Studies in Philosophy and Education

, Volume 16, Issue 1–2, pp 19–41

Critical Thinking and Foundational Development

  • Wouter Van Haaften
  • Ger Snik
Article

Abstract

We elaborate on Israel Scheffler's claim that principles of rationality can be rationally evaluated, focusing on foundational development, by which we mean the evolution of principles which are constitutive of our conceptualization of a certain domain of rationality. How can claims that some such principles are better than prior ones, be justified? We argue that Scheffler's metacriterion of overall systematic credibility is insufficient here. Two very different types of rational development are jointly involved, namely, development of general principles that are strictly constitutive of rationality as such, and development of specific principles determinative of our conceptualization of particular domains. For the first type a transcendental argument applies. As to the second, we show how foundational development is itself a condition of the possibility of its justification. In both cases only principles that are typical of the later stage yield the second order criterion in terms of which the evaluative comparison with former stages can be made and defended. In a discussion of problems involved we indicate to what extent Scheffler's idea of rationally justifiable rational development may be realized here, avoiding pitfalls of both foundationalism and relativism.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Neiman, A., & Siegel, H.: 1993, Objectivity and rationality in epistemology and education: Scheffler's middle road, Synthese, 94,55-83.Google Scholar
  2. Piaget, J.: 1932, Le jugement moral chez l'enfant, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  3. Scheffler, I,: 1960, The Language of Education, Springfield: Thomas.Google Scholar
  4. Scheffler, I,: 1965, Conditions of Knowledge. An introduction to epistemology and education, Chicago: Scott Poresman. `Google Scholar
  5. Scheffler, I.: 1967, Science and Subjectivity, Indianapolis/New York: Hobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  6. Scheffler, I.: 1972, Vision and revolution: a postscript on Kuhn. Philosophy of Science, 39, 336-374.Google Scholar
  7. Scheffler, I.: 1973a, Reason and Teaching, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  8. Scheffler, I.: 1973b, Philosophies-of and the curriculum. In J.F. Doyle (Ed.), Educational Judgments. Papers in the philosophy of education (pp. 209-218), London/Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  9. Scheffler, I.: 1986, Inquiries. Philosophical studies of language, science, and learning, Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  10. Scheffler, I.: 1991, In Praise of the Cognitive Emotions and other Essays in the Philosophy of Education, New York/London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  11. Siegel, H.: 1988, Educating Reason. Rationality, critical thinking, and education, New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Siegel, H.: 1992, Justification by balance. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52, 27-46.Google Scholar
  13. Siegel, H.: 1993, Justifying conceptual development claims: response to van Haaften. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 27, 79-85.Google Scholar
  14. Toulmin, S. 1977, Human Understanding. The collective use and evolution of concepts, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. van Haaften, A.W.: 1984, Een ontwikketingstheoretische benadering van de 'is-ought question' [A developmental approach to the is-ought question]. Pedagogische Studiës, 61, 272-281.Google Scholar
  16. van Haaften, A.W.: 1990b, The justification of conceptual development claims. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 24, 51-69.Google Scholar
  17. van Haaften, A.W: 1990b, Can moral education be justified in moral education? In B. Spiecker & R. Straughan (Eds.), Philosophical Issues in Moral Education and Development (pp. 17-42), Milton Keynes/Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  18. van Haaften, A.W.: 1993, Conceptual development and relativism: reply to Siegel. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 27, 87-100.Google Scholar
  19. van Haaften, A.W., Korlhals, M., Widdershoven, G.A.M., Mul, J. de, & Snik, G.L.M.: 1986. Ontwikkelingsfilosofie [Philosophy of Development]. Muiderberg: CoutinhoGoogle Scholar
  20. van Haaften, A.W., Korthals, M., & Wren, T.: 1996, Philosophy of Development. Reconstructing the foundations of human development and education, Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wouter Van Haaften
    • 1
  • Ger Snik
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Philosophy and History of EducationUniversity of Nijmegenthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations