Interesting in how you've woven this together. It's also facinating that I don't see this these concepts as opposed. Bear with me as I weave together a few of them.
First, I agree that Descartes got human reasoning wrong because he forgot the elephant in the room: how important our emotions are to who we are and how we think. For a introduction to Descartes's Error check out Elephant Riding: https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/elephant-riding
Second, I think the cartesian element is actually quite important to critical thinking and I agree that critic has turned into critisizing. But that's not what a critic is as I wrote in my own exploration into Critical Thinking:
"However, a critic, from Greek krites, was a judge or umpire, valued for making informed decisions. Being a critic is more than an ability to mindlessly bludgeon an idea and lynch anyone caught in disagreement. Instead, a critic should be one who can provide a rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis."
Third, and Last, I love your articulation of a different way to think. However, I don't see that at odds with how I've thought of critical thinking. I see them in balance. The American Pragmatism formulation follows two threads I've explored. The first is that I believe Systems Thinking is:
- Insatiable Curiosity
- The Humility to accept we don't know all the answers
- Intentional reframing to make sure we really understand the issues.
Couple that with the idea that our human super-power is social learning and I guess I'm a American Pragmatist.... along with a fan of Critical Thinking 😆 I think we can do both at once!
All that to say, I love how you managed to work it all into a single essay. That's a feat I haven't been able to do. I'd merely suggest they aren't in opposition but are certainly missapplied which can make it feel so.
All great points! I actually linked to your elephant rider essay when I referenced Haidt's metaphor. I also love the distinction between critic and criticism. I agree Cartesianism and Pragmatism should ideally work together. Only issue I’m pointing out is that the Cartesian approach has been overemphasized at the expense of the Pragmatic approach, especially when it comes to the humility and communal aspects of knowledge-making that are so critical (no pun intended) to effective knowledge-making.
If we don’t approach truth with humility, it becomes very difficult to change our mind or to engage with new ideas and data in good faith, which is a direct cause of polarization and conspiracism. Humility and deference to other knowledge authorities are key, and I think the Pragmatic approach emphasizes these aspects well. Thanks for the great response!
Ha. I missed that as I was reading. I got excited with the pragmatism. I do agree with your critique of cartesian on the whole. The challenge is we have people over-indexing on cartesian to your point while others see the issue and throw everything out. It really is a balance of both.
The critical thinking v. incrementalism prong reminds me of the philosophy of the great Edmund Burke, who most likely would have strongly agreed with the incrementalism approach — it’s unnecessary to completely destroy long-held cultural beliefs, customs and traditions all at once; instead we should strive for incremental and thoughtful change when needed.
As to your thoughts on relativism, Paul Johnson, author of the 1985 book “Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Eighties,” takes a conservative and moralistic view of modern history that contrasts with most contemporary liberal history. He is not afraid to challenge the beliefs and so-called “truths” of modern academic historiography. The book opens with the rise of relativism in the early 20th century, advancing the interesting idea that Einstein’s scientific theories of relativity seeped into the culture and gave a big boost to acceptance of moral relativism. Johnson then goes on to posit that relativism, the demise of moral responsibility, and the decline of Devine belief largely caused and/or contributed to the ongoing horrors of the 20th century. Your article resonates with this book.
Great thoughts, I completely agree Burke would be a big fan of Pragmatism - I think it's an approach to knowledge that lends itself really well to political conservatism / centrism.
I hadn't heard of the Johnson book. Sounds very interesting. Have added to my list!
This is closer to what Descartes says and you summarized it well.
Though my understanding of what we call critical thinking is that John Dewey and others had a central place in shaping it.
I have problems with Cartesianism too, namely his flavor of mind body dualism.
For myself, I doubt critical thinking is to blame for our post-truth world. People aren't taught it in schools, and even when they are there are studies suggesting it's taught incorrectly.
You're correct that Dewey had a big impact on developing critical thinking but I think the Pragmatic and especially empiricist influence on critical thinking has waned since the postmodernism of the 1960's. Thanks for the links I'll take a look. Agree it's definitely not being taught correctly today! More humility and deference to institutions is definitely needed
American pragmatism is very much not individualist. It’s communal. Cartesianism, which I argue against in the article, is much more individualistic. Not everything that comes from America is individualistic!
Interesting in how you've woven this together. It's also facinating that I don't see this these concepts as opposed. Bear with me as I weave together a few of them.
First, I agree that Descartes got human reasoning wrong because he forgot the elephant in the room: how important our emotions are to who we are and how we think. For a introduction to Descartes's Error check out Elephant Riding: https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/elephant-riding
Second, I think the cartesian element is actually quite important to critical thinking and I agree that critic has turned into critisizing. But that's not what a critic is as I wrote in my own exploration into Critical Thinking:
"However, a critic, from Greek krites, was a judge or umpire, valued for making informed decisions. Being a critic is more than an ability to mindlessly bludgeon an idea and lynch anyone caught in disagreement. Instead, a critic should be one who can provide a rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis."
If we brought back that idea of critic to critical I think we've avoid the main of your issue. More on critical thinking, here: https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/do-you-really-think-critically
Third, and Last, I love your articulation of a different way to think. However, I don't see that at odds with how I've thought of critical thinking. I see them in balance. The American Pragmatism formulation follows two threads I've explored. The first is that I believe Systems Thinking is:
- Insatiable Curiosity
- The Humility to accept we don't know all the answers
- Intentional reframing to make sure we really understand the issues.
Couple that with the idea that our human super-power is social learning and I guess I'm a American Pragmatist.... along with a fan of Critical Thinking 😆 I think we can do both at once!
More on systems thinking here: https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/yes-and-so
All that to say, I love how you managed to work it all into a single essay. That's a feat I haven't been able to do. I'd merely suggest they aren't in opposition but are certainly missapplied which can make it feel so.
All great points! I actually linked to your elephant rider essay when I referenced Haidt's metaphor. I also love the distinction between critic and criticism. I agree Cartesianism and Pragmatism should ideally work together. Only issue I’m pointing out is that the Cartesian approach has been overemphasized at the expense of the Pragmatic approach, especially when it comes to the humility and communal aspects of knowledge-making that are so critical (no pun intended) to effective knowledge-making.
If we don’t approach truth with humility, it becomes very difficult to change our mind or to engage with new ideas and data in good faith, which is a direct cause of polarization and conspiracism. Humility and deference to other knowledge authorities are key, and I think the Pragmatic approach emphasizes these aspects well. Thanks for the great response!
Ha. I missed that as I was reading. I got excited with the pragmatism. I do agree with your critique of cartesian on the whole. The challenge is we have people over-indexing on cartesian to your point while others see the issue and throw everything out. It really is a balance of both.
Outstanding article!
This is an excellent article Travis.
The critical thinking v. incrementalism prong reminds me of the philosophy of the great Edmund Burke, who most likely would have strongly agreed with the incrementalism approach — it’s unnecessary to completely destroy long-held cultural beliefs, customs and traditions all at once; instead we should strive for incremental and thoughtful change when needed.
As to your thoughts on relativism, Paul Johnson, author of the 1985 book “Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Eighties,” takes a conservative and moralistic view of modern history that contrasts with most contemporary liberal history. He is not afraid to challenge the beliefs and so-called “truths” of modern academic historiography. The book opens with the rise of relativism in the early 20th century, advancing the interesting idea that Einstein’s scientific theories of relativity seeped into the culture and gave a big boost to acceptance of moral relativism. Johnson then goes on to posit that relativism, the demise of moral responsibility, and the decline of Devine belief largely caused and/or contributed to the ongoing horrors of the 20th century. Your article resonates with this book.
Great job!
Great thoughts, I completely agree Burke would be a big fan of Pragmatism - I think it's an approach to knowledge that lends itself really well to political conservatism / centrism.
I hadn't heard of the Johnson book. Sounds very interesting. Have added to my list!
Very impressive piece, Travis! I can't even remember the last time I learned so much from a Substack post. :)
Thanks Brad, much appreciated! It was a fun one to write. Not enough defenders of Pragmatism out there today :)
I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am.
This is closer to what Descartes says and you summarized it well.
Though my understanding of what we call critical thinking is that John Dewey and others had a central place in shaping it.
I have problems with Cartesianism too, namely his flavor of mind body dualism.
For myself, I doubt critical thinking is to blame for our post-truth world. People aren't taught it in schools, and even when they are there are studies suggesting it's taught incorrectly.
For further reading on this:
https://openurl.ebsco.com/c/xppotz/EPDB%3Aedshtl%3A16%3A6592512/detailv2?sid=ebsco%3Aplink&id=ebsco%3Aedshtl%3Aedshtl.009450558&x-cgp-token=xppotz&link_origin=none
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075079.2025.2470969
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137378057_2
Thank you for working this out! I appreciate the further discussion in this thread too.
You're correct that Dewey had a big impact on developing critical thinking but I think the Pragmatic and especially empiricist influence on critical thinking has waned since the postmodernism of the 1960's. Thanks for the links I'll take a look. Agree it's definitely not being taught correctly today! More humility and deference to institutions is definitely needed
American pragmatism? That's very American exceptionalist of you. There are other worldviews that may counter your assessment.
While I agree that we need to move to the centre and be more pragmatic in our approaches, the way you've concluded sounds a bit individualist.
American pragmatism is very much not individualist. It’s communal. Cartesianism, which I argue against in the article, is much more individualistic. Not everything that comes from America is individualistic!
I disagree. Rugged individulism is pervasive in American culture. Local policies might appear communal but still has American values.
Also using Cartsianism as your framework is academic more than reality. I would caution against it to a general reader.