!1

DEBATABLE!TRUTHS:!WHAT!BUDDHIST!ARGUMENTATION!REVEALS!

ABOUT!CRITICAL!THINKING*

Keywords:*critical*thinking,*philosophy*of*education,*Asian*students,*Higher*Education.Asian* students* have* often* been* reported* to* struggle* with* Western?style*critical*thinking.*A*good*understanding*of*what*constitutes*this* intellectual*practice*might*help*them*overcome*some*of*their*difAiculties.*To*this*end,*a*precise* deAinition* is* necessary.* This* paper* offers* a* contribution* in* this*regard.*First,*it*presents*a*summary*of*the*debate*on*this*subject*and*spells*out* the* three*elements* that,*according* to*most* theorists,* constitute*critical*thinking,* i.e.* logico?argumentative* abilities,* dispositions* to* inquiry* and*evaluative* epistemology.* Second,* it* shows* how* this* tripartite* model* is*inadequate* to* explain* the* alleged* difAiculties* of* Asian* students.* Finally,* it*uses* a*medieval* Indic* text* on*Buddhist* argumentation,* the*Tarkabhāṣā* (XI*CE),*to*expose*the*shortcomings*of*this*model*and*to*bring*into*focus*other*three* speciAic* characteristics* of* academic* critical* thinking:* (1)* the* topic* of*inquiry,* (2)* the* direction* of* the* argument* and* (3)* the* object* of* critical*scrutiny.

1. Introduction

Lecturers!in!Buddhist!studies!have!recently!awakened!to!a!problem!that!has!long!

been!troubling!their!colleagues!in!other!Kields;!that!is,!the!alleged!lack!of!critical!

thinking!on!the!part!of!Asian!students.!Innumerable!publications!have!appeared!

on!the!subject!and!the!decision!to!spill!any!more!ink!to!elucidate!Asian!students’!

relationship!with! critical! thinking! requires! some! justiKication.!The! rationale! for!

the! present! undertaking! is! twofold.! On! the! one! hand,! as! we! shall! soon! see,!

current!deKinitions!of!critical!thinking!are!unsatisfactory!and!their!didactic!value!

in!an!international!context!is!limited.!On!the!other,!the!students!concerned!here!

belong!to!a!fairly!speciKic!group,!whose!needs!have!not!yet!been!addressed!in!the!

literature.!The!latter!point!deserves!some!introductory!explanation.!Our!students!

differ!from!generic!‘Asian!students’!in!two!respects.!First,!they!are!postgraduate!V!

mostly!PhD!candidates.!Second,!they!come!from!Buddhist!backgrounds;!some!are!

lay! Buddhists,!many! underwent! ordination.! Their! level! of! education! sets! them!

apart!from!the!cohorts!that!most!critical!thinking!papers!consider.!The!literature!

usually! focusses! on! undergraduates! and! Master’s! students.! The! application! of!

critical! thinking! to! the! production! of! doctoral! dissertations! remains,! to! date,!

*!This!paper!will!appear!as!keynote!article! in!Contemporary1Buddhism!16(1)!2015,!special! issue!on!Critical!Thinking!in!Buddhist!Studies.

fairly!unexplored.!Since!critical! thinking! is!deemed!necessary! for! the!successful!

completion!of!a!PhD,!an!investigation!of!this!topic!is!a!desideratum!in!educational!

studies.!

The! cultural! background! of! our! students,! too,! calls! for! a! new! wave! of!

research!V!but!not!for!want!of!publications!on!the!topic.!The!students!concerned!

here! come! from! cultures! that! critical! thinking! literature! has! widely! explored!

already;! that! is,!what!has! come! to!be!known! in! the! Kield! as!Confucian!Heritage!

Cultures! (CHC).!To! single!Buddhist! students!out!of! the!CHC!group!would! imply!

that! their! religious! orientation! overwrites! their! national! socioVcultural!

background.! For! example,! it! would! suggest! that! Korean! Buddhists’! difKiculties!

with! critical! thinking! somehow! differ! from! those! that! Christian! Koreans!

encounter.!This!supposition!is!doubtful,!but!not!entirely!idle.! It!has!the!merit!of!

highlighting!how!dubious!is!the!fundamental!assumption!on!which!the!discourse!

on! Asian! students! and! critical! thinking! rests.! People’s! speciKic! cultural! and!

religious!background,! the!assumption!goes,!affects! their!performance!as!critical!

thinkers.! This! notion! is! beset!with! problems.! The! debate! on! CHC! learners! has!

already!pointed!out!the!methodological! Klaws!that! it!conceals.!For! instance,! it! is!

difKicult! to! pin! down! speciKic! aspects! of! a! tradition! that! would! interfere! with!

critical! thinking.! Traditions! are! not! monolithic! and! what! might! be! true! for!

Buddhists,!or!Confucians,!in!a!certain!time!and!place!cannot!be!generalised!to!all!

Buddhist! or! Confucian! students.! Moreover,! the! inKluence! of! a! tradition! on!

individuals! is! hard! to!measure;! and! in!many! cases! it! might! be! not! signiKicant.!

Finally,! cultural! categorizations! are! often! unsatisfactory.! To! interpret! students’!

performance!as!the!result!of!their!Buddhist!afKiliation!rather!than!their!Confucian!

heritage!may! reKlect! the! categories! available! to! the! educators,! rather! than! the!

students’!own!identity.1

These! categories! are! misleading,! but! reveal! an! important! point.! They!

unmask!the!myth!of!the!universality!of!critical!thinking.!The!CHC!group!does!not!

overlap!completely!with!the!Buddhist!group!(e.g.!Sinhalese!are!Buddhist!and!not!

of!Confucian!heritage).!Yet! the!diagnosis!of!deKiciency! in! critical! thinking! is! the!

same! for! both! cohorts.! This! shows! that! the! problem! with! critical! thinking! is!

1!See!Ryan!(2010),!and!Ryan!and!Kam!Louie,!in!Mason!(2008),!69–70!and!passim.

!3

crossVcultural.! Various! interpretations! of! this! phenomenon! are! possible.!

Confucianism! and! Buddhism! could! share! some! elements! that! hinder! critical!

thinking.!Or,! each! tradition!might!obstruct! critical! inquiry! in! its!own!way.! Such!

hypotheses! assume! that! critical! thinking! is! universal.! If! someone! is! not! a!

proKicient! critical! thinker,! the! assumption! goes,! some! speciKic! cultural!

interference!must!be!at!play.!This!is!a!widespread!view;!it!results!largely!from!the!

conKlation! of! critical! thinking! and! rationality.2! The! reverse! theory! is! more!

economical.! Critical! thinking! itself,! it! holds,! is! a! highly! speciKic! educational!

practice!and!students!not!trained!in!it!struggle!regardless!of!their!background.!In!

this!case,! there! is!no!need! to!postulate!a!different!cultural!explanation! for!each!

Asian,!African,!or!Inuit!student!who!fails!to!show!great!critical!spirit.

From! this! perspective,! the! key! to! develop! our! students’! critical! thinking!

changes.! It! shifts! from! understanding! the! problems! speciKic! to! the! students’!

cultures,! to! individuating! and! teaching! what! constitutes! critical! thinking! in!

Western! Higher! Education.! Some! scholars! have! already! made! this! point,! but,!

unfortunately,! their! studies! are! likely! to! prove! of! limited! help! to! doctoral!

candidates.!For,!in!an!effort!to!be!inclusive,!educational!theorists!have!tended!to!

neglect! the! aspects! of! critical! thinking! that! are! speciKic! to! the! production! of!

postgraduate!research.

The!present!paper!offers!a!contribution!in!this!regard.!It!sets!out!to!identify!

the!characteristics!of!the!kind!of!critical!thinking!that!is!necessary!to!complete!a!

doctorate!in!Buddhist!Studies.!The!interdisciplinary!nature!of!this!academic!Kield!

affords! some! versatility! to! the! following! discussion.! Some! of! the! points! raised!

here,! however,! may! not! apply! to! areas! of! research! that! do! not! call! for! the!

systematic! collection,! analysis! and! interpretation! of! data! that! are! somehow!

empirically!derived!(e.g.!archeological!or!textual!evidence).!

My! argument! unfolds! in! three! stages.! First,! I! present! a! summary! of! the!

debate!on! this!subject!and!spell!out! the! three!elements! that,!according! to!most!

theorists,! constitute! critical! thinking.! These! comprise! logicoVargumentative!

abilities,!dispositions!to!fair!inquiry!and!evaluative!epistemology.!Second,!I!show!

2!For!an!example!of!such!conKlation,!see!Siegel!(1988),!32!ff.!

how! this! tripartite! model! is! inadequate! to! explain! the! alleged! difKiculties! of!

Confucian! Heritage! students.! Finally,! I! use! an! Indic! text! on! Buddhist!

argumentation,!the!Tarkabhāṣā!(XI!CE),!to!expose!the!shortcomings!of!this!model!

and!to!bring!into!focus!the!speciKic!characteristics!of!academic!critical!thinking.3

2. Critical/thinking:/an/overview

Critical!thinking!is!an!epistemic!tool.!It!serves!to!evaluate!and!question!received!

information;! it!assesses!and! justiKies!one’s!beliefs;!and! it!yields!new!knowledge!

through! inquiry! and! dataVanalysis.! Its! importance! for! education!might,! at! Kirst,!

seem! obvious.! Yet,! it! is! only! during! the! last! century! that! critical! thinking! has!!

gained!an!increasingly!important!position!among!educational!goals.!Two!factors!

appear!to!have!contributed!to!its!ascent!in!Higher!Education;!one!external!to!the!

academic!world,!the!other!internal.!First,!universities!have!been!facing!the!need!

to!prepare!students! for! their!postVdegree! life!and! to!provide!a! set!of! skills! that!

could!be!used! in! the!world!outside!academe.!Critical! thinking!soon!emerged!as!

one! of! the! most! important! of! these! ‘life! skills’.! It! plays! an! essential! role! in!

everyday!transactions,!as!it!is!part!of!the!reasoning!that!informs!decisionVmaking.!

From!buying!groceries! to!getting!married!or!voting,!our!decisions!usually! stem!

from!reasons!and!are!based!on!the!evaluation!of!the!data!available!to!us.4!Second,!

the! factual!content!of!knowledge!has!become!prone! to!rapid!obsolescence.!The!

ever!shorter!shelfVlife!of!scientiKic!information,!coupled!with!the!awareness!of!the!

defeasibility! of! arguments! and! the! subjective! component! inherent! in! research!

methods,!has!highlighted! the! fundamental!uncertainty!of!all! conclusions.!So,!as!

3! Critical! thinking,! one! might! argue,! is! inherently! academic.! After! all,! this! concept! developed!

within!the!discourse!on!Higher!Education!out!of!educational!concerns.!Here,!however,! I!use!the!

expression!‘academic!critical!thinking’!to!refer!to!the!particular!kind!of!critical!thinking!required!

to!produce!postgraduate!research.!This!is!the!main!focus!of!this!paper!and!I!will!sometimes!use!

the!general!term!‘critical!thinking’!as!shorthand!for!its!application!in!tertiary!education.!Many!of!

the!points!raised!in!this!article,!however,!might!apply!to!critical!thinking!in!general,!too.4!For!a!classical!introduction!to!the!value!of!critical!thinking!as!lifeVskill,!see!Siegel!(1988),!55–61.!

For!the!relevance!of!critical!thinking!to!ethical!life,!see!Doddington!in!Mason!(2008).!For!the!role!

of! critical! thinking! in! democratic! societies,! see! BrookKield! (1987).! For! further! references,! see!

Pithers!and!Soden!(2000).!

!5

the!myth!of!objectivity!has!faded!and!the!pace!of!scientiKic!discoveries!has!sped!

up,!critical!thinking!has!taken!centre!stage.5

The! academic! applications! of! critical! thinking! are! manifold.! They! range!

from! study! practices! and! classroom! participation! to! effective! writing! and!

research! methods.! So! far,! educational! theorists! have! focussed! on! its!

manifestations! in! undergraduate! and! Master’s! programmes,! such! as! its!

deployment! during! tutorial! discussions! or! debate! with! peers! in! seminars.!

Occasionally,! they!have! studied! the! students’! critical!performance! in! evaluating!

pieces!of!written!argumentation!or,!more!generally,! the! intellectual!products!of!

others.! Broadly! speaking,! all! the! tasks! addressed! in! the! literature! rely! on! two!

functions!of!critical!thinking:!(1)!backing!one’s!own!opinion!and!(2)!questioning!

and! evaluating! existing! theories,! views! or! interpretations.⁶! In! both! cases,!

students! are! required! to! structure! their! thoughts! into! arguments! and! support!

their! points! through! reasoning! and! presentation! of! selected! evidence.! If! they!

challenge!someone!else’s!opinion,!students!need!to!give!a!reasoned!account!of!its!

perceived!weakness.!For! instance,! they!may! identify!a!questionable!assumption!

that!the!opinion!presupposes,!or!an!undesirable!implication!that!it!may!involve.!

When! presenting! their! own! position,! students! should! show! its! strength! by!

corroborating! it!with!reasoning!and!a!presentation!of!evidence! that! is!carefully!

arranged!to!maximize!the!cogency!and!persuasive!force!of!their!argument.⁷

These! abilities! apply! only! to! preVexistent! knowledge! and! beliefs.! They!

serve,!on!the!one!hand,!to!evaluate!or!challenge!a!given!account!of!a!topic!(be!it!a!

scholarly!publication,!a!teacher’s!explanation,!or!a!peer’s!view);!on!the!other,!to!

defend! one’s! own! already! formed! opinion! on,! or! interpretation! of! a! subject.!

While! these!skills!are!useful!at!all! levels!of!education,! they!are!not!sufKicient! to!

write! a!PhD! thesis.! For! a!doctorate! some!other! applications!of! critical! thinking!

5!For!the!impact!of!the!decreasing!‘halfVlife’!of!knowledge!on!the!preVeminence!of!critical!thinking!

as!educational!goal,!see!Robinson!(2011),!276.!For!the!centrality!of!defeasibility!in!contemporary!

conceptions!of!argumentation,!see!Walton!et!al.!(2008),!chapter!1!and!Toulmin!(1958),!chapters!

3–4.!

⁶!On!critical! thinking!as! the!ability! to! challenge!other!people’s!opinion,!or! received!knowledge,!

see,!for!example,!Moon!(2008),!81ff!and!Vandermensbrugghe!(2004),!194.!On!critical!thinking!as!

the!ability!to!evaluate!competing!opinions!and!theories,!see!Bailin!(1999a),!168;!Golding!(2011),!

361–365,! and! Moon! (2008),! chapter! 8.! On! critical! thinking! as! the! ability! to! argue! one’s! own!

position,!see!Ennis!(1993),!180;!Moon!(2008),!32!and!Siegel!(1988),!23.

⁷!See!Moon!(2008),!96!and103.

are! needed,! whereby! a! candidate! reaches! original! conclusions! and! thus!

contributes!to!the!creation!of!new!knowledge.!Depending!on!the!discipline,!this!

can! be! achieved! by! applying! critical! thinking! to! different! kinds! of! objects.! As!

Moore! rightly! points! out,! philosophers! tend! to! critically! analyse! arguments,!

literary! critics! to! analyse! connections! between! literary! works,! historians! to!

analyse!sources.8!We!could!generalise!and!say! that! in!many,! if!not!all,! academic!

Kields,! doctoral! students! need! to! analyse! and! interpret! data! of! some! sort! and!

draw! their! conclusions! from! them.! This! remark!may! appear! obvious,! yet!most!

studies! have! neglected! this! point.! Theorists! of! critical! thinking! have! variously!

highlighted!the!importance!of!backing!one’s!view!with!supporting!evidence.!They!

have!omitted,!however,!to!specify!that!the!identiKication!of!a!piece!of!information!

as!evidence!supporting!a!conclusion!should!come!after!the!critical!scrutiny!of!all!

available! information! in! the! light! of! multiple! theories! and! explanatory!

frameworks!V!lest!one’s!research!plunge!into!biased!retrospective!justiKication!of!

a! claim! reached! not! through! dataVanalysis,! but! through! preconceived! ideas.9!

Moon’s! treatment!of! the!use!of!critical! thinking! to!build!one’s!own!argument! is!

representative! of! this! view.! In! her! comprehensive! survey! of! critical! thinking!

theories!and!practices,!Moon!reserves!only!a!few!lines!to!this!topic!and!writes:!

In* this* case* the* argument* is* constructed* by* the* critical* thinker,*working* with* her* own* presentation* of* evidence* and* reasoning* and*drawing*her*own*conclusion.* […]*Learners*would*use* this*process* in*writing* essays* or* the* writing* up* of* research* in* reports* or* larger*project*work*like*dissertations*and*theses.10

Interestingly,!she!appears!to!imply!that!critical!thinking!is!not!necessarily!applied!

to! analysing! the! available! data! in! order! to! draw! one’s! conclusions.! Rather,! if! I!

understand! her! correctly,! Moon! holds! that! critical! thinking! comes! into! play! in!

deciding!how!to!edit!the!evidence!and,!in!a!separate!(and!perhaps!later)!process,!

in! drawing! conclusions.! This! argumentative! strategy! appears! to! be! closer! to! a1

8!Moore!(2011),!266.9! See,! for! instance,! Bailin! (1999).!Moore! ,! too,! ! in! his! account! of! the! historians’! application! of!

critical!thinking,!leaves!some!ambiguity!as!to!whether!historians!should!derive!their!conclusions!

from!their!sources!or!are!allowed!to!mine!their!sources!for!ad1hoc!evidence!(Moore!(2011),!266:!“[I]n!a!discipline!such!as!history,!being!critical!is!not!so!much!being!skeptical!of!others’!ideas!as!

being! able! to! draw! on! various! sources! and! materials! to! develop! one’s! own1 argument”).! For! a!detailed!discussion!of!the!shortcomings!of!retrospective! justiKicatory!practice,!see! infra1sections!4b–c.!For!a!discussion!of!the!mutually!supporting!dynamic!linking!evidence,!theory!and!claim,!see!

Kosso!(2006),!8–14!and!Haack!(2009),!130–131.!10!Moon!(2008),!32.

!7

posteriori! justiKicatory! reasoning! than! to! the! kind! of! inquiry! that! leads! to! new!

knowledge!through!the!critical!scrutiny!of!one’s! Kindings.!All! in!all,! ! the!current!

educational! debate! fails! to! distinguish! clearly! between! the! role! of! critical!

thinking! in! conducting! an! inquiry! and! its! application! in! retrospective!

justiKication.11! Lam! is,! to! my! knowledge,! the! only! scholar! to! have! noticed! this!

problem.!He! points! out! that! there! is! an! alarming! degree! of! confusion! between!

caseVbuilding,! in! which! evidence! is! edited! to! induce! the! audience! to! accept! a!

conclusion,! and! the! impartial! evaluation! of! the! evidence,! which! should! be! the!

basis!from!which!students!reach!their!conclusions.12

Most!deKinitions!of! critical! thinking! reKlect! the!preponderant!emphasis!on!

retrospective! justiKicatory! reasoning! and! questioning! behaviour.! Since! critical!

thinking!is!a!rather!fuzzy!notion!that!is!notoriously!difKicult!to!pin!down,!scholars!

have! usually! resorted! to! deKine! it! through! its! components.! To! date! there! is! no!

agreement! over! what! precisely! constitutes! critical! thinking! in! all! its! possible!

manifestations.! However,! some! consensus! has! emerged! as! to,! so! to! speak,! its!

three!main! ingredients.!These! comprise! (1)! logical! and!argumentative!abilities,!

(2)!a!disposition! to! rational! inquiry!and! to!challenge!received! information,!and!

(3)!evaluative!epistemology!rooted!in!the!presupposition!that!all!arguments!are!

defeasible!and!certainty!unattainable.!

The! proportion! in! which! these! ingredients! need! to! be!mixed! in! order! to!

produce!the!desired!effect!is!still!the!object!of!heated!discussions.!So!far,!abilities!

have! attracted! the! most! attention.! Since! the! very! beginning! of! the! debate! on!

11!For! a! short! but! insightful! discussion! on! the! difference! between! guidelines! for! conducting! an!

inquiry!and!criteria!of!justiKication,!see!Haack!(2009),!264–265!and!364.!Haack!rightly!points!out!

that! the!process!of! justiKication! is!more!easily!amenable! to!a! Kix!set!of!procedures! than! inquiry.!

The!difKiculty!of!subjecting!the!creative!endeavor!of!research!inquiry!to!standardized!rules!might!

have! contributed! to! the! prominence! of! justiKication! in! the! educational! literature! on! critical!

thinking.!12! Lam,! in!Mason! (ed)! 2008,! 98:! “[S]tressing! the! importance! of! being! able! to! justify! what! one!

believes! at! all! levels! of! education! can! establish! or! strengthen! a! tendency! to! seek! conKirmatory!

evidence!selectively:!if!one!is!always!stimulated!to!adduce!reasons!for!opinions!that!one!holds!and!

is!not!urged!also! to!articulate!reasons! that!could!be!given!against! them,!one! is!being! trained!to!

exercise!conKirmation!bias!(Nickerson!1998).!To!make!matters!worse,!some!educational!practices!

fail!to!distinguish!explicitly!between!caseVbuilding!(i.e.!seeking!selectively!or!giving!undue!weight!

to! evidence! that! supports! one’s! position!while! neglecting! to! seek! or! discounting! evidence! that!

would!tell!against!it)!and!evidenceVweighing!(i.e.!seeking!evidence!on!all!sides!and!evaluating!it!as!

objectively!as!one!can)!so!that!what!is!in!reality!caseVbuilding!passes!for!the!impartial!evaluation!

of!evidence:!hence!the!ubiquity!and!strength!of!the!conKirmation!bias!among!educated!adults.”

critical!thinking,!scholars!have!compiled!lists!of!skills!that!are!deemed!essential!

for!thinking!critically.13!Some!of!these!skills!do!not!require!speciKic!training,!such!

as!the!ability!to!focus!on!a!question!or!to!seek!clariKication.14!Others!presuppose!

some!expertise!in!a!particular!Kield!of!study.!The!ability!to!judge!the!credibility!of!

a!source,!or!the!validity!of!subjectVspeciKic!premises,!for!instance,!depends!largely!

on!one’s!knowledge!of!the!Kield!to!which!the!source!and!premises!pertain.15!Most!

skills,! Kinally,! are! applicable! across! disciplines,! but! require! some! training! in!

informal! logic.16! They! include,! among! others,! the! ability! to! identify! the! various!

parts!of!an!argument,!to!distinguish!between!forms!of!syllogism!and!to!recognize!

logical!fallacies17.!!

Teaching! critical! thinking! skills! through! informal! logic! has! gained!

popularity! in! recent!years.!Several! studies!purport! that! short!courses! in! logical!

argument! analysis! produced! signiKicant! improvement! in! students’! critical!

thinking! abilities.18! ! Broadly! speaking,! these! courses! help! students! understand!

the! structure!of! arguments.! They! teach!how! to!distinguish! the! claims! from! the!

reasons!adduced!in!support!of!them,!question!the!relationship!between!reasons!

and!claims!and!present!reasons!in!support!of!one’s!conclusions.19!This!appears!to!

highlight! the! importance! of! theoretical! mastery! of! argumentation! for! thinking!

critically.! Scholars,! however,! agree! that! such!mastery! is! not! sufKicient! to! make!

someone!a!critical!thinker.!

Argumentative!and!logical!skills!can!be!detrimental!in!the!hands!of!biased!

or!unfair!debaters!–!particularly! so,! in! the!case!of!purely! justiKicatory!practices!

13! The!most! inKluential! reductions! of! critical! thinking! to! sets! of! abilities! are! those! provided! by!

Ennis! (1962,! 1993,! 2011),! Kuhn! (1999)! and! Ikuenobe! (2001).! For! an! outline! of! other!

contributions!in!this!regard,!see!Moon!(2008),!41–45.14!Ennis!(1993),!180;!2011,!2.15!McPeck!(1981),!Moore!(2004!and!2011).!16!The!question!of!whether!there!are!some!general!skills!that!can!be!applied!across!all!disciplines!

has! been! Kiercely! debated! for! over! three! decades.! Some! scholars! advocate! the! 'speciKist'! view,!

saying!that!competence!in!the!contents!and!methods!of!a!speciKic!discipline!are!necessary!to!be!a!

critical! thinker! in! that! Kield,! and! general! logical! abilities! are! far! less,! or! not! at! all,! important.!

Others! uphold! the! 'generalist'! view! and! retort! that! some! universal! standards! of! reason! must!

underpin! subjectVspeciKic! critical! practices.! For! classical! expositions! of! the'! speciKist'! and!

'generalist'!views,!see!McPeck!(1981)!and!Siegel!(1988)!respectively.!For!recent!contributions!to!

this! debate! see!Moore! (2004! and! 2011),! for! the! 'speciKist'! perspective,! and!Davies! (2006)! and!

Robinson!(2011),!for!the'!generalist'!one.17!See!Kuhn!(1999),!Ikuenobe!(2001),!and!Robinson!(2011).18!See!Robinson!(2011),!282;!Davies(2006),!188–189.19!Robinson!(2011),!280.

!9

detached!from!the!systematic!evaluation!of!data.!Richard!Paul,!a!leading!theorist!

in! critical! thinking,! rightly!points!out! that!mere!abilities! can! turn!students! into!

sophists,! ready! to!defeat! their!opponents’!positions!on! formal!grounds!without!

taking! their! content! into! consideration.! Even! worse,! narrowVminded! people!

would,! consciously! or! unconsciously,! use! argumentative! skills! to! conKirm! their!

views,! thus! precluding! themselves! from! the! possibility! of! honest! intellectual!

inquiry.!Hence,!Paul!considers! logical!skills!to!constitute!critical!thinking!in! ‘the!

weak! sense’.! To!be!put! to! good!use,! these! skills! should! serve! to! sustain! critical!

thinking!in!‘the!strong!sense’,!that!is,!a!fair!dialogical!evaluation!of!arguments!and!

counterVarguments! that! focuses! Kirst!and! foremost!on! the! thinker’s!own!biases,!

preconceptions! and! worldview.20! Siegel! agrees! that! critical! thinkers! must!

complement! their! argumentative! abilities!with! certain!dispositions! that! ensure!

the! honesty! and! productivity! of! their! intellectual! endeavours.! However,! he!

stresses!that!arguments!cannot!be!manipulated!to!support!just!any!preconceived!

view.!There!must!be!a!universal!standard!of!rationality!against!which!the!validity!

of!arguments!can!be!measured,!lest!we!fall!into!complete!relativism.21!Hence,!the!

dispositions! necessary! to! critical! thinking! coalesce,! in! Siegel’s! view,! into! a!

commitment!and!desire!to!pursue!reason!and!follow!the!criteria!of!rationality.22

Other!authors!have!since!expanded!on!the!dispositions!relevant!to!critical!

thinking.!In!a!series!of! insightful!publications,!Bailin!and!her!collaborators!have!

extended! the! list! of! dispositions! to! include! “an! inquiring! attitude,! openV

mindedness,! fairVmindedness,! independentVmindedness,! respect! for! legitimate!

intellectual! authority,! [and]! work! ethic”.23! The! most! fundamental! of! all!

dispositions,!however,!remains!Siegel’s!‘critical!spirit,’!the!deep!persuasion!that!a!

critical! inquiry! founded! on! reason! is! worth! pursuing.24! Unlike! Siegel,! though,!

Bailin!does!not!hold!critical!spirit!to!be!universal.!She!argues!that!it!presupposes!

20!See!Siegel!(1988),!10–18.21!See!Siegel!(1988),!14!and!39–42.22!Siegel!(1988),!23:!“The!deKining!characteristics!of!critical!thinking!is!the!focus!on!reasons!and!

the!power!of!reasons!to!warrant!or!justify!beliefs,!claims,!and!actions.!A!critical!thinker,!then,! is!

one!who!is!appropriately!moved!by!reasons:!she!has!a!propensity!or!disposition!to!believe!and!act!

in!accordance!with!reasons;!and!she!has!the!ability!properly!to!assess!the!force!of!reasons!in!the!

many!contexts!in!which!reasons!play!a!role.”23! Bailin! et! al.! (1999b).! See! also! Ennis! (1993! and! 2011).! For! a! discussion! of! the! dispositions!

associated!with!critical!thinking,!see!Moon!(2008)!chapters!5!and!6.24!Siegel!(1988),!39ff.

a! speciKic! epistemic! stance,! and! only! those!who! embrace! it! accept! the! value! of!

critical!thinking.25

A! tripartite! epistemological! framework,! educational! research! tells! us,!

underpins!different!approaches! to! intellectual! investigation!and!argumentation.!

This!consists!of!three!levels!of!conceptualisation!of!knowledge,!usually!conceived!

as! subsequent! developmental! stages.! The! Kirst! is! the! absolutist! level.! It!

corresponds!to!the!epistemic!presupposition!typical!of!children.!Here!knowledge!

is!considered!factual!and!objective.!Absolutists!have!no!use!for!critical!thinking.!

They!completely! trust! their!sources! (be! it! their!senses,! intuition!or!a!respected!

authority)! and! do! not! need! to! investigate! their! veridicity.! With! the! end! of!

childhood,! the! absolutists’! reassuring! world! of! certainty! soon! becomes!

problematic.!All!around!them,!people!put! forward!competing!theses!and!all! too!

often! these! cannot! be! objectively! proven.! This! realisation! yields! the! relativist!

epistemic! framework.! Here,! people! construe! knowledge! claims! as! subjective!

opinions.!Although!less!simplistic!than!the!former!perspective,!relativism!is!still!

far!from!fostering!critical!thinking.!At!the!loss!of!an!absolute!objective!method!to!

determine!which!opinion!is!right,!relativists!abstain!from!arguing!for!their!own!

position!or!from!evaluating!the!probability!that!one!claim!is!closer!to!truth!than!

another.!!This!changes!when!(or!if)!they!understand!that!even!though!objectivity!

is!out!of!our!cognitive!reach,!there!are!standards!through!which!we!can!evaluate!

the!validity!of!competing!claims.!At!this!stage!a!person!leaps!from!relativism!to!

evaluativism,!which!is!considered!to!be!the!highest!epistemic!level.!Bailin!rightly!

points! out! that! in! order! to! foster! critical! thinking,! evaluativism! needs! to! be!

accompanied! by! a! more! sophisticated! epistemic! view.26! That! is,! the! conviction!

that! certainty! is! not! obtainable! and! informed! argument! can! only! assess! the!

probability!that!a!claim!is!true.!Evaluativists!value!intellectual!inquiry!as!a!means!

to!appraise! the!validity!of!knowledge.!Even!once! they!have!determined! that!an!

argument! is! convincing,! they! do! not! completely! give! up! their! inquiry! because!

they! are! aware! that! new! evidence! and! theories! may! invalidate! previously!

established!conclusions.!Therefore,!evaluativists!are!always! inquisitive,!ready!to!

25!Bailin!(1999),!167ff.!See!Also!Golding!(2011),!358.26!Bailin!(1999),!167ff.

!11

challenge!what! they!had!once! accepted!as!provisionally! true! and!deeply! aware!

that!certainty!cannot!be!achieved.!They!are,!in!brief,!critical!thinkers.27

Evaluativism!does!not!develop!by!itself.!It!is!the!product!of!a!speciKic!kind!of!

education.! Theorists! hold! that! a! complex! training! is! necessary! to! foster! this!

sophisticated!epistemic!stance!in!students.!First,!students!need!to!be!exposed!to!

a!multitude!of!conKlicting! theories!and!claims,! so! that! they!come!to!realise! that!

there!is!no!‘right!answer’!to!most!questions.28!Second,!educators!need!to!instill!in!

them! the! habit! of! asking! critical! questions.29! In! a! recent! contribution! to! the!

subject,! Golding! suggests! that! the! teacher! groups! students! in! ‘communities! of!

inquiry’,!where!they!should!be!prompted!to!make!the!process!of!critical!thinking!

explicit! through! dialogue.! The! teacher! would! ask,! for! example,! what! evidence!

they!can!provide!to!establish!that!a!certain!claim!is!true!and!she!would!lead!them!

to!generate!counterVarguments.!Through!this!exercise!students!should!eventually!

realise!that!there!is!no!deKinitive!outcome!of!critical!inquiry.30

This! conception! of! evaluativism! is! problematic.! Critical! thinking! theorists!

tend!to!conKlate!developmental!epistemology!and!philosophical!epistemology.!In!

the!discourse!on! critical! thinking,! the!epistemic! attitude!of! evaluating!opinions!

through! reliable! criteria,! which! arguably! characterises! intellectual! maturity,!

seems! to! merge! with! the! speciKic! epistemological! position! upheld! in!

contemporary!academia.!That!is,!the!twofold!postVpositivistic!conviction!that!(1)!

certainty! is!beyond!our!reach!and!all! theses!are!ultimately!defeasible!and!(2)!a!

systematic!and!methodologically!sound!analysis!of!the!data!available!to!us!at!any!

given! time! can! determine! which! thesis! is! more! likely! to! be! truthful,! at! least!

provisionally.! This! conKlation! of! evaluativism! and! postVpositivism! projects! an!

unfortunate! illusion! that! only! adults! well! trained! in!Western! universities! have!

reached! intellectual! maturity.! The! implication,! then,! is! that! the! students’!

ignorance! of! a! particular! epistemological! view! risks! being! interpreted! as! a!

deKiciency!in!their!cognitive!development.!

27!See!Kuhn!(2001),!5!and!(2003),!1257.!For!a!discussion!of!Kuhn’s!tripartite!model!in!the!context!

of! theories! of! developmental! epistemology,! see! Liitos! H.M.,! Kallio! E.,! Tynjälä! P.! (2012).! For! a!

general!overview!of!the!subject,!see!Moon!(2008),!chapter!8.!!28!See!Moon!(2008),!110–111.29!See!Kuhn!(2003),!1257!and!Pithers!and!Sodern!(2000),!244.30!Golding!(2011),!359–365.

This!confusion!affects! the!effectiveness!of! the!educational!practices!aimed!

to! foster! critical! thinking! in!universities.! Some!adult! learners!may!not! so!much!

need!a!‘scaffolded!training’!in!critical!thinking,!as!they!need!to!be!informed!of!the!

epistemological!assumptions!of!their!academic!institution.31!This!may!well!be!the!

case! with! Western! students! who! have! navigated! their! way! through! education!

without!realising!the!epistemological!views!espoused!by!their!schools32!–!but,!it!is!

even! more! likely! to! apply! to! international! students,! who! are! unfamiliar! with!

Western!academic!practices!and!their!philosophical!presuppositions.

3. Critical/thinking/and/Asian/students

The!academic!performance!of!Asian!students!in!Western!universities!has!been!in!

the! limelight! of! educational! research! lately.! ! Much! of! the! discussion! is! not!

Klattering.!Students!coming!from!the!soVcalled!Confucian!Heritage!Cultures!(CHC),!

we!are!told,!struggle!to!meet!Western!academic!requirements.!The!nature!of!the!

problems!they!face!is!varied.!It!ranges!from!inadequate!Kluency!in!the!language!of!

the! host! country,! to! poor! social! integration! and! alarming! tendencies! to!

plagiarism.33! The! main! issue,! however,! appears! to! be! their! difKiculty! to! adopt!

Western!academic!standards!of!critical!thinking.!

Confucian! Heritage! students,! allegedly,! score! unsatisfactorily! in! informal!

logic,! argumentation! skills,! critical! dispositions! and! epistemic! development! V!

brieKly! put,! in! all! components! of! critical! thinking.! The! explanations! offered! for!

this!phenomenon!differ!in!the!details,!but!are!invariably!cultural.!The!supposedly!

circular! nature! of! the! classical! Chinese! style! of! reasoning! features! among! the!

causes! of! Asian! students’! struggle! with! logicoVargumentative! skills.! The!

Confucian!emphasis!on!memorisation!and!authority!links!to!weak!dispositions!to!

31! To! my! knowledge,! Bailin! was! the! Kirst! to! point! out! this! fundamental! point,! highlighting! the!

cultural!speciKicity!of!the!role!of!evaluativist!epistemology!in!Western!Higher!Education!and!the!

necessity!to!inform!students!of!it!(Bailin!(1999),!168,!Bailin!et!al!(1999b),!292).!In!recent!years,!

thanks!to!the!debate!on!international!education!and!Asian!learners,!this!point!has!become!more!

widespread!(Durkin!(2008),!24.!Egege!and!Kutieleh!(2000),!79!ff,! !Vandermensbrugghe!(2004),!

421;!for!more!references,!see!next!section).32!See!Bailin!(1999).33!For!an!introduction!to!the!subject!see!Rastall!(2006).!See!also!Wong!(2004)!160ff,!and!SpencerV

Oatey!and!Zhaining!Xiong!(2006).

!13

inquiry.! Finally,! the! East! Asian! social! pressure! to! avoid! confrontation! serves! to!

explain!their!perceived!preference!for!relativism.34!Such!explanations!are!marred!

with! generalisations! and! have! stirred! substantial! criticism.35 A! comprehensive!

review! of! this! controversy! is! beyond! the! scope! of! this! paper.! SufKice! here! to!

mention! the! arguments! relevant! to! problematising! and! enriching! the! current!

tripartite!conception!of!critical!thinking.!

Asian! students’! relationship!with! rationality!has! attracted!much! scholarly!

attention.36!Researchers!have!puzzled!over! the!apparent!contrast!between! their!

talent! for!mathematics!and!their!reported!clumsiness!as!critical! thinkers.!Asian!

students,! the! literature! shows,! proKiciently! apply! reasoning! skills! to! abstract!

logical! problems! and! tightlyVstructured! thinking! tasks.37! In! contrast,! their!

performance! in! complex! unstructured! problems,! of! the! kind! often! met! in! the!

Humanities!and!Social!Sciences,!tends!to!be!rated!as!poor!in!Western!universities.!

As! Colin! Evers! points! out,! this! discrepancy! in! outcome! may! derive! from! the!

difference! in! the!objects!of! reasoning! targeted! in!each! task.38! !The! type!of!data!

considered! in! the! Kirst! task! does! not! require!much! interpretation.! The! second!

kind! does.! A! Humanities! paper! calls! for! research! and! writing! strategies! that!

necessarily! contain! subjective! elements.! These! elements,! Evers! suggests,! are!

largely! cultureVdependent! and! may,! therefore,! affect! the! evaluation! of! Asian!

students’!reasoning!skills!in!international!settings.!Irrespective!of!whether!Ever’s!

interpretation! right! or! not,! his! hypothesis! is! noteworthy.39! It! has! the! merit! of!

shifting!the!attention!from!mere!reasoning!abilities!to!their!object!of!application.!

It!reveals!that!critical!thinking!is!a!function!of!the!target!to!which!logical!skills!are!

applied;! not! just! of! logical! skills! themselves.! Only! tasks! involving! interpretable!

data! require! critical! thinking1 sensu1 stricto! because! they! afford! a!multiplicity! of!

34!See,!for!instance,!Egege!and!!Kutieleh!(2000),!Lijing!Shi!(2006),!and!John,!Lee!and!Soong!(2012).35!See!Ryan!(2010),!and!Ryan!and!Kam!Louie,!in!Mason!(2008).36!For!an!introduction!to!the!topic!see!Nisbett!(2004)!and!Evers,!in!Mason!(2008).37!Jones!(2005),!347,!Evers!in!Mason!(2008),!31ff.38!See!Evers,!in!Moore!(2008),!35.!39! Evers! proffers! an! articulated! view,! whereby! reasoning! on! complex! issue! involves! the!

considerations!of!multiple! factors! that! are!prioritized!differently! in!different! cultures.!The! Kinal!

reasoning!will! reKlect!such!prioritization!and! therefore! the!most! ‘rational’!outcome! for!complex!

problems! is! ultimately! cultureVdependent.! Thus,! Asian! students! may! be! disadvantaged! in!

overseas!Universities!as!critical! thinking! is! there!measured!against!WesternVstyle!prioritisation.!

Ibidem.

interpretations,! have! no! objectively! demonstrable! outcome! and! call! for! the!

prescribed! mix! of! evaluative! epistemology! and! awareness! of! defeasibility.! In!

brief,!they!foster!critical!inquiry.!Some!kinds!of!data,!it!seems,!lend!themselves!to!

critical!scrutiny!better!than!others.!

Spirit! of! inquiry,! or! rather! the! lack! of! it,! is! another! favourite! topic! of!

researchers! on! CHC! learners.! Much! of! the! debate! revolves! around! the! Asian!

predilection!for!mnemonic!study!and!the!Western!concern!that!this!practice!may!

hinder! critical! thinking.! Memorisation,! some! claim,! amounts! to! mere! rote!

learning! and! is! a! symptom!of! a! shortage! of! critical! spirit.40! The! critique! of! this!

position!is!interesting.!Admirers!of!Oriental!students’!learning!strategies!appear!

to!be!fond!of!the!argument!from!effect.!Asian!students!achieve!good!marks,!they!

assert,! hence! memorisation! must! be! an! effective! learning! method.41! Jin! and!

Cortazzi!push! the!argument! further!and!conKlate! the!effectiveness!of! this! study!

practice!with!critical! thinking.!They!hold! that!memorisation!requires! ‘reKlective!

thinking’,! ‘independent! interpretation’! and! ‘internalisation! of! understanding’.42!!

To! substantiate! their! claim,! the! two! scholars! quote! the!words! of! Zhu! Xi,! a! XII!

century!author:

In* reading* we* must* Airst* become* intimately* familiar* with* the*text*so*that*its*words*seem*to*come*from*our*mouths.*We*should*then*continue*to*reAlect*on*it*so*that*its*ideas*seem*to*come*from*our*own*minds,*only*then*can*there*be*real*understanding.43

They!conclude! that!memorisation!can!prove! to!be!a! ‘deeply! reKlective,! enquiryV

based,!experiential!way!of! learning’.44! Jin!and!Cortazzi!are!right! in! insisting! that!

internalising!a!text!may!imply!personal!inquiry.!For!the!ideas!of!a!text!to!‘seem!to!

come!from!their!own!minds’,!students!must!have!reasoned!about!them!for!a!long!

time.!They!must!have!investigated!the!roots!of!each!claim!endorsed!by!the!author!

and! resolved! their! doubts! about! it.! Indeed,! to! achieve! the!mastery! that! Zhu! Xi!

describes,!students!need!to!understand!their!subject!deeply.!Yet,! this!process!of!

understanding! hardly! counts! as! critical! thinking.! The! difference! lies! in! the!

direction! of! the! argument.! Critical! thinkers! use! reasoning! to! reach! their! own!

conclusions.! Zhu! Xi’s! ideal! disciples! set! out! to! justify! a! preVgiven! claim.! The!

40!See!Lijing!Shi!(2006).!41!See!Biggs!(1996).42!Jin!and!Cortazzi!(2006),!12.431Ibidem,!12–13!(translation!from!Zhu!Xi’s!Chinese!quoted!from!Gardner!(1990),!43).441Ibidem.

!15

retrospective! justiKicatory! reasoning! in!which! they!engage! to! this!end!might!be!

personal!and!creative.!Nevertheless,!it!appears!to!stem!from!the!assumption!that!

the! text! is! an! unquestionable! authority,! to!whose!words! students!must! attune!

their!thoughts.!This!practice,!in!other!words,!implies!a!degree!of!absolutism.45

Relativism!is!held!to!be!Asian!learners’!most!typical!epistemic!framework.!

An!Oriental!‘collectivistic’!ethic,!the!argument!goes,!encourages!one!to!respect!all!

positions!equally.46!There!is!evidence,!however,!that!the!epistemic!assumptions!of!

students! change!with! training! and,!more! interestingly,! depending! on! the! topic,!

too.47! John,! Lee! and! Soong! observed! that! Asian! students! behave! relativistically!

when! confronted! with! the! topic! of! Astrology,! but! revert! to! absolutism! when!

important! ethical! matters! are! concerned.48! This! Kinding! raises! some! questions!

about!the!relationship!between!epistemic!stance,!critical!thinking!and!the!object!

of! inquiry.! To! approach! ethical! problems! from! an! absolutistic! perspective!may!

signal!intellectual!immaturity.!To!respond!with!relativism!to!questions!related!to!

astrology,! on! the! other! hand,!might! not! be! entirely! unjustiKied.! After! all,! in! the!

absence! of! data! to! develop! an! informed! opinion,! critical! thinking! calls! for! the!

suspension! of! judgement.! This! suggests! that! some! topics! Kit! active! critical!

investigations! better! than! others! –! that! is,! those! Kields! of! knowledge! for!which!

data! are! either! sufKicient! or! sufKiciently! integrated! within! a! network! of!

established!theories!to!support!a!view.

The! current! conception! of! critical! thinking! is! inadequate! to! understand!

Asian! students’! difKiculties.! The! triad! of! skills,! dispositions,! and! epistemic!

framework! sounds! deceptively! universal! and! obscures! the! speciKicity! of! this!

intellectual!practice.!Students!may!possess!reKined!reasoning!abilities!and!excel!

in! mathematical! problems,! or! be! deeply! inquisitive! in! their! internalization! of!

45!It!is!fair!to!note!that!the!focus!of!Jin!and!Cortazzi’s!article!are!the!Chinese!practices!of!learning!

English.! The! mnemonical! internalization! of! a! text! might! be! a! viable! way! to! learn! a! foreign!

language.!The!students!assume!that!the!text!is!written!in!correct!English!by!a!competent!author!

and!try!to!assimilate!vocabulary!and!syntactic!structure!through!imitation.!In!other!Kields!of!the!

Humanities,!however,!such!practice!would!be!questionable.46! For! an! organic! discussion! of! CHC! epistemic! and! cultural! tendency! to! relativism! and! further!

references!see!John,!Lee!and!Soong!(2012),!61ff.47!Durkin!(2008),!18,!and!John,!Lee!and!Soong!(2012)48! John,!Lee!and!Soong!(2012).!The!study!observed!a!cultural!difference!in!the!epistemic!switch.!

Like! their!Asian!counterparts,!Western!subjects!argued!absolutistically!about!adultery,!but! they!

approached!Astrology!from!an!evaluative!perspective.

information!(like!Zhu!Xi’s!ideal!pupil),!but!unless!they!exercise!their!reason!on!a!

certain!type!of!topic!and!data!and!argue!their!way!up!to!conclusions,!they!are!not!

critical! thinkers! by!Western! academic! standards.! This! has! little! to! do!with! the!

alleged!shortcomings!of!their!own!cultures.!

The! application! of! the! tripartite! model! of! critical! thinking! to! traditional!

Buddhist! argumentation! shall! clarify! this! point.! Texts! of! early! and! medieval!

Buddhist! argumentation! are! immune! from! the! Klaws! attributed! to! Confucian!

cultures,!but!nevertheless! they! fail! to! impress!us!as! Kine!examples!of!academicV

style!critical!thinking.

4. /Buddhist/argumentation/and/critical/thinking

Medieval!Buddhist! argumentation! offers! a! unique!perspective! on! the!nature! of!

critical!thinking.!This!tradition!cannot!be!dismissed!as!prone!to!circular!logic,!nor!

does! it! resort! to! relativism! as! a! means! to! avoid! quarrels.! Contrary! to! what! is!

reported! of! Confucianism,! Buddhism! has! developed! a! sophisticated! logicoV

epistemological!system!with!the!clear!intent!of!enabling!its!followers!to!evaluate!

philosophical! arguments! and! antagonize! proponents! of! different! views.!

Nevertheless,! a! look! at! the! Tarkabhāṣā,! a! manual! of! Buddhist! argumentation!

from! the! XI! century,! reveals! that! most! traditional! Buddhist! arguments! would!

hardly!count!as!critical!thinking!by!contemporary!academic!standards.!This!is!no!

surprise,!of!course.!To!search! for!contemporary!academicVstyle!critical! thinking!

in! a! medieval! Indic! text! is! an! anachronistic! enterprise.! Yet,! to! contrast! the1

Tarkabhāṣā’s! arguments! with! critical! thinking! is! not! meaningless,! I! believe.! It!

serves!to!highlight!the!distinguishing!features!of!academic!critical!thinking.!If!the!

arguments! reported! in! the! Tarkabhāṣā! display! good! logical! skills,! evaluative!

epistemology!and!no!obvious!sign!of!dispositional!deKiciencies,!but!do!not!strike!

us! as! being!pieces! of! critical! thinking,! then!we!must! conclude! that! the! speciKic!

essence! of! this! intellectual! practice! lies! in! some! other! characteristics! that! the!

current!tripartite!model!fails!to!capture.!

!17

Before!delving!into!the!contrastive!analysis!of!the!arguments,!an!outline!of!

the!main!features!of!Buddhist!argumentation!is! in!order.! It! is! impossible! in!this!

brief!paper!to!do!any!justice!to!this!complex!monument!of!human!rationality!and!

ingenuity.!For!a!thorough!understanding!of!this!subject!the!reader!is!referred!to!

the! Klourishing! literature!on! the! logicoVepistemological! foundations!of!Buddhist!

argumentation.49!Here,!I!will!conKine!myself!to!the!most!cursory!overview.

4.a/ Buddhist/argumentation:/a/quick/overview

Indic! Buddhist! argumentation! accepts! six! strategies! to! support! a! claim.! These!

include:!recourse! to!examples;!similarities;!dissimilarities;! statements!based!on!

direct! perception! or! inferential! reasoning! (Skt.! anumāna);! and,! in! some! cases,!

quotation! from!scriptures.50!While!all! these!methods!are!allowed! in!debate!and!

are! widely! attested! in! philosophical! treatises,! their! authoritativeness! varies!

greatly.! Examples,! analogies! and! disanalogies! are! ubiquitous! in! scholastic!

literature,!but!are!not! reputed! to!be! incontrovertibly!cogent.!Citations! from!the!

scriptures! allow! for! multiple! interpretations! and! therefore! enjoy! limited!

demonstrative!power.!They!are!admitted!as!supporting!evidence!only!if!they!do!

not! contradict! valid! perception! and! inferences.! The! usage! of! scriptures! is!

therefore!mostly! conKined! to! further! corroborate! a! claim! already! grounded! on!

reasoning.!

Direct! perception! and! inference,! by! contrast,! are! highly! valued!

argumentative!tools!as!they!are!accepted!as!epistemic!instruments!(pramāṇa).!To!

be! valid,! they! must! be! applied! according! to! certain! principles.! Recourse! to!

perception! can! only! support! arguments! pertaining! to! an! object! perceivable! by!

everyone.!So,! transcendent!aspects!of!reality! that!might! fall!within! the!scope!of!

the!direct!perception!of!extraordinary!beings!are! to!be!excluded! from!ordinary!

49!For!a!sample!of!various!aspects!of!Buddhist!argumentation!see!Tillemans!(ed.)!(2008)(Gillon’s!

contribution,! in! particular,! offers! a! good! concise! introduction! to! this! topic),! and! Katsura! and!

Steinkellner!(2004).!For!a!brief! Indic!manual!of!argumentation!see!Tachikawa!(1971).!Kajiyama!

(1998)! contains! interesting! sample! arguments.! On! a! comprehensive! survey! of! argumentation!

practices!in!Indic!society!see!Solomon!(1976),!and!Matilal!(1998)!might!be!of! interest!for!those!

interested! in! the! logical! aspect! of! the! subject.! Regarding! Tibetan! logic! and! argumentation,!

see!Rogers! (2009),! and! Dreyfus! in! Tillemans! (2008).! My! condensed! presentation! of! Buddhist!

argumentation! draws! on! a! combination! of! sources,! but! is! especially! indebted! to! Tachikawa!

(1971).!Any!imprecisions!in!the!account!are,!of!course,!my!own.50! This! strategy! is! valid! only! if! the! receiver! of! the! argument! acknowledges! the! scripture! as!

authoritative.

direct!perception.!Also,!perceptions!of!illusory!objects,!such!as!visions!induced!by!

drugs!or!incantations,!magical!displays!or!optical!illusions,!do!not!qualify!as!valid!

direct! perception.! Inferential! reasoning! also! must! follow! strict! formal! criteria.!

These!have!evolved!in!time!and!change!slightly!depending!on!the!purpose!of!the!

inference.! Broadly! speaking,! anumāna! begins!with! the! assertion! to! be! proven;!

proceeds!with!the!statement!of!the!reason!from!which!we!infer!the!assertion,!and!

substantiates! the! relationship! between! the! reason! and! the! claim! with! an!

example.!The!example!serves!to!illustrate!that!there!is!concomitance!between!the!

given! reason! and! the! inferred! claim.! In! some! cases! an! example! of! negative!

concomitance!is!also!provided.!So,!in!the!classical!example!of!the!inference!of!Kire!

from! the! presence! of! smoke,! the! concomitance! of! Kire! and! smoke! is! typically!

illustrated!with!the!example!of!a!kitchen;!that! is,!a!place! in!which!both!Kire!and!

smoke!are!present.!A! lake!usually! serves!as! example!of!negative! concomitance,!

where!both!Kire!and!smoke!are!absent.!Each!element!of!the!inferential!argument!

should!satisfy!a!number!of!criteria.!First,!the!object!to!be!demonstrated,!or!whose!

quality!is!to!be!proven!must!be!accepted!as!existent!by!both!parties!in!a!debate.!

So,! for! instance,! inferences! about! god! or! his! eternity! are! only! valid! if! the!

existence! of! god! has! been! already! successfully! demonstrated.! Second,! the!

assertion!must!not!contradict!valid!perception,!other!valid!inferential!reasonings,!

commonly!accepted!knowledge,!scriptures!whose!authority!is!accepted!by!either!

party,! and! it!must! not! contradict! itself.! Finally,! the! concomitance,! positive! and!

negative,!between!the!inferred!object!or!quality!and!the!reason!from!which!it!is!

inferred!must!be!almost!absolute.!Smoke!must!be!attested!in!almost!all!cases!of!

Kire!and!must!be!absent!in!almost!all!cases!where!Kire!is!absent.!Some!exceptions,!

however,!are!accepted.!

Besides! the! six! methods! to! establish! one’s! own! thesis,! the! Buddhist!

tradition!comprises!argumentation!schemes!for!refuting!one’s!opponent’s!claims!

and!reasoning.!Refutation!unfolds!through!two!kinds!of!objection.!First,!debaters!

may!point!out!formal!mistakes!in!their!opponents’!arguments.!For!example,!one!

might! object! that! a! statement! or! a! grounding! reason! contradicts! common!

knowledge,! authoritative! scripture! or! a! position! that! both!parties! have! already!

agreed! to! accept.! Second,! debaters! may! derive! unwanted! consequences! from!

!19

their! opponents’! positions,! thus! refuting! them! by! reductio1 ad1 absurdum1

(prasaṅga).! Finally,! they! can! prove! a! thesis! that! confutes! that! of! the! opponent!

(e.g.!proving!that!the!soul!does!not!exist).!!

This! fairly! complex! apparatus! of! rules! and! strategies! serves! to! guide!

inquiries! into! all! kinds! of! disputed! topics.! This! bears! some! resemblance! to!

critical! thinking.! Obviously,! the! themes! contended! in! ancient! India! were! often!

quite! different! from! those! discussed! in! the! average! contemporary! Western!

university!programme!(e.g.!the!existence!of!an!immortal!soul).!Nevertheless,!the!

tools!and!the!scope!of!Buddhist!argumentation!appear!to!be!comparable!to!those!

of! critical! thinking! insofar! as! they! afford! carefully! warranted! reasoning! to!

investigate! debatable! topics,! i.e.! problems! that! cannot! be! settled! by! empirical!

proofs! or! rigorously! deductive! arguments! and! are,! therefore,! susceptible! of!

conKlicting!solutions.

Traditionally,! Buddhist! argumentation! served! three!main! purposes.! First,!

debaters! would! deploy! refutation! strategies! to! challenge! heterodox! views.!

Second,! they! would! use! logical! arguments! to! ground! and! defend! their! own!

positions.!Third,! argumentation!would!at! times! serve!as! a! study!aid.51! Students!

would! engage! in! a! debate!with! themselves! or!with! their! peers! to! further! their!

own!understanding!of!Buddhist!tenets,!deepen!their!conviction!of!the!validity!of!

such!tenets!as!well!as!develop! insight! into! the!reasons!grounding!the!doctrines!

they!are!studying.!This!indeed!echoes!contemporary!descriptions!of!educational!

critical! thinking.! Theorists! insist! that! critical! thinking! consists! in! the! art! of!

challenging! claims! to! knowledge! on! logical! grounds! and! defending! one’s! own!

thesis! through!arguments.!Moreover,! some!hold! that!critical! thinking! is!a! study!

tool,!whereby! learners! internalise! their! lessons! though!a!deep!process!of! inner!

questioning.!Hence,!these!two!systems!do,!prima1facie,!seem!similar.!A!closer!look!

at!the!actual!usage!of!Buddhist!arguments,!however,!complicates!the!picture.!

Mokṣākaragupta’s! Tarkabhāṣā1 contains! several! traditional! arguments,!

complete!with!objections!and! logical!explanations.!They!range! from!refutations!

of! commonly! held! views,! such! as! the! existence! of! perceived! phenomena! (e.g.!

51!The!Hetuvidyā!of!the!Yogācārabhūmi!adds!a!fourth!purpose,!which!indirectly!derives!from!the!Kirst:!making!converts.

external! reality)! and! of! widely! accepted! metaphysical! entities! (e.g.! god,! an!

immortal! soul),! to! proofs! of! theses! characteristic! of! Buddhism! or! some! of! its!

schools! (e.g.! the! existence! of! omniscient! beings,! the! karmic! origin! of! all!

perceptions).! The! dialectical! techniques! deployed! in! each! of! them! vary.! Some!

arguments! rely! on! inference,! some! on! reductio1 ad1 absurdum,! others! deploy!

analogies!and!many! include!scriptural!authority!as!supplemental!evidence.! !All!

justify! their! claims!with! reasonings! that! follow!wellVestablished! argumentative!

schemes.! Yet,! most,! if! not! all,! of! Mokṣākaragupta’s! sample! arguments! fail! to!

persuade!the!contemporary!Western!reader.!

Such!lack!of!compelling!force!alerts!us!that!these!arguments!might!diverge!

from! our! standards! of! critical! thinking.! Given! the! current! tripartite!

conceptualisation! of! critical! thinking,! the! reason! for! such! divergence! could! be,!

theoretically,!threefold.!Mokṣākaragupta’s!reasoning!may!fall!short!of!our!logical!

standards;!his!motives!may!deviate!from!the!set!of!dispositions!typical!of!critical!

thinkers;!or!his!epistemic!presupposition!may!be!other!than!evaluative.!No!one!of!

these!criteria!Kit!the!case!in!point!well.

4.b/ Cogency/and/justi@icatory/reasoning

To!a!contemporary!reader,!some!recurrent!fallacies!may!appear!to!undermine!the!

validity!of!Buddhist!arguments.!They! include! false!alternatives,!nonVestablished!

classiKications! and,! more! generally,! unwarranted! assumptions.! Paul! GrifKiths!

ascribes!Mokṣākaragupta’s!lack!of!cogency!to!the!last!of!these!logical!Klaws.52!He!

takes!as!examples!the!refutations!of!God!in!the!Tarkabhāṣā.!God!does!not!exist,!

one! of! such! refutations! goes,! because! otherwise! he! would! be! perpetually! and!

simultaneously!creating,!preserving!and!destroying!the!world!–!which,!of!course,!

is!not!the!case.!This!reductio1ad1absurdum!pivots!on!the!unproven!tenet!that!God,!

being!a!permanent!agent,!must!be!constantly!actualizing!his!capacity!to!perform!

an!action.!So,! since!he! is! capable!of!both!creating!and!destroying,!he!should!be!

engaged!in!these!two!opposite!activities!at!the!same!time.53

52!GrifKiths!(1999).53! For! the! full! argument,! complete! with! possible! objections! and! replies! to! them,! see! Kajiyama!

(1998),!130–131.!For!GrifKiths’!explanation!of!it,!see!GrifKiths!(1999),!516.

!21

This! argument! may! sound! preposterous! to! us,! but! was! not! necessarily!

fallacious!by!medieval!Indic!standards.!What!counts!as!unwarranted!assumption!

depends,! after! all,! on! the! beliefs! shared! by! the! people! involved! in! the! debate.!

Perhaps!Mokṣākaragupta’s! assumptions!were,! at! least! partially,! agreed! ! by! the!

opponents.54! After! all,! the! author!of! the!Tarkabhāṣā! seems!deeply! convinced!of!

the!logical!necessity!of!his!arguments.!He!rarely!appears!to!suspect!that!relations!

of! concomitance! that!he!postulates!could!sound!questionable! to!his!opponents.!

And! even! when! he! does,! this! does! not! imply! logical! fallacy.! On! the! contrary,!

Mokṣākaragupta! reports! the! possible! objections! against! what! might! have!

appeared! to! be! unwarranted! assumptions! to! some! opponents! and! provides!

justiKication!for!them.55!In!the!case!of!the!refutation!of!God,!an!opponent!objects!

that! God!may!wish! to! actualise! his! capacity! to! create,!maintain! and! destroy! at!

different! times.! Mokṣākaragupta! replies! that! this! is! untenable.! If! such! wishes!

constituted!an! intrinsic!property!of!God,! they!would!always!be!present.! If! so,! it!

would!be!unexplainable!why!God!would!want!to!take!a!certain!action!at!a!certain!

time!and!not!another.!For,!if!God’s!decisions!where!inKluenced!by!external!factors,!

then! he! would! lose! his! quality! of! independent! efKiciency.! The! last! argument!

silences!the!opponent,!who!probably!agrees!that!God!must!possess!independent!

efKiciency.56!There!is!no!reason!to!doubt!that,!in!real!life!debates,!defenders!could!

have!legitimately!kept!backing!their!assumptions!retrospectively!until!they!hit!on!

a!claim!that!was!shared!by!all!parties.!Such!retrospective! technique! is!viable! in!

Buddhist! argumentation! because! this! dialectical! system! relies! on! a1 posteriori!

justiKicatory!reasoning.

Buddhist! argumentation! is,! broadly! speaking,! a! validating! exercise.! Here,!

reasoning!serves!to!test!the!logical!legitimacy!of!preVgiven!theses;!it!has!little!role!

in! positively! reaching! those! theses.57! Debaters! need! to! prove! that! their! claims!

withstand! logic,! but! only! in! a! fairly! narrow! sense.! Their! task! is! to! defend! the!

theses!against!objections.!They!are!not!asked!to!demonstrate!how!they!reasoned!

their! way! to! their! conclusions.! Mokṣākaragupta’s! refutation! of! an! agent! God!

54!Cf.!McClintock!(2010),!72.55! See,! for! example,!Mokṣākaragupta’s! coda! to! the! refutation! of! the! soul,! Kajiyama! (1998),! 141!

lines!26ff.56!Kajiyama!(1998),!130–131.57!For!a!more!nuanced!discussion!see!McClintock!(2010)!93–94!and!Dreyfus!(2003),!Chapter!12.

provides,! again,! a! Kine! illustration.! It! is! difKicult! to! believe! that! anyone! could!

conclude,!by!oneself,! that!there!is!no!creator!god!on!the!basis!that!creation!and!

destruction!of! the!world!do!not! take!place!continually!and!simultaneously.!This!

kind!of!argument!is!created!ad1hoc.!It!does!not!retrace!the!logical!steps!necessary!

to!reach!the!purported!conclusion!from!the!available!data.!Instances!of!reasoning!

based! on! commonly! available! information,! such! as! sensorial! data,! are! indeed!

included! within! Buddhist! argumentation! schemes.58! The! ubiquitous! model!

inference!of! Kire! from!smoke! is! a! classical! example!of!pragmatic! logic.!Debates,!

however,!seldom!focused!on!such!practical!issues.!Debaters!were!concerned!with!

metaphysical!subjects,!of!which!most!people!have!no!direct!experience.!Truth!on!

this! kind! of! topic! is,! for! Buddhists,! accessible! only! to! extraordinary! beings,! i.e.!

advanced! yogis! and! omniscient! buddhas.! This! does! not! mean! that! rational!

investigation!of!metaphysics! is!useless.! Simply,! the!primary! role!of! reason! is! to!

interpret,! understand,! or! refute! the! propositions! of! buddhas! and! other! beings!

that! claim! to! have! attained! higher! knowledge.! If! such! propositions! withstand!

reason,! i.e.! if! they! can! be! defended! against! objections! and! justiKied! with! a!

formally!valid!argument,!they!can!be!accepted!as!true.59

This! emphasis! on! retrospective! justiKication! affects! cogency.! Arguments!

address! objections! by! showing! that! the! claim! is! not! incorrect,! rather! than!

providing! incontrovertible! proof! that! it! is! correct,! or! likely! to! be! correct.! The!

focus! of! the! argumentative! enterprise,! thus,! shifts! from! the! sufKicient! and!

necessary! link!between!reason!and!thesis!to!mere!plausibility.60! In!other!words,!

since!the!validity!of!an!argument!rests!on!the!inability,!or!unwillingness,!to!object!

and! refute! it,! verisimilitude! becomes! more! important! than! demonstrable!

truthfulness.!From!an!academic!perspective,!this!emphasis!on!validation!impacts!

the!epistemic!efKicacy!of! the!arguments.! Since!objections,! rather! than!evidence,!

shape! the! reasoning,! argumentation! risks! plunging! into! relativism.! For,!

depending!on!the!audience,!opposing!claims!can!be!successfully!proved.!Authors!

of! manuals! of! Buddhist! debate! are! perfectly! aware! of! this! and! stress! the!

58!Direct!perception!is!an!accepted!epistemic!instrument!(pramāṇa)!and!the!locus!of!an!inference!(pakṣa)!should!not!contradict!common!knowledge!(see!Tachikawa!1971,!155!and!122).59!This!implies!also!evaluating!the!veridicity!of!their!claim!to!omniscience.!On!this!subject,!see,!for!

instance,!McClintock!(2010)!and!Jackson!(1993).60!On!the!notion!of!sufKiciency!for!binding!arguments,see!Walton,!Reed!and!Macagno!(2008)!34ff.

!23

importance! of! tailoring! arguments! to! the! beliefs! of! the! other! party.61! This! is!

indeed!a!good!rhetorical!strategy.!As!a!means!to!further!knowledge,!however,! it!

poses! difKiculties.! Mokṣākaragupta’s! version! two! famous! arguments! about!

external!reality!may!serve!to!clarify!this!point.

The!Tarkabhāṣā!provides!valid!arguments!for!proving!two!conKlicting!views!

of!the!relationship!between!perceived!objects!and!external!reality.! !These!views!

result!from!philosophical!elaborations!based!on!and!inscribed!in!the!worldview!

presented!in!the!scriptures.!Both!arguments!address!the!belief!that!perception!is!

grounded! in! external! objects.! The! Sautrāntika! school! of! Buddhism! endorses! it;!

the!Yogācāra!rejects!it.!

The!Sautrāntika!asserts!that!what!appears!to!us!through!perception!is!not!

the!perceived!object!itself,!but!our!cognition!of!it.!An!opponent!attempts!to!falsify!

this! thesis! through!reductio!ad!absurdum.!He!challenges!the!defender!to! justify!

how,!if!we!do!not!cognize!external!objects!themselves,!we!can!be!sure!that!they!

exist.!The!objection!banks!on!the!assumption,!embraced!by!the!Sautrāntika!and!

perhaps!by!the!opponent!himself,!that!external!reality!does!exist.!The!Sautrāntika!

replies!that!external!objects!can!be!inferred!from!the!fact!that!perception!appears!

to! be! determined! by! external! factors.! A! given! phenomenon,! the! proof! goes,!

appears! only! under! certain! circumstances,! it! is! not! perceived! at! random! (e.g.! I!

see!my! desk! only!when! I! am! in!my! study).! Hence,! one! can! conclude! that! such!

perception!is!caused!by!external!stimuli.!

This! argument! is! successful! with! realists,! but! succumbs,! at! least!

temporarily,! to! the! Yogācāra! refutation! of! external! reality.! The! Yogācāra! school!

challenges! the! atomistic! foundation! of! the! realist! view! in! order! to! preVempt!

objections! against! the! nonVrealist!model! of! cognition! that! it! advocates.! To! this!

end,!it!pivots!on!the!deKinition!of!atoms.!These!particles,!the!deKinition!goes,!are!

indivisible!and!compound!together!to!form!objects.!This!is!contradictory,!because!

if! atoms! compounded! with! one! another! they! would! have! sides,! or! points! of!

contact,!but!if!they!had!sides!they!would!be!divisible.!Hence,!the!notion!of!atom!is!

61!See!also!infra!note!72.!This!argumentative!practice!links!to!what!has!come!to!be!known!as!‘the!sliding!scale!of!analysis’.!For!an!introduction!to!this!subject!and!further!references!see!McClintock!

(2010),!85ff.

untenable! and! the! realist! view! of! perception! fails.! The! negation! of! atomism!

creates! the! specular! image! of! the! Sautrāntika! argument.! Now! the! opponent!

challenges!the!defender!to!explain!how!there!can!be!an!object!perception!if!there!

are! no! atoms! and,! hence,! no! material! objects.! The! answer! is! that! perception!

results!from!karman!and!not!from!external!objects!V!which!is!the!thesis!that!the!

Yogācāra!debater!had!wanted!to!demonstrate!all!along.62

These! arguments! are! ingenious,! but! inconclusive.! They! might! have!

constituted! a! satisfactory! explanation! of! the! relation! between! perception! and!

reality!for!those!already!inclined!to!accept!a!certain!worldview.!It!is!doubtful!that!

they!could!convince!advocates!of!the!opposite!view.!Proponents!of!atomism,!for!

example,!might!have!been!defeated! in!debate!by! the!Yogācāra! argument,! but! it!

seems! unlikely! that! they! would! have! relinquished! realism! on! the! basis! of! the!

Yogācāra!refutation!of!atomism.!After!all,!the!refutation!revolves!around!a!rather!

narrow! deKinition! and! interpretation! of! matter;! several! alternatives! could! be!

proposed!to!defend!external!reality!from!the!reductio!ad!absurdum.63!As!we!have!

noted!already,!GrifKiths!ascribes!the!lack!of!persuasive!power!of!certain!Buddhist!

arguments!to!logical!fallacy.!The!reasoning,!he!observes,!fails!because!it!rests!on!

unwarranted! assumptions.! In! my! view,! these! arguments! are! not! necessarily!

logically! Klawed.!We!can!understand! them!to!be!abductive! inferences!valid!only!

within!a!speciKic!group.!That!is,!they!provided!the!best!explanation!for!the!arising!

of!cognition!within!the!philosophical!milieu!that!accepted!a!certain!conception!of!

reality.64! Thus,! the! arguments! are! formally! acceptable,! but! do! not! produce!

sufKicient!evidence! to!establish! the! thesis!conclusively!outside!of! the!circle! that!

already!espouses!it.

The!problem!is!methodological.!On!account!of!its!validating!character,!Indic!

debate! focuses! on! objections.! This! modus1 operandi1 renders! arguments!

62! Kajiyama! (1998),! 139–147.! For! a! summary! of! the! Sautrāntika! counterVarguments! and! the!

contributions!of!nonVBuddhist!schools!to!the!debate!on!external!reality!and!perception!including!

non!Buddhist!positions,!see!Sinha!(1938).63See,! for! instance,! the! Jaina! response! to! the! Yogācāra! argument! summarized! in! Sinha! (1938),!

66.3.64!On!abductive!reasoning!in!contemporary!informal!logic,!see!Walton,!Reed,!Macagno!(2008),!171!

ff.

!25

unsystematic! and! vulnerable! V! objections,! after! all,! are! virtually! limitless.65! The!

nature!of!the!topics!debated!exacerbates!the!situation.!Metaphysical!discussions!

are!largely!detached!from!clearly!assessable!data!and!their!factual!validity!is!hard!

to!evaluate.! So,!Buddhist!arguments!only!aim! to!pass! the!broadest!of!empirical!

tests.! That! is,! they! wish! to! provide! a! model! that! Kits,! and! might! explain,! our!

experience.! This! model,! however,! is! purely! hypothetical.! Because! of! its!

metaphysical! nature,! it! can! neither! be! backed! with! sufKicient! data,! nor!

systematically!checked!against! the! information!available! to!all!debating!parties.!

Hence,! debaters! lack! a! solid! ground! for! exchange! and! most! of! the! claims!

proffered!are!destined!to!remain!forever!debatable.

Herein!lies!the!main!fracture!between!Buddhist!argumentation!and!critical!

thinking.! Critical! thinking! presupposes! that! claims! and! arguments! can! be!

evaluated!in!a!fairly!reliable!and!coherent!manner.!Hence,!it!requires!that!they!be!

based! on! a!methodologically! clear! analysis! of! the! data! available! to! all! parties.!

Such! argumentative! transparency! contributes! to! the! epistemic! effectiveness! of!

critical! investigations.! For,! it! allows! one! to! identify! clearly! the! strength! and!

weakness!of!various!positions!and!to!raise!precise!objections!against!them.!This,!

in! turn,!may! lead! to! the! improvement! of! the! claim,! rather! than! provoking! the!

mere!tweaking!of!the!argument.!Thus,!this!system!promotes!the!advancement!of!

academic!knowledge;!but!it!also!signiKicantly!limits!the!range!of!debatable!topics!

and!the!modalities!of!inquiry.

The! methodological! discrepancy! between! Buddhist! argumentation! and!

critical! thinking! highlights! an! important! point.! Academic! critical! thinking!

requires! speciKic! objects! of! scrutiny,! topics! of! investigation! and! investigative!

procedures.! It!scrutinizes!a!precise!set!of!objects,! i.e.! the!available!data!and!the!

methodology! used! to! collect,! analyse! and! interpret! them.! This! applies! to! both!

building! one’s! own! research! as! well! as! evaluating! the! intellectual! product! of!

other! scholars.! In! the! former! case,! students! should! interrogate! the! available!

information,! reason! their! way! from! dataVanalysis! to! conclusions! and! critically!

65! For! a! glimpse! on! the! amount! and! variety! of! the! objections! raised! against! the! Yogācāra! and!

Sāutrantika!views!on!perception!and!reality,!see!Sinha!(1938).!

question!the!methods!that!they!use!to!do!so.! In!the! latter!case,!students!should!

evaluate!the!methods,!reasoning!and!conclusions!of!others.

The!current!threefold!conception!of!critical!thinking!does!not!pay!adequate!

attention! to! this! feature.! It! creates! the! impression! that! logical! skills,! if!

accompanied!by!the!right!dispositions!and!epistemic!framework,!will! invariably!

produce!critical!thinking.!In!the!section!on!Asian!students!we!have!noticed!that!

this! is! not! the! case.! Logical! abilities! applied! to! wellVstructured! mathematical!

problems!do!not!necessarily! involve!critical! thinking!because!they!do!not!allow!

for! competing! interpretations! and! do! not! need! critical! evaluation.! The!

comparison!with! Buddhist! argumentation! reveals! that! the! same! holds! true! for!

the!opposite!kinds!of!problems,!too.!Topics!for!which!we!do!not!possess!enough!

assessable! data! are! open! to! overVspeculative! interpretations! that! cannot! be!

evaluated! systematically.! Hence,! they! do! not! constitute! a! suitable! subject! for!

academic!critical!thinking.

Finally,! Buddhist! argumentation! shows! the! pitfalls! of! retrospective!

justiKicatory! reasoning.! In! this! system,! theses! do! not! derive! from! a! thorough!

investigation! of! all! the! available! information! and! the! argument! focusses! on!

objections! rather! than! evidence.! This! weakens! the! persuasive! force! of! the!

arguments! and! affects! their! epistemic! value.! Critical! inquiry! moves! in! the!

opposite!direction,! from!evidence!to!conclusion.66!This! last!point!deserves!some!

explanation.! For,! a1 posteriori! justiKicatory! practices! enjoy! high! esteem! in!

educational! literature!and!the!notion!of!critical! thinking!dispositions!originated!

with!the!aim!to!fend!off!their!possible!drawbacks.!

66!This!includes!arguments!that!move!from!hypothesis!to!thesis,!as!long!as!a!comprehensive!and!

methodologically! sound! analysis! of! the! data! is! used! to! conKirm! the! hypothesis.! However,!more!

research!is!needed!to!establish!the!value!of!hypothesisVdriven!studies!in!the!Humanities.!For!an!

evaluation!of!the!risk!of!conKirmation!bias!and!the!possible!advantages!of!falsiKicationism!in!the!

Humanities,!see!Lam!in!Mason!(ed.)!(2008).!!

!27

4.c Justi@icatory/ reasoning/ and/ the/ dispositional/ model/ of/ critical/

thinking

JustiKicatory! reasoning! often! functions! as! a! model! of! critical! thinking.! In! most!

disciplines,! students! are! expected! to! provide! arguments! to! defend! their! claims!

and! back! them! with! selected! evidence.! Debate! and! legal! argumentation,! the!

quintessential!justiKicatory!practices,!are!often!promoted!as!instances!of!applied!

critical! thinking.67! Theorists,! however,! are! well! aware! of! the! limitations! of!

retrospective! reasoning! in! the! quest! for! critical! understanding.! A1 posteriori1

justiKicatory!arguments!allow!for!biased!presentation!of! information!and! for!ad1

hoc! criticism!of! others'! positions.! Success! in!defending! a! claim! is! no! guarantee!

that!the!data!used!to!reach!that!claim!have!been!impartially!evaluated,!or!that!the!

methodology!deployed!to!analyse!them!is!correct!and,!in!general,!that!the!claim!is!

truthful.!To!preserve!its!epistemic!validity,!theorists!have!tied!critical!thinking!to!

a! set! of! dispositions! that! ensure! the! sincere! impartiality! of! thinkers! and! the!

fairness! of! their! inquiry.! Critical! thinkers,! we! are! told,! distinguish! themselves!

from! sophists! or! partisan! rhetoricians! on! account! of! their! sincere! desire! to!

advance!their!knowledge,!to!be!wellVinformed,!to!be!openVminded,!and!so!on.!In!

brief,!critical!thinkers!are!honest!in!their!intellectual!pursuit.68

In! an! educational! setting,! the! dispositional! model! of! critical! thinking!

creates! more! problems! than! it! solves.! First,! since! the! dispositions! serve! as!

indicators! of! intellectual! integrity,! they! possess! a! rather! disturbing! moral!

connotation! that! makes! them! unsuitable! criteria! for! academic! evaluation.!

Second,!they!are!too!fuzzy!to!constitute!a!reliable!parameter.!It!may!be!hard,!for!

instance,!to!determine!the!motives!behind!students’!arguments,!or!to!gauge!their!

wish! to!be!well! informed.! Finally,! the! referents! of! such!dispositions!depend!on!

the! context.!What!might! count! as!being!wellVinformed! in! certain! situations,! for!

instance,!may!fall!short!of!academic!standards.!The!Tarkabhāṣā1may!serve,!again,!

to!illustrate!this!point.

67! For! a! discussion! of! the! use! of! debate! and! legalVstyle! argumentation! for! developing! critical!

thinking!see!Greenstreet!(1993)!and!Lapakko!(2009).68!See!supra!note!22.

It!is!difKicult!to!determine!whether!the!Tarkabhāṣā’s!arguments!spring!from!

a!genuine!spirit!of!inquiry.!Prima1facie,!they!do!not.!Most!arguments!are!marred!

with!bias.!On!the!one!hand,!formal!debating!with!its!admitted!aim!of!victory!is!an!

intrinsically! partisan! enterprise.! On! the! other,! even! purely! philosophical! nonV

agonistic!exchanges! (known! in! Indic!argumentation!as!vāda)!may!be!moved!by!

bias!insofar!as!debaters!set!out!to!justify!a!preVgiven!claim!without!exhaustively!

analysing! the! available! data,! or! reKlecting! on! their! own! methodology.69! OpenV

mindedness,! too,!appears! to!be! in!short! supply.!The!Tarkabhāṣā!does!not!show!

signiKicant!efforts! to! consider!all!possible! solutions! to!a!given!problem.! Indeed,!

instances! like! the!Yogācāra!refutation!of!atomism!appear!to!be!bent!on! just! the!

opposite.! Buddhist! debaters,! it! may! seem,! made! an! effort! to! present! a! very!

narrow! range! of! theoretical! possibilities! –! either! the! atoms! have! sides! to! bind!

with! one! another,! or! they! do! not! and! collapse! into! one! another! –! in! order! to!

create! the! impression! that! they! had! refuted! all! conceivable! alternatives.! Yet,! it!

would!be!unfair! to!deduce! lack!of! intellectual! integrity! from!this!argumentative!

strategy.!

To! judge! the! sincerity! of! Buddhist! thinkers'! quest! for! truth! by! standards!

like! openVmindedness! and! desire! to! be! wellVinformed! is! inappropriate! and!

inevitably! misrepresents! a! tradition! governed! by! different! rules! of!

argumentation!and!developed!from!a!different!epistemic!perspective.!Being!well!

informed,!for!example,!acquires!a!rather!restrictive!meaning!in!a!world!where!the!

topics! debated! are!mostly!metaphysical! and! held! to! be! directly! known! only! to!

extraordinary!people.!Within!this!framework,!seekers!of!truth!are!well!informed!

as! long! as! they! study! the! texts! attributed! to! those!who! claim! to! have! accessed!

truth!and,!ideally,!test!their!content!against!objections!to!establish!whether!they!

constitute!a!reliable!source.!In!this!regard,!Indic!debaters!were!indeed!very!well!

informed:!they!had!to!familiarise!themselves!with!the!doctrines!of!other!schools!

in! order! to! refute! them.70! Similarly,! for! Buddhist! philosophers,! the! alternatives!

worth! considering! are! limited! to! the! orthodox! and! heterodox! scriptural! or!

commentarial! accounts! of! a! topic! that! constituted! the! prominent! positions!

circulating!within!their!intellectual!milieu.!So,!while!a!modern!reader!may!judge!

69!On!vāda!and!other!Indic!categories!of!debate!see!Solomon!(1976),!Chapter!4.70!See!Tachikawa!(1971),!122.3.

!29

Mokṣākaragupta’s,! arguments! to! be! narrowVminded! in! the! extreme,! from! a!

traditional!perspective!they!are!not!necessarily!so.!They!simply!reKlect!a!different!

epistemic!standpoint.

4.d Epistemic/framework

The! fundamental! point! of! divergence! between! Buddhist! argumentation! and!

critical! thinking! is! epistemological.! It! is! not! related,! however,! to! the! tripartite!

developmental!epistemology!ubiquitous! in!critical! thinking! literature.!Theorists!

hold! evaluativism! to! constitute! the! acme! of! epistemic! development! and! to!

provide!an!ideal!basis!for!critical!thinking.!Relativism!and!absolutism,!in!contrast,!

are! held! to! hinder! critical! thinking! and! are! associated! with! lower! stages! of!

intellectual! development.! As! with! the! dispositional! model,! this! epistemic!

categorisation!possesses! some!unfortunate!overtones.!The!use!of! this! threefold!

schema! to! evaluate! critical! thinking! performance! implies! a! judgment! on! the!

intellectual! maturity! of! the! thinker.! This! affects! the! applicability! of! the!

developmental! epistemic! framework! to! crossVcultural! studies.! Indeed,! while!

many! students! of! any! given! nationality! are,! to! some! degree,! immature,! it! is!

impossible!to!generalize!about!the!intellectual!maturity!of!entire!traditions,!such!

as! Confucianism! or! Buddhism.! Moreover,! just! like! the! dispositional! model,!

developmental! epistemology! illVKits! nonVWestern! paradigms! of! inquiry,! such! as!

Buddhist!argumentation.!

Buddhist! argumentation! displays! aspects! reminiscent! of! all! three!

developmental!stages.!The!focus!on!the!audience’s!beliefs,!as!noted!earlier,!lends!

it! a! degree! of! relativism.! Defenders! build! their! proofs! around! the! opponent’s!

assumptions! and! the! very! validity! of! a! proof! is! partly! dependent! on! them.!

Relativism,!however,!pertains!only! to! the!practical!unfolding!of! an!argument;! it!

does!not!affect! the!purported! truthVvalue!of! the! claim.!The! inference!about! the!

impermanence!of!sound,!a!topos!of!Buddhist!logic,!may!serve!to!clarify!this!point.!

Sound! is! impermanent,! the! reasoning! goes,! because! it! is! produced! and! all!

produced! phenomena! are! impermanent.71! According! to! Buddhist! epistemology,!

this! argument! is! valid! only! for! an! audience! already! persuaded! of! the!

impermanence!of!all!produced!phenomena,!but!unsure!about!the!impermanence!

of!sound.! If! they!already!knew!that!sound!is! impermanent!the!reasoning!would!

be!pleonastic,!and!if!they!were!to!disagree!about!the!impermanence!of!produced!

phenomena!it!would!be!ineffective.72!The!truthfulness!of!the!claim!that!sound!is!

impermanent,! in! contrast,! does!not!depend!on! the!audience’s!beliefs.! Its! truthV

value! is! considered! to! be! certain.! How! exactly! Buddhist! epistemologists!

understand!certainty! to!be!achieved! is!a! thorny!question.73!Broadly!speaking,! it!

seems! to! derive! from! two! factors.! The! certain! proposition! must! belong! to! an!

authoritative!tradition!and!it!must!withstand!logical!scrutiny.!

The! emphasis! on! the! authority! of! tradition! echoes! the! absolutist!

framework.! To! accept! as! certain! a! claim! whose! validity! can! only! be! tested!

negatively!against!objections!and!cannot!be!positively!demonstrated!contains!an!

element! of! absolutism.! Here,! the! authoritativeness! of! the! source! often!

determines! the! veracity! of! the! claim.! The!mechanism! of! karman,! for! example,!

constitutes!a!fundamental!part!of!the!tradition!and!is!likely!to!be!considered!true!

ipso1facto,1even!if!nobody!could!uncontrovertibly!infer!it!from!the!empirical!data!

available.! To! some! educational! theorists,! this! might! smack! of! absolutism.! The!

situation,!however,!is!more!complex.!Scriptural!propositions!are!seldom!accepted!

at! face! value.!On! the! contrary,! they! are! the!object! of! tireless!dialectical! inquiry!

and! hermeneutical! elaborations.! The! practice! of! debate! in! some! contemporary!

monastic!universities!offers!a! Kine!example!of! the! character!of! such! intellectual!

endeavors!and!sheds!some!light!on!their!epistemic!assumptions.! !It!is,!therefore,!

worth!a!brief!digression.

Debate!constitutes!an!important!part!of!the!curriculum!of!the!Geluk!school!

of! Tibetan!Buddhism.74! Drawing! on!his! personal! experience! as! a!Geluk! trainee,!

George! Dreyfus! provides! an! informative! account! on! the! educational! role! of!

71!For!a!formal!and!philosophical!explanation!of!this!inference,!see!Tachikawa!(1971),!112!ff!and!

131,!note!7.!72!Rogers!(2009),!40–41,!Tachikawa!(1971),!123.9,!Dreyfus!(2003),!207.73!See!Dreyfus!(2003),!207!n.24!and!Tillemans,!in!Katsura!and!Steinkellner!(2004).74!For!a!short!introduction!to!the!role!of!debate!in!the!monastic!curriculum!of!the!Geluk!school!of!

Tibetan! Buddhism,! see! Lempert! (2012),! 45ff,! for! a! more! comprehensive! study! see! Dreyfus!

(2003),!chapter!11.

!31

debate! in! this! tradition.!He! reports! that! it! performs! two! functions.! It! serves! to!

internalize! traditional! interpretations!of!Buddhist!doctrines!and,!more!rarely,! it!

works!as!a!tool! for!one’s!own!personal! inquiry.75! In!the!former!case,!debate!is!a!

powerful! study! technique.! Forced! to! search! for! the! reasons! behind! various!

doctrinal! points,! the! student! grasps! the! internal! logic! of! the!debated! topic! and!

gains! a! deep! understanding! of! it.! This! study! strategy,! as!mentioned! already,! is!

indeed!effective!to!master!a!preVgiven!theory,!but!does!not!coincide!with!critical!

thinking.76!The!second!use!of!monastic!debate!is!closer!to!critical!thinking.!Some!

Geluk!teachers,!Dreyfus!highlights,!deploy!traditional!argumentation!schemes!to!

support!personal! inquiry!and!develop!original! interpretations!of!Buddhist! texts!

and! doctrines.77! Only! rarely,! however,! does! a! monk’s! inquiry! lead! to! the!

falsiKication!of!scriptural!or!commentarial!statements,!or!to!the!formulation!of!a!

heterodox!position.78! Such!cases!are!exceptional;! the!opposite! scenario!appears!

to! be! the! rule.! The! truthfulness! of! traditional! propositions! is! the! fundamental!

assumptions! of! one’s! inquiry! and! determines! both! how! the! argument! unfolds!

and! whether! it! is! successful.! Challenged! with! objections! against! the! theories!

upheld!by!their!school,!debaters!need!to!justify!them.!If!they!fail,!their!inability!to!

back!the!doxastic!view!does!not!cast!doubts!on!the!tenability!or!truthfulness!of!

the! thesis.! Rather,! it! is! taken! to! signal! the! debater’s! lack! of! skill! or!

understanding.79!In!contemporary!Geluk!universities,!thus,!argumentation!serves!

to!evaluate!the!merits!of!a!debater’s!own!interpretation!of!the!scriptures,!not!to!

gauge!the!validity!of!a!traditional!claim.!If!we!were!to!attempt!to!Kit!this!system!of!

argumentation!to!the!procrustean!bed!of!tripartite!developmental!epistemology,!

we!would! Kind! a! hybrid! stage!where! absolutism! and! evaluativism!merge.! Such!

reading,!however,!fails!to!appreciate!the!nature!of!Buddhist!evaluativism.

Buddhist! argumentation! is! rooted! in! evaluativism.! It! originated! from! the!

need! to! engage!with! proponents! of! different! views! in! a! structured!manner,! so!

that!the!validity!of!competing!claims!could!be!judged!fairly.!Thus!far,!its!epistemic!

presupposition! corresponds! to! that! of! critical! thinking.! The! criteria! used! to!

75!Dreyfus!(2003),!chapter!12,!in!particular!270–274,!288–289.!Cf!Lempert!(2012),!32ff.76!See!supra,!section!3.77!Dreyfus(2003),!!chapter!12,!in!particular!286–289.781Ibidem,!313ff,!324.791Ibidem!214–215.

evaluate! the! merits! of! arguments! and! claims,! however,! signal! that! Buddhist!

evaluativism! is! rather! different! from! what! critical! thinking! theorists! have! in!

mind.! Buddhist! argumentation! and! critical! thinking! share! an! evaluative!

epistemic!attitude,!but!differ!in!the!content!of!their!epistemological!convictions.!

The! epistemology! that! informs! Buddhist! argumentation! is,! brieKly! put,! of!

the!scholastic!kind.80!It!pivots!on!four!points.!(1)!Certain!knowledge!is!attainable,!

but! (2),! depending! on! the! topic,! it! might! only! be! achievable! through! the!

mediation! of! buddhas;! (3)! scriptures! offer! a! glimpse! of! the! contents! of! such!

knowledge,!(4)!but!they!require!hermeneutical!effort!to!be!understood!correctly.!

The! task! of! the! Buddhist! thinker,! then,! consists! in! unraveling! the! textual! truth!

and!dispelling!the!confusion!in!the!midst!of!which!ordinary!people! live.!Several!

factors!are!held!to!contribute!to!such!confusion.!To!begin!with,!common!people’s!

sensory!experience!is!largely!unreliable!when!it!comes!to!understanding!reality.!

Moreover,!many!teachers! falsely!claim!to!have!attained!truth!and!preach!wrong!

doctrines.!Finally,!even!within!the!Buddhist!community!a!plethora!of!conKlicting!

interpretations! of! the! doctrine! have! arisen.! Various! schools! put! forward!

competing! accounts! of! metaphysical! details! that! the! purportedly! omniscient!

buddhas!have!not!clearly!spelled!out.!Argumentation!serves!to!sort!through!these!

views.!It!does!so!by!testing!them!through!a!number!of!parameters,!two!of!which!

are! worth! noting! here.! First,! a! claim! should! harmonize! with! the! Buddhist!

worldview.! That! is,! it!must! either! not! contradict! the! scriptures! or! it! should! be!

somehow!reconciled!with!them!through!reasoned!hermeneutic.!Second,! it!must!

account!for!what!is!ordinarily!experienced,!even!if!it!denies!the!ultimate!veracity!

of! perception.! This! is! the! case! of! the! Yogācāra! argument! that! we! encountered!

above.!It!refutes!that!the!perceived!external!reality!exists.!Still,!it!accounts!for!our!

experience! of! the!world! by! attributing! it! to! the!workings! of! karman.! Thus! the!

argument! succeeds! in! explaining! ordinary! perception!within! the! framework! of!

the!Buddhist!doctrine.!

Buddhist! scholastic! evaluativism! is! incommensurable! with! the! postV

positivist! evaluativism! that! underpins! critical! thinking.! Academic! inquiry!

presupposes!that!certainty! is!unobtainable!and!all! theories!are!defeasible.!Even!

80!See!GrifKith!in!Cabezon!(ed.)!(1998),!208!ff;!cf!McClintock!(2010),!93–94.

!33

though!new!claims!need!to!enjoy!a!fair!degree!of!explanatory!integration!within!

the!web!of!beliefs!accepted!by!the!scholarly!community,!complete!harmonisation!

with!received!knowledge!is!neither!necessary!nor!desirable.!ScientiKic!knowledge!

advances! through!perpetual! challenges! to! and! revisions! of! existing! theories.! In!

this!system,!the!probability!of!truthfulness!and!the!parameters!to!assess! it! take!

centre!stage.!!Critical!thinkers’!objective,!then,!is!to!appraise!the!likelihood!that!a!

claim! is! true! on! the! basis! of! the! theories! and! information! available! and! of!

methods! deployed! to! collect! and! study! the! data,! while! keeping! in! mind! that!

certainty!is!forever!elusive.

5. Conclusions:/ towards/ a/ practical/ de@inition/ of/ academic/ critical/

thinking/

It! is!now!time!to!turn!our!attention!again!to!the!PhD!students!of!Buddhist!

background,! whose! struggle! with! critical! thinking! triggered! the! reKlections!

contained!in!this!paper.!More!research!is!needed!to!identify!their!problems!and!

devise! a! didactic! strategy! able! to! address! them! effectively.! In! the! meantime,! I!

suggest!that!our!educational!efforts!should!focus!on!explaining!to!such!students!

what! constitutes! academic! critical! thinking;! not! on! searching! for! the! roots! of!

their!difKiculties!in!their!cultural!background,!lest!we!repeat!in!Buddhist!Studies!

the!imprecisions!that!have!already!tainted!much!of!the!debate!on!CHC!learners.!

Our! priority,! then,! should! be! to! clarify! to! the! students! what! is! expected! from!

them!as!critical!thinkers!engaged!in!the!production!of!a!doctoral!dissertation.

To! this! end,! the! current! tripartite! description! of! critical! thinking! as! a!

combination! of! logicoVargumentative! skills,! dispositions! and! evaluative!

epistemology!is! inadequate.! It! is!so!for!two!reasons.!First,! this!model!possesses!

some! disturbing! implications! about! the! intellectual! maturity! and! integrity! of!

students.! Second,! it! is! overly! vague! and! fails! to! capture! the! distinctive!

characteristics!of!academic!critical!thinking.!The!portrait!of!critical!thinking!that!

emerges! from!the!comparison!with!Buddhist!argumentation,!by!contrast,!might!

prove!a!useful,!if!preliminary,!didactic!tool.!First,!it!divests!critical!thinking!of!its!

universal! overtones.! Thus,! it! circumvents! the! problem! of! interpreting!

international!students’!lack!of!critical!thinking!as!a!cultural!deKiciency.!Second,!it!

offers! practical! guidelines! for! the! academic! application! of! critical! thinking.! It!

informs! the! students! that! (1)! wellVdocumented! but! interpretable! topics!

constitute! a! suitable!object!of! inquiry;! that! (2)! their! critical! scrutiny! should!be!

directed! towards! the!documentation!and! the!methods!deployed! to! analyse! and!

interpret!it;!and!that!(3)!conclusions!should!derive!from!reasoning!based!on!the!

study! of! available! data! in! the! light! of! existing! theories.! Finally,! it! explains! that!

critical! thinking! stems! from! a! speciKic! epistemological! position.! That! is,! the!

conviction! that! certainty! is! beyond! our! reach! and! all! arguments! are! defeasible!

but!can!be!evaluated!on!the!basis!of!empiricallyVderived!data!and!in!the!light!of!

the!methods!used!to!interpret!them.!

Perhaps,! this! practical! description! of! critical! thinking! will! improve! our!

students’! academic! performance.! Perhaps,! it! will! give! them! the! opportunity! to!

assess!lucidly!whether!a!British!PhD!and!critical!thinking!abilities!are!really!what!

they! need! and! want! to! achieve.! After! all,! that! academic! critical! thinking! is!

universally!valuable!is!but!another!debatable!truth.

Bibliography

Bailin,* Sh.* 1999.* ‘The* Problem* with* Percy:* Epistemology,* Understanding* and* Critical*Thinking’,*Informal1Logic,*19*(2–3),*161–170.

Bailin,* Sh.* et* al.* 1999a.* ‘Common* Misconceptions* of* Critical* Thinking’,* Journal1 of1Curriculum1Studies,*31(3),*269–283.

Bailin,*Sh.*et*al.*1999b.*‘Conceptualizing*Critical*Thinking’,*Journal1of1Curriculum1Studies,*31(3),*285–302.

Biggs,*J.*1996.* ‘Western*Misperceptions*of*the*Confucian*Heritage*Learning*Culture’,*in* D.* Watson* and* J.* Biggs* (eds.),* The1 Chinese1 Learner:1 Cultural,1Psychological1 and1 Contextual1 InNluences,* Hong* Kong:* Comparative*Education*Research*Centre.

BrookAield,*J.*1987.*Developing1Critical1Thinkers,*San*Francisco:*Jossey*Bass.Cabezon,* J.* I.* (ed.)* 1998.* Scholasticism:1 CrossPCultural1 and1 Comparative1 Perspectives,*

Albany:*State*University*of*New*York*Press.Clark,* R.,* Gieve,* S.N.* 2006.* ‘On* the* Discursive* Construction* of* ‘The* Chinese* Learner’,*

Language,1Culture1and1Curriculum,*19(1),*54–73.Cosgrove,* R.* 2011.* ‘Critical* Thinking* in* the*Oxford* Tutorial:* A* Call* for* an* Explicit* and*

Systematic* Approach’,* Higher1 Education1 Research1 and1 Development,*30(3),*343–356.

!35

Davies,* M.* 2006.* ‘An* ‘Infusion’* Approach* to* Critical* Thinking:* Moore* on* the* Critical*Thinking*Debate’,*Higher1Educations1Research1and1Development,25(2),*179–193.

Davies,* M.* 2011.* ‘Introduction* to* the* Special* Issue* on* Critical* Thinking* in* Higher*Education’,*Higher1 Education1 Research1 and1Development,* 30(3),* 255–260.

Durkin,* K.* 2008.* ‘The*Adaptation* of* East* Asian* Students* to*Western*Norms* of* Critical*Thinking* and*Argumentation* in* the*UK’,* Intercultural1 Education,* 15–27.

Dreyfus,* G.* B.* J.* 2003.* The1 Sound1 of1 Two1 Hands1 Clapping:1 The1 Education1 of1 a1 Tibetan1Buddhist1Monk,*Berkeley:*University*of*California*Press.*

Egege,* S.,* Kutieleh,* S.* 2000.* ‘Critical* Thinking:* Teaching* Foreign* Notions* to* Foreign*Students’,*International1Education1Journal,**4(4),*75–85.

Ennis,*R.*1962.*‘A*Concept*of*Critical*Thinking’,*Harvard1Educational1Review,*32*(1),*81–111.

Ennis,*R.*1993.* ‘Critical*Thinking*Assessment’,*Theory1into1Practice,*32(3),*179–186.Ennis,*R.*2011.* ‘The* Nature* of* Critical* Thinking* Dispositions* and* Abilities’,* Revised*

version* of* his* 1994* paper* presented* at* the* VI* International*Conference*on*Thinking*at*MIT.

Golding,*C.*2011.* ‘Educating* for*Critical*Thinking:*Thought?Encouraging*Questions* in*a*community* of* Enquiry’,*Higher1 Education1Research1 and1Development,*30(3),*357–370.

Greenstreet,*R.*1993.* ‘Academic*Debate*and*Critical*Thinking:*A*Look*at* the*Evidence’,*National1Forensic1Journal,1XI,*pp.*13–28.

GrifAiths,*P.*1999.* ‘What*do*Buddhists*Hope*for* from*Antitheistic*Argument?’,*Faith1and1Philosophy,*16(4),*506–522.*

Haack* S.* 2009.* Evidence1 and1 Inquiry:1 A1 Pragmatist1 Reconstruction1 of1 Epistemology.*Expanded*edition,*Amherst:*Prometheus*Books.

Jackson,* R.* 1993.* Is1 Enlightenment1 Possible?1 Dharmakīrti1 and1 rGyal1 tshab1 rje1 on1Knowledge,1 Rebirth,1 NoPself1 and1 Liberation,* Ithaca:* Snow* Lion*Publications.

Kajiyama, Y. 1998. An1 Introduction1 to1Buddhist1Philosophy:1An1Annotated1Translation1of1the1Tarkabhāṣā1of1Mokṣākaragupta,*Wien:*WSTB.

Katsura,*Sh.,*Steinkellner,*E.*2004.*The1Role1of1Dṛṣṭanta1in1Classical1Indian1Logic,*Vienna:*WSTB.

Kosso.* P.* 2006.* ‘Introduction:* The* Epistemology* of* Archeology’,* in* G.* G.* Fagan* (ed.),*Archeological1 Fantasies:1 How1 Pseudoarcheology1Misrepresent1 the1 Past1and1Misleads1the1Public.*London:*Routledge.*

Kuhn,*D.*1999.*‘A*Developmental*model*of*Critical*Thinking’,*Educational1Researcher,*28*(2),*16–26.

Kuhn,*D.*2001.* ‘How*Do*People*Know?’,*Psychological1Science,*12,*1–8.Kuhn,*D.,*Udell,*W.*2003.*‘The*Development*of*Argument*Skills’,*Child1Development,*74(5),*

1245–1260.Ikuenobe,* P.* 2001.* ‘Teaching* and* Assessing* Critical* Thinking* abilities* as* Outcomes* in*

informal*Logic*Course’,*Teaching1in1Higher1Education,*6(1),*19–35.Jin,*L.,*Cortazzi,*M.*2006.*‘Changing*Practices*in*Chinese*Cultures*of*Learning’,Language,1

Culture1and1Curriculum,*19(1),*5–20.

Jones,* A.* 2005.* ‘Culture* and* Context:* Critical* Thinking* and* Student* Learning* in*Introductory* Macroeconomics’,* Studies1 in1 Higher1 Education,* 30(3),*339–354.

Lapakko,*D.*2009.*Argumentation:1Critical1Thinking1in1Action,1Bloomington:*iUniverse.*Lempert,*M.*2012.*Discipline1and1Debate:1The1Language1of1Violence1in1a1Tibetan1Buddhist1

Monastery,*Berkeley:*University*of*California*Press.Lijing,*Shi.*2006.*‘The*Successor*of*Confucianism*or*a*New*Generation?*A*Questionnaire*

Study* on* Chinese* Students’* Culture* of* Learning* English’,* Language1Culture1and1Curriculum,*19(1),*122–147.

Liitos,* H.M.,* Kallio,* E.,* Tynjälä,* P.* 2012.* ‘Transformations* Toward* Mature* Thinking:*Challenges* for* Education* and* Learning’,* in* P.* Tynjälä* et* al.* 2012,*Transitions1and1Transformations1in1Learning1and1Education,*Dordrecht:*Springer.

Lloyd,*M.,*Bahr,*N.*2010.*‘Thinking*Critically*about*Critical*Thinking*in*Higher*Education’,*International1 Journal1 for1 the1 Scholarship1 of1 Teaching1 and1 Learning,* 4*(2).

Mason,*M.*(ed)*2008.*Critical1Thinking1and1Learning,*Malden:*Blackwell.Matilal, B.K. 1998. The1Character1of1 Indian1Logic,*Albany:*State*University*of*New*York*

Press.McClintock,* S.L.* 2010.* Omniscience1 and1 the1 Rhetoric1 of1 Reason:1 Śāntarakṣita1 and1

Kamalaśīla1 on1 Rationality,1 Argumentation,1 and1 Religious1 Authority,*Boston:*Wisdom*Publications.

McPeck,*J.E.*1981.*Critical1Thinking1and1Education,*New*York:*St.*Martin’s*Press.Moon,*J.*2008. Critical1 Thinking:1 An1 Exploration1 of1 Theory1 and1 Practice,* London:*

Routledge.Moore,*J.*2004.* ‘The* Critical* Thinking* Debate:* How* General* are* General* Thinking*

Skills?’,*Higher1Education1Research1and1Development,23*(1),*3–18.Moore,* J.* 2011.* ‘Critical* Thinking* and* Disciplinary* Thinking:* A* Continuing* Debate’,1

Higher1Education1Research1and1Development,*30(3),*261–274.Nisbett,* R.* 2004.* The1 Geography1 of1 Thought:1 How1 Asians1 and1 Westerners1 Think1

Differently…1and1Why,1New*York:*Free*Press.Onoda,*S.*1992.*Monastic1Debate1in1Tibet:1A1Study1of1the1History1and1Structures1of1bsdus1

grwa1Logic,*Wien:*WSTB.Perdue,*D.E.*1992.*Debate1in1Tibetan1Buddhism,*Ithaca:*Snow*Lion*Publications.Pithers,* R.T.,* Soden,* R.* 2000.* ‘Critical* Thinking* in* Education:* A* Review’,* Educational1

Research,142(3),*237–249.Rastall,*P.*2006.*‘Introduction:*The*Chinese*Learner*in*Higher*Education*–*Transition*and*

Quality*Issues’,*Language,1Culture1and1Curriculum,*19(1),*1–4.Robinson,*R.S.*2011.*‘Teaching*Logic*and*Teaching*Critical*Thinking*:*Revisiting*McPeck’,*

Higher1Educations1Research1and1Development,*30(3),*275–287.Rogers,*K.*M.*2009.*Tibetan1Logic,*Ithaca:*Snow*Lion*Publications.Ryan,* J.* 2010.* ‘The* Chinese* Learner:* Misconceptions* ad* Realities’,* in* J.* Ryan* and* G.*

Slethaug.*2010,*International1Education1and1the1Chinese1Learner,*Hong*Kong:*Hong*Kong*University*Press,*37–56.

Siegel,*H.*1988.1 Educating1 Reason1 –1 Rationality,1 Critical1 thinking1 and1 Education,*London:*Routledge.

Sinha,*J.*1938.* Indian1Realism.*London:*Kegan*Paul.

!37

Solomon,* E.* A.* 1976.* Indian1 Dialectics:1 Methods1 of1 Philosophical1 Discussion,1 Volume1 2,*Ahmedabad:*Institute*of*Learning*and*Research.

Soong,* H.,* John,* G.,* Lee,* R.* 2012.* ‘Cultural* differences* in* JustiAicatory* Reasoning’,*Educational1Review,*64(1),*57–76.

Spencer?Oatey,* H.,* Xiong,* Z.* 2006.* ‘Chinese* Students’* Psychological* and* Sociocultural*Adjustments* to* Britain:* An* Empirical* Study’,* Language,1 Culture1 and1Curriculum,19(1),*37–53.

Tachikawa,* M.* 1971.* ‘A* Sixth* Century* Manual* of* Indian* Logic’,* Journal1 of1 Indian1Philosophy,*1,*111–145.

Tillemans,*T.*1999.*Scripture,1Logic,1Language,*Boston:*Wisdom*Publications.Tillemans,*T.*(ed.)*2008. ‘Argumentation', [Special Issue on Buddhist Argumentation], 22 (1). Toulmin,*S.*1958.*The1uses1of1Argument,*Cambridge:*Cambridge*University*Press.Vandermensbrugghe,* J.* 2004.* ‘The* Unbearable* Vagueness* of* Critical* Thinking* in* the*

Context* of* the* Anglo?Saxonisation* of* Education’,* International1Education1Journal,*5(3)*2004,*417–422.

Yi?Ching,*J.*Ch.*2009.*‘Facilitating*Asian*Students’*Critical*Thinking*in*Online*Discussions’,*British1Journal1of1Educational1Technology,*40(1),*42–57.

Watson,*D.,*Reed,*Ch.,*Macagno,*F.*2008.*Argumentation1Schemes,*Cambridge:*Cambridge*University*Press.

Wong,* J.K.* 2004.* ‘Are* the* Learning* Styles* of* Asian* International* Students* Culturally* or*Contextually*Based?’,*International1Education1Journal,*4(4),*154–166.