Replies

The point I was trying to make regarding critical thinking is to teach students logic, or how to think logically about any subject, rather than rote memorization of "facts." The latter will do them limited good, while the former will give them a super-processor to analyze information coming at them every day.

The problem is that you can't think critically unless and until you have reliable facts to think about. You need them both.

One of the things I've learned over the years, especially at FR, is the danger of operating in the absence of facts.

Perhaps more importantly, I've learned how to recognize situations where there are insufficient facts to justify any firm conclusions. Here, in fact, is the most important connection between "critical thinking" and facts.

And, of course, I've learned to separate real facts from spin, and to be skeptical of anything presented as fact, especially by parties who have a personal interest in the situation.

A library of basic facts is essential, and a large body of such information has been compiled and accepted over time. Something as simple as the multiplication tables, for instance. That is the sort of information that one really should memorize in rote form, just so it's available for general recall later. "Rote" has a lot of negative connotations, but I don't

It's the same reason why I do "rote training" prior to participating in a run for which I've paid money to enter -- I can't just rely on "critical thinking" about how I'll run on race day.

Your point on rote memorization is well taken; there certainly is a place for it such as multiplication tables, names of places, etc. The point I was making regarding rote vs. critical thinking is that outcome-based education, which is the standard operating procedure of many public school systems in the U.S., relies to a larger degree on memorization than it does on problem solving or analysis. Teachers and administrators, knowing this, teach to the test.

In the long run this process shortchanges students.