trend 'b', the rationality itself of knowledge would be understood differently. The table suggests, in particular, a kind of recycling of the word expertise, the concept of citizen expertise, which goes hand in hand with citizen knowledge, therefore setting itself up in opposition. As such, the "citizen expert" would be capable of producing counter assessments that could be recognized as objectively valuable while being socially or ethically engaged. The table suggests that citizen research will develop progressively in the future and that it will be developed from new types of theories. More precisely, self-criticism of science separated into disciplines with little to no communication between them should gradually come to dominate and this associated unified and "transdisciplinary" (see note 4) type of knowledge would prove to be ever more productive, gradually replacing current teaching methods for the sciences. The expressions "Great Hypertext" or "hyper-encyclopedia" used in the table are a somewhat clumsy attempt to mark the originality of this new type of knowledge. The use of such emphatic expressions in no way means that the history of rational thinking will reach its conclusion. On the contrary, the table indicates the possible existence of various other stages after the fifth.
 

Pedagogical use of the table
The use of a schematic table such as this could never serve as the firm basis of a prediction about the future of knowledge or its teaching. However, one of its most valuable uses is in allowing learning citizens to take risks by asking difficult questions in a relatively simple and deep way and then to outline the answers. The following questions, for example, which can be directly related to the common requirements of the philosophy and rationality course (see note 5), can be asked using the table:
• Show that critical thinking originated among some of the main Greek philosophers
• How and why did science separate into several disciplines while cutting its ties to theology and philosophy?
• An inescapable question when writing an argumentation text: how do we understand today the most rational use of documents possible, whether they are found online or not, and in such a way that your argumentation is able to withstand criticism?
The following questions relate to the requirements of the course in a more indirect way:
• Critique modern science, particularly its splintered nature and its lack of self-criticism
• What can historical trends in critical thinking tell us about the future of citizenship?
Learning citizens can form rational responses based in part on their understanding of the table. This could prove to be not only a valuable tool for teaching critical thinking at collegial level, but we could even hope that, given the general nature of the rational use of documents, its long-term use will spread around the world.
Conclusion
The idea of a fight against intellectual exclusion in the name of general accessibility to education is one of the most fundamental raisons d'être of the collegial institution. It is possible that the latter is consequently given a mission that is both extremely current and at the same time of the utmost importance to human beings, regardless of where they are in the world. Extending the principles and values of Quebec's collegial education to humanity in general therefore seems consistent with this logic.
________________
1 I have used this type of table in my philosophy and rationality courses since 2001, all the while referring to my manual La pensée rationnelle: Perspective nouvelle sur ses origines et ses développements (rational thinking: a new perspective on its origins and its developments), Quebec: Presses Inter Universitaires, 2001; Ch. 2, in particular pp. 27–29. The consensus of philosophy teachers at collegial level regarding course objectives as defined in the ministerial requirements (see note 5) gave me a basis of credibility from the beginning with regard to the content and form of this pedagogical tool.

 2 From the first few years after it was set up, Quebec's collegial network has been a great success in terms of social and geographic accessibility. This type of model could play an international role in the future. Cf. "Les cégeps, de l’accès à la réussite" (CEGEPs, from access to success), by Denis Savard and Saïd Bouthaim, in Les cégeps: une grande aventure collective québécoise (CEGEPs: A great collective Quebec adventure), Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2006. pp. 100–101.

3 The reader will find further explanations in Agorathèque: "Explication du tableau" (explanation of the table)

4 The qualifier "adisciplinary" (in the sense of outside of a discipline) would be preferable to all more or less synonymous qualifiers such as multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary (cf. Agorathèque: "Définition de la science adisciplinaire" (definition of adisciplinary science): http://agoratheque.yprovencal.ep.profweb.qc.ca/?page_id=1317 ).
 

5 The three elements of competence defining the content of the philosophy and rationality course are "1. To distinguish philosophy from other discourses on reality; 2. To present the contribution of philosophers of the Greco-Roman tradition to the handling of issues; 3. To produce an argumentation in response to a philosophical question.