ABSTRACT
I defend the view that the standard disciplines already contain the necessary cognitive ingredients for critical thinking. However, many a frustrated high school or college teacher (not to mention the public) will object that the disciplines are not, in fact, producing critical thinkers, nor indeed noticeably autonomous thinkers. The objection is, in effect, that if the disciplines are so efficacious, why are we not seeing more evidence of critical or autonomous thought from contemporary students? Let me confess I share this grim assessment of the present situation in secondary schools, and beyond. Whether the criticism refers to disciplinary thinking or critical thinking per se, there is far less autonomous thinking (of any kind) than we are entitled to expect. However, confronted with this situation as we are, we must ask a basic question: is this dismal state of affairs the result of some inherent deficiency in the disciplines for producing critical thinkers, or does it have more to do with the ways in which these subjects are contingently taught? I think the latter is the case. At least part of the problem begins with many teachers' own conception of their discipline. They do not see clearly enough the purpose, structure, and potential of their own subject; so, naturally, much of this becomes lost for the student as well. Most disciplines contain large bodies of knowledge and information, and various methods for exploring experience. But it will not do to simply tap into this body of knowledge anywhere that the teachers' interest strikes them. Not all knowledge about plants, for example, is equally rich or useful, and not all historical events are equally capable of conveying a sense of the past.
