前言

本书第一版于1975年问世时，主要的学术焦点仍然是主观性，即感觉。这一焦点是20世纪60年代延续下来的，原本是对之前的理性主义和行为主义的必要反应。它实际上是在宣称：“人不是机器。他们不仅仅是生理机能的总和。他们有希望、梦想和情感。人人皆不同——每个人都有其看待世界的特殊视角，有其感知世界的独特方式。任何忽视人的主观性的人类观都是扭曲的”。

然而，尽管对感觉的重视有其价值，但这种重视却过度了。与许多其他运动一样，最初是反对极端，但后来自己却成了极端。这种极端主义最终导致了对思考的忽视。本书旨在弥补这一忽视。第一版的序言对此作了如下解释：

强调主观性有助于纠正一种危险的过度简化。但这种反应不免造成一种更糟糕的情形——对思考的忽视。之所以更糟糕，有两个原因。首先，因为我们生活在一个容易被操纵的时代。大量唯利是图的商人和蛊惑民心的政客掌握了丰富的心理学资源来操控我们的情绪和潜意识需求，诱导我们相信：肤浅就是深刻，有害就是有益，邪恶就是美德。而感觉特别容易受到这种操控。

其次，因为在现代生活的几乎每一个重要领域——法律、医学、政府、教育、科学、商业和社区事务——我们都被严重的问题和复杂的议题所困扰，需要认真收集和权衡事实和明智的意见，深思熟虑各种结论或行动，并审慎地选择最佳结论或最合适的行动。

[今天的大学生]已经习惯了高估主观性，不是低估。因此，他不需要纵容自己的感觉。相反，他需要学会如何梳理自己的感觉，判断这些感觉在多大程度上受外部因素影响，并在这些感觉相互之间或他人感觉发生冲突时，认真加以评估。总之，学生们需要学会批判性地思考。

许多人都有一种令人遗憾的倾向，他们认为感觉和思考是互斥的，强迫自己在二者之间作出选择。在他们看来，如果我们选择专注其中一个，那就必须抛弃另一个。然而，这种想法是错误的。感觉和思考是完美互补的。感觉更多的是自发的，是形成结论的良好开端。而思考更多是深思熟虑，为我们提供了辨别最佳和最适当感觉的方法。两者都是自然的。

然而，思考不像感觉那样自然而然。要想做好思考，我们需要系统化的方法和指导性的练习。

自20世纪70年代中期以来，人们对思维的总体态度发生了很大变化。认为批判性思维是一种重要技能，教育应该重视的观点已不再是少数人的声音。成百上千的人呼吁，要求在现有课程中增加批判性思维的教学内容，甚至开设专门的思维类课程。几乎毫无疑问，新千年的挑战要求我们的思考能够超越感觉，从而清晰、公正、批判性地解决问题和做出决策。

本版特色

本版《超越感觉》保留了前几版的基本结构。第一部分解释了进行批判性思维的心理、哲学和社会等领域的背景，并描述如何培养批判性思维的习惯和态度。第二部分帮助学生认识并克服思维中的常见逻辑谬误。第三部分提供了逐步解决这些谬误的策略。

同时，我在保持全书整体结构的情况下，也基于审稿人的有益反馈做了许多的调整。

•在第1章中，新增了“观念的影响”一节。

•在第3章中，新增了“理解因果关系”一节。

•在第15章中，新增了“观察价值”的实例。

•在第17章中，“评估信息来源”小节的内容有所扩展。

•新增了一些“意见分歧”练习。

*1975年，“他"仍被认为是指男女两性。

和过去一样，我试图遵循乔治-奥威尔的箴言：“如果能想到日常英语的对应词，就不要使用外来词、术语或行话”。这并非易事。当逻辑学家学会了诸如“人身攻击谬误（argumentum ad hominem）”、“不合逻辑的推论（non sequitur）”和“肯定后件（affirming the consequent）”等术语后，他们自然希望使用这些术语。他们这样做的理由显而易见：例如，“这些是最精确的术语。不要成为迁就者，不让学生接触这些术语。”在意志不坚定时，我会经受不住这种诱惑。（例如，在上一版本，我还使用了enthymeme（省略三段论法）一词，罪过罪过……我又故态复萌了）。但这些术语的精确性确实是我想使用它们的真正原因吗？难道我们教授们不是喜欢展示自己的知识，或者不愿让学生们免于我们曾经历的艰难（我们受过苦，他们也该受苦）？依我之见，现代文化已经为批判性思考增加太多障碍了，我们不应再增加更多障碍。

这种平实语言的做法是否会做过头？是的，有些人会认为，我在刻意避免使用“推论”（inferences）而改用“结论”（conclusions）时，就已经做过头了。我不敢苟同。词典编纂者指出，这些术语之间的差异极为细微，因此似乎更明智的做法是不要在这上面浪费时间。此外，出于不同的原因，我尽可能避免使用“价值观”这个术语。“价值观”与相对主义关系密切，以至于在这一语境下使用它，可能会削弱一个关键观点，即不同的论证在质量上存在差异。对许多学生来说，“价值观”会引发这样的想法：“每个人都有权拥有自己的价值观；我的价值观对我而言是正确的，虽然它们可能需要不时的‘阐明’，但它们永远不应被质疑。”这种想法阻碍了批判性思考。

原文：

Preface

When the first edition of this book appeared in 1975, the dominant intellectual focus was still subjectivity, feelings. That focus, the legacy of the 1960s, was originally a necessary reaction to the rationalism and behaviorism that preceded it. It declared, in effect: “People are not robots. They are more than the sum total of their physiology. They have hopes, dreams, emotions. No two humans are alike—each has a special perspective, a unique way of perceiving the world. And any view of humanity that ignores this subjective side is a distortion.

Yet, despite its value, the focus on feelings went too far. Like many other movements, what began as a reaction against an extreme view became an extreme view itself. The result of that extremism was the neglect of thinking. This book was designed to answer that neglect. The introduction to the first edition explained its rationale as follows.

The emphasis on subjectivity served to correct a dangerous oversimplification. But it is the kind of reaction that cannot be sustained for long without causing an even worse situation—the neglect of thinking. Worse for two reasons. First, because we live in an age of manipulation. Armies of hucksters and demagogues stand ready with the rich resources of psychology to play upon our emotions and subconscious needs to persuade us that superficial is profound, harmful is beneficial, evil is virtuous. And feelings are especially vulnerable to such manipulation.

Secondly, because in virtually every important area of modern life— law, medicine, government, education, science, business, and community affairs—we are beset with serious problems and complex issues that demand careful gathering and weighing of facts and informed opinions, thoughtful consideration of various conclusions or actions, and judicious selection of the best conclusion or most appropriate action. . . .

[Today’s college student] has been conditioned not to undervalue subjectivity, but to overvalue it. And so he does not need to have his feelings indulged. Rather, he needs to be taught how to sort out his feelings, decide to what extent they have been shaped by external influences, and x PRFACE evaluate them carefully when they conflict among themselves or with the feelings of others. In short, he needs to be taught to think critically.*

There is an unfortunate tendency among many to view feeling and thought as mutually exclusive, to force a choice between them. If we focus on one, then in their view we must reject the other. But this is mistaken. Feeling and thought are perfectly complementary. Feeling, being more spontaneous, is an excellent beginning to the development of conclusions. And thought, being more deliberate, provides a way to identify the best and most appropriate feeling. Both are natural.

Thinking, however, is less automatic than feeling. To do it well demands a systematic approach and guided practice.

The general attitude toward thinking has changed considerably since the mid-1970s. The view that critical thinking is an important skill to which education should give prominence is no longer a minority view. Hundreds of voices have joined the chorus calling for the addition of critical thinking objectives to existing courses and even the creation of special courses in thinking. There is little disagreement that the challenges of the new millennium demand minds that can move beyond feelings to clear, impartial, critical problem solving and decision making.

Features of This Edition

This edition of Beyond Feelings retains the basic organization of previous editions. The first section explains the psychological, philosophical, and social context in which critical thinking takes place and describes the habits and attitudes that enhance such thinking. The second section helps students recognize and overcome common errors in thinking. The third section provides a step-by-step strategy for dealing with issues.

Within the overall design, however, I have made a number of changes, most in response to the helpful suggestions of reviewers.

• In Chapter 1, a new section—“The Influence of Ideas”—has been added.

• In Chapter 3, a new section—“Understanding Cause and Effect”— has been added.

• In Chapter 15, new examples of the value of observation have been added.

• In Chapter 17, the subsection “Evaluate your information sources.” has been expanded.

• A number of new “Difference of Opinion” exercises have been added.

*In 1975, “he” was still accepted as a reference to both sexes.

As in the past, I have attempted to follow George Orwell’s sage advice: “Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.” This is not always easy. When logicians are taught terms such as argumentum ad hominem, non sequitur, and “affirming the consequent,” they naturally want to use them. Arguments for doing so urge themselves upon us: for example, “These are the most precise terms. Don’t join the ranks of the coddlers and deprive students of them.” In weak moments I succumb to this appeal. (Until the previous edition, for example, I included the term enthymeme. Mea culpa . . . there I go again.) But is the precision of such terms the real reason for my wanting to use them? Is it not possible that we professors enjoy parading our knowledge or that we are reluctant to spare our students the struggle we were forced to undergo (“We suffered, so they should too”)? It seems to me that modern culture already provides too many impediments to critical thinking for us to add more.

Is it possible to carry this plain language commitment too far? Yes, and some will think I have done so in avoiding the term inferences and speaking instead of conclusions. But I respectfully disagree. Lexicographers point out that the distinction between these terms is extremely subtle, so it seems more reasonable not to devote time to it. Also, I avoid using the term values whenever possible for a somewhat different reason.

The word value is so associated with relativism that its use in this context can undermine the crucial idea that arguments differ in quality. For many students, the word value triggers the thought, “Everyone has a right to his or her values; mine are right for me, and though they may need ‘clarification’ from time to time, they are never to be questioned.” This thought impedes critical thinking.