In Defence of Generalisation: Moore on the Critical Thinking Debate

This paper argues that general skills and the varieties of subjectspecific discourse are both important for teaching, learning and practising critical thinking. The former is important because it outlines the principles of good reasoning simpliciter (what constitutes sound reasoning patterns, invalid inferences, and so on). The latter is important because it outlines how the general principles are used and deployed in the service of “academic tribes”. Because critical thinking skills are—in part at least—general skills, they can be applied to all disciplines and subject-matter indiscriminately. General skills can help us assess reasoning independently of the vagaries of the linguistic discourse we express arguments in. The paper criticises Tim Moore’s argument to the contrary conclusion that the specific forms of discourse (the “specifist” thesis) are a more suitable than general skills (the “generalist” thesis) as a means to teaching and learning about critical thinking.