当这本书的第一版在1975年发行时，主要的论述还是聚焦在主观性，感觉。这个焦点是60年代的遗产，最初是针对在之前的理性主义和行为主义的有必要的反应。它宣称:"人们不是机器。他们不仅仅是生理机能的组合。他们有希望，梦想，激情。没有哪两个人是一样的，每个人都都有特别的观点，独特的方法看待这个世界。人类任何一个忽视主观性的关于人性的观点都是荒谬的。"
虽然这个观点是有价值的，但是聚焦在感觉上还是走的太远。就像其他的运动，一开始针对一个极端观点的看法本身也会变成一个极端观点。这个极端主义的结果是忽视了思考。这本书的目的就是回应这些疏忽。第一版的导论解释了它的理由如下:
强调主观性是为了纠正太过于简单化处理的危险。但是这种回应经过长时间，会导致更糟糕的结果-忽视了思考。更糟糕的理由有两个。首先，因为我们生活在一个被操纵的年代。商品推销者和蛊惑人心的政客们掌控了大量的心理学资源，影响我们的感情和潜意识，用于劝说我们肤浅就是深刻，有害的就是有益的，罪恶就是道德。我们的感觉在这些操纵下面是非常的脆弱。
第二，由于实际上现代生活中每个重要的地方-法律，医药，政府，教育，科学，商业，还有社区事务-我们都被严重的问题和复杂的情况所困扰，我们需要仔细的收集并平衡事实和收集的意见，对于不同结论和行动的深思熟虑的思考，在最好的结论和最恰当的行动中做出正确的选择。
［现在的大学生］已经习惯于不是低估主观性，而是高估。因此，他不需要放纵他的感觉，相反，他被教育如何辨别出感觉，判断出外部事物造成了多大程度的影响，并且当这些感觉之间或者和其他人的感觉发生冲突时，仔细做好评估。简而言之，他需要学会进行批判性思维。
对于不少人，将感觉和思考看待为互为排斥的观点是个不幸的趋势，被迫做出选择。如果我们关注其中一个，在他们看来，我们就必须拒绝另一个。这是错误的。感觉和思考可以完美的互补。感觉，自然而然，是得到结论的非常好的开始。而思考，更加深思熟虑，可以辨别出最好的，最恰当的感觉。两者都是自然的。
思考，当然，不像感觉那样自动化。我们需要系统化方法和练习引导才能做好。
对待思考的普遍态度从70年代后开始转变了。批判性思维是重要的技能，教育应该给予足够的重视，这不再是少数人的观点了。成百上千的人一起呼吁，要求在当前的课程中增加批判性思维的内容，甚至设置特别的关于思考的课程。对于新的千禧时代的挑战是，人们需要能够超越感觉的思维，清晰，公正，解决重要问题和做出决定，这一点，大家没有不同意见。
这个版本的特点
这个版本的《超越感觉》保留了和以前版本一样的结构。第一部分解释了心理学的，哲学的和社会环境中批判性思维的产生，叙述了加强这些思考的习惯和态度。第二部分帮助学生识别并克服思考中常见的错误。第三部分提供解决这些问题的按部就班的方法。
从总体设计来说，我还是做了不少改变，大部分是对于评论者有益的建议的反馈。
第一章，增加了一个新的部分"观念的影响"
第三章，增加了一个新的部分"原因和效果的理解"
第15章，增加了个观察的价值的新案例。
第17章，"评估你的信息来源"的部分有扩展。
新增加了一些"意见分歧"的练习。
在过去，我尝试按照乔治·奥威尔（George Orwell）明智的建议:"如果你能够想到对应的日常用语，千万不要使用外来语，科学术语，或者行话。"这不是一直容易做到。当一个逻辑学家学会了“以人为据”，“不合逻辑推论”，和“肯定要件”（argumentum ad hominem, non sequitur, and “affirming the consequen）这样的术语，他们自然就会使用。这些争论促使他们强求我们：:比如，"它们是最精确的术语，不要加入那些需要照顾的行列或者剥夺学生们使用它们的机会。"在不重要的时候，我会屈服于这个要求。（直到前一个版本，比如，我使用了省略三段论法（enthymeme）这些术语。这是我的错（enthymeme）...你看，我又来了）但是这些术语的精确性真的是我使用他们的原因吗？有没有可能是我们这些教授喜欢炫耀我们的知识或者我们不愿意让我们的学生免于我们被迫承受过度努力（"我们承受过痛苦，你们也应该接受"），对我来说，现代文化已经给批判性思维足够多的障碍了，没有必要再增加了。
使用这些普通的语言会不会做的太过分？是的，有人认为我避免使用推论（ inferences）这个词，用结果（conclusions）这个单词代替的时候，已经这么做了。但是我诚恳的表示不同意。词典编纂者们指出这两个术语的区别非常细微。不在这上面花时间是更理智的做法。还有，任何时候因为其他各种原因，我避免使用价值（values ）这个词汇。
价值（values ）这个单词和相对主义关系密切，在这种语境下使用，会损害争论在品质（或者翻译成概念）有差异这一重要观念。对于很多学生来说，单词（value）会触发他们的想法，"每个人都有权力认可自己的价值，我的适合我，因此，它们可能需要不时的‘澄清’，这从来没有被质疑过。"这个想法会妨碍批判性思维。
致谢：
我要对那些对本书做出贡献的人表示感谢，特别感谢审查过手稿的人:
Anna Villegas, San Joaquin Delta College.
Aimee Bissonette, Inver Hills Community College.
James Kruser, Alfred State College.
Sue Crowson, Del Mar College.
Erin Murphy, University of Kentucky.
Adrian Patten, University of Cincinnati.
Dedaimia Storrs Whitney, Franklin College.
Lisa Weisman-Davlantes, California State–Fullerton.
Geoffrey Phillip Bellah, Orange Coast College.
Karen Hoffman, Hood College.
xii Aimee Ross-Kilroy, Loyola Marymount University.
Deanna Davis, College of the Canyons
我还要感谢： John Augustine, Delta College; Lori Ebert, International Institute of the Americas; John Garcia, Cerro Coso Community College; Michael Small, Shasta College; Joel Brouwer, Montcalm Community College; Cynthia Gobatie, Riverside Community College; Anne Benvennti, Cerro Coso College; Fred Heifner Jr., Cumberland University; and Phyllis Toy, University of Southern Indiana.
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.
PREFACE xi 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.
Acknowledgments
I wish to express my appreciation to all those who contributed to the preparation of this edition. Special thanks to those who reviewed the manuscript.
Anna Villegas, San Joaquin Delta College.
Aimee Bissonette, Inver Hills Community College.
James Kruser, Alfred State College.
Sue Crowson, Del Mar College.
Erin Murphy, University of Kentucky.
Adrian Patten, University of Cincinnati.
Dedaimia Storrs Whitney, Franklin College.
Lisa Weisman-Davlantes, California State–Fullerton.
Geoffrey Phillip Bellah, Orange Coast College.
Karen Hoffman, Hood College.
xii Aimee Ross-Kilroy, Loyola Marymount University.
Deanna Davis, College of the Canyons
I am also grateful to John Augustine, Delta College; Lori Ebert, International Institute of the Americas; John Garcia, Cerro Coso Community College; Michael Small, Shasta College; Joel Brouwer, Montcalm Community College; Cynthia Gobatie, Riverside Community College; Anne Benvennti, Cerro Coso College; Fred Heifner Jr., Cumberland University; and Phyllis Toy, University of Southern Indiana.
网友评论