ABSTRACT
Usually, it is unwise for an author of a book even to attempt responding to a published critique of his/her book with a brief rebuttal. He/she is always on the defense, and cannot, therefore, avoid appearing defensive. An essay in the New York Review of Books recently described all such attempted rebuttals as an "ABM": Author's Big Mistake. (I can recall one rare, but notable, exception to this general caution. It is from the famous Leibniz-Clarke correspondence, wherein Leibniz prudently responded to a lengthy and bitter critique by Clarke with but one statement: "I deny the major premise." Anything more is likely to become an ABM.)
In the present case, the editors of Informal Logic have kindly requested that I respond to Richard Paul's review of my Critical Thinking and Education. And they have specifically asked that I not review this review, but rather restrict myself to the "substantive philosophical differences between us." With this restriction in mind, therefore, I hope it becomes clear that my comments are not intended to rebut all of Paul's many charges. It is rather an attempt to uncover what I think he has gotten wrong, and to discuss the "substantive philosophical differences between us." Putting the ABM aside, my intent is to generate light, not heat.
