Editing Philosophy of education (section)

==== Critical thinking and indoctrination ====
[[Critical thinking]] is often cited as one of the central aims of education.<ref name="Siegel">{{cite book |last1=Siegel |first1=Harvey |title=Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd Edition |date=2006 |publisher=Macmillan |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/philosophy-education-epistemological-issues |chapter=PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION, EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUES IN |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2024-05-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240531092733/https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/philosophy-education-epistemological-issues |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> There is no generally accepted definition of critical thinking. But there is wide agreement that it is reasonable, reflective, careful, and focused on determining what to believe or how to act.<ref name="Ennis">{{cite book |last1=Ennis |first1=Robert H. |title=The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education |date=2015 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan US |isbn=978-1-137-37805-7 |pages=31–47 |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137378057_2 |language=en |chapter=Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception |doi=10.1057/9781137378057_2 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-02-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230212201906/https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137378057_2 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Davies">{{cite book |last1=Davies |first1=Martin |last2=Barnett |first2=Ronald |title=The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education |date=2015 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan US |isbn=978-1-137-37805-7 |pages=1–25 |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137378057_1 |language=en |chapter=Introduction |doi=10.1057/9781137378057_1 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2022-07-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220730081138/https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137378057_1 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Hitchcock">{{cite web |last1=Hitchcock |first1=David |title=Critical Thinking |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=1 November 2021 |date=2020 |archive-date=31 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240531092733/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/ |url-status=live }}</ref> It has clarity and rationality as its standards and includes a [[Metacognition|metacognitive]] component monitoring not just the solution of the problem at hand but also ensuring that it complies with its own standards in the process.<ref name="Davies"/> In this sense, education is not just about conveying many true beliefs to the students. Instead, the students' [[ability]] to arrive at conclusions by themselves and the disposition to question pre-existing beliefs should also be fostered, often with the goal of benefitting not just the student but society at large.<ref name="Siegel"/><ref name="Davies"/> But not everyone agrees with the positive role ascribed to critical thinking in education. Objections are often based on disagreements about what it means to reason well.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> Some critics argue that there is no universally correct form of reasoning. According to them, education should focus more on teaching subject-specific skills and less on imparting a universal method of thinking.<ref name="Hitchcock"/><ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Monteiro |first1=Sandra |last2=Sherbino |first2=Jonathan |last3=Sibbald |first3=Matthew |last4=Norman |first4=Geoff |title=Critical thinking, biases and dual processing: The enduring myth of generalisable skills |journal=Medical Education |date=2020 |volume=54 |issue=1 |pages=66–73 |doi=10.1111/medu.13872 |pmid=31468581 |s2cid=201674464 |language=en |issn=1365-2923|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> Other objections focus on the allegation that critical thinking is not as neutral, universal, and presuppositionless as some of its proponents claim. On this view, it involves various implicit biases, like egocentrism or distanced objectivity, and culture-specific values arising from its roots in the philosophical movement of the [[Age of Enlightenment|European Enlightenment]].<ref name="Hitchcock"/><ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/>

The problem of critical thinking is closely connected to that of [[indoctrination]].<ref name="OxfordHandbookIntro"/><ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> Many theorists hold that indoctrination is in important ways different from education and should be avoided in education.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> But others contend that indoctrination should be part of education or even that there is no difference between the two. These different positions depend a lot on how "indoctrination" is to be defined. Most definitions of indoctrination agree that its goal is to get the student to accept and embrace certain beliefs.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> It has this in common with most forms of education but differs from it in other ways.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> According to one definition, the belief acquisition in indoctrination happens without regard for the [[Evidence#Nature of the evidential relation|evidential support]] of these beliefs, i.e. without presenting proper arguments and reasons for adopting them.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> According to another, the beliefs are instilled in such a way as to discourage the student to question or assess for themselves the believed contents. In this sense, the goals of indoctrination are exactly opposite to other aims of education, such as rationality and critical thinking.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> In this sense, education tries to impart not just beliefs but also make the students more [[open-minded]] and conscious of human [[fallibility]].<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Adler2009">{{cite book |last1=Adler |first1=Jonathan E. |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-006 |chapter=Why Fallibility Has Not Mattered and How It Could |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2021-12-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211230022523/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-006 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Petrik |first1=Kathryn Rose |title=A fallibilistic approach to education policy |date=2016 |url=https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/156937/PETRIK-THESIS-2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-01-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230121202707/https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/156937/PETRIK-THESIS-2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y |url-status=live }}</ref> An intimately related issue is whether the aim of education is to mold the mind of the pupil or to liberate it by strengthening its capacity for critical and independent inquiry.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/>

An important consequence of this debate concerns the [[Philosophy of testimony|problem of testimony]], i.e to what extent students should [[Trust (social science)|trust]] the claims of teachers and books.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Siegel |first1=Harvey |title=Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy |date=2018 |url=https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/epistemology-of-education/v-1/sections/3-teaching-indoctrination-and-belief |language=en |chapter=Epistemology of education |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2024-02-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240223030751/https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/epistemology-of-education/v-1/sections/3-teaching-indoctrination-and-belief |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Taylor2016">{{cite journal |last1=Taylor |first1=Rebecca M. |title=Indoctrination and Social Context: A System-Based Approach to Identifying the Threat of Indoctrination and the Responsibilities of Educators |journal=Journal of Philosophy of Education |date=2016 |volume=50 |issue=4 |pages=38–58 |doi=10.1111/1467-9752.12180 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/TAYIAS-4 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102183413/https://philpapers.org/rec/TAYIAS-4 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Callan2009">{{cite book |last1=Callan |first1=Eamonn |last2=Arena |first2=Dylan |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=30 October 2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-007 |language=en |chapter=Indoctrination |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=30 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211230022547/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-007 |url-status=live }}</ref> It has been argued that this issue depends a lot on the age and the intellectual development of the student. In the earlier stages of education, a high level of trust on the side of the students may be necessary. But the more their intellectual capacities develop, the more they should use them when trying to assess the plausibility of claims and the reasons for and against them.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> In this regard, it has been argued that, especially for young children, weaker forms of indoctrination may be necessary while they still lack the intellectual capacities to evaluate the reasons for and against certain claims and thus to critically assess them.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> In this sense, one can distinguish unavoidable or acceptable forms of indoctrination from their avoidable or unacceptable counterparts. But this distinction is not always affirmed and some theorists contend that all forms of indoctrination are bad or unacceptable.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Taylor2016"/><ref name="Callan2009"/>