S:2016-12-14 22:16:32 E:2016-12-14 22:23:16 Take 7 minutes
S:2016-12-20 21:25:26 E:2016-12-20 22:32:50 Take 50 minutes
S:2016-12-21 07:54:27 E:2016-12-21 08:11:09 Take 15 minutes
S:2016-12-22 12:59:48 E:2016-12-22 13:19:04 Take 20 minutes
S:2016-12-27 11:38:57 E:2016-12-27 11:58:13 Take 20 minutes
S:2016-12-27 14:15:11 E:2016-12-27 14:46:23 Take 31 minutes

total:133 minutes

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

Yet,despite its value,the focus on feelings went too far.Like many other movements,what began as a reaction against an extreme view became an extreme view itself.The result of that extremism was the neglect of thinking.This book was designed to answer that neglect.The introduction to the first edition explained its rationale as follows:
The emphasis on subjectivity served to correct a dangerous oversimplification.But it is the kind of reaction that cannot be sustained for long without causing an even worse situation—the neglect of thinking. Worse for two reasons.First ,because we live in an age of manipulation.Armies of hucksters and demagogues stand ready with rich resources of psychology play upon our emotions and subconscious needs to persuade us that superficial profound,harmful is beneficial,evil is virtuous.And feelings are especially vulnerable to such manipulation.
Secondly,because in virtually every important area of modern life—law,medicine,government,education,science,business, and community affairs—we are beset with serious problems and complex issues that demand careful gathering and weighing of facts and informed opinions,thoughtful consideration of various conclusions of actions, and judicious selection of the best conclusion or most appropriate action....
[Today's college student] has been conditioned not to undervalue subjectivity,but to overvalue it. And so he needs to be taught how to sort out his feelings,decide to what extent they have been shaped by external influences, and

evaluate them carefully when conflict among themselves or with the feelings of others.In short,he needs to be taught to think critically*.
There is an unfortunate tendency among many to view feeling and thought as mutually exclusive , to force a choice between them. If we focus on one,then in their view we must reject the other. But this is mistaken.Feelings and thought are perfectly complementary.Feelings, being more spontaneous , is an excellent beginning to the development of conclusions.And thought,being more deliberate ,provides a way to identify the best and most appropriate feeling,Both are natural.
Thinking,however, is less automatic than feeling. To do it well demands a systematic approach and guided practice.

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

Futures of This Edition
This edition of Beyond Feelings retains the basic organization of previous editions.The first section explains the psychological ,philosophical,and social context in which critical thinking takes place and describes the habits and attitudes that enhance such thinking.The second section helps students recognize and overcome common errors in thinking.The third section provides a step-by-step strategy for dealing with issues.
Within the overall design,however, I have made a number of changes ,most in response to helpful suggestions of reviews.
In Chapter 1, a new section—"The Influence of Ideas"—has been added.
In Chapter 3,a new section-"Understanding Cause and Effect"-has been added.
In Chapter 15,new examples of the value of observation has been added.
In Chapter 17,the subsection "Evaluate your information sources" has been expanded.
A number of new "Difference of Opinion" exercises have been added.

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

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

Is it possible to carry this plain language commitment too far?
Yes, and some will think I have done so in avoiding the term inferences and speaking instead of conclusions. But I respectfully disagree. Lexicographers point out that the distinction between these terms is extremely subtle, so it seems more reasonable not to devote time to it.Also,I avoid using the term values whenever possible for a somewhat different reason. The word value is so associated with relativism that its use in this context can undermine the crucial idea that arguments differ in quality. For many students ,the word value triggers the thought,"Everyone has a right to his or her values;mine are right for me ,and though they may need 'clarification' from time to time,they are never to be questioned." This thought impedes critical thinking .

Acknowledgments
I wish to express my appreciation to all those who contributed to be preparation of this edition.Special thanks to those who reviewed the manuscript.
Anna Villegas, San Joaquin Delta College
Aimee Biissonette, Inver Hills Community College
James Kruser, Alfred State College
Sue Crowson,Del Mar College
Erin Murphy,University of Kentucky
Adrian Patten,University of Cincinnati
Dedaimia Stirrs Whitney,Franklin College
Lisa Weisman-Davlantes ,California State-Fullerton
Geoffrey Phillip Bellah,Orange Coast College
Karen Hoffman ,Hood College

Aimee Ross-Kilory,Loyola Marymount University
Deanna Davis,College of the Canyons

I am also grateful to John Augustine,Delta Gollege;Lori Ebert,International Institute of the Americas;Jogn Garcia,Cerro Coso Community College;Micheal Small,Shasta College;Joel Brouwer,Montcalm Community College;Cynthia Gobatie,Riverside Community College;Anne Benvennti ,Cerro Coso College;Fred Heifner Jr,Cumberland University;and Phyllis Toy,Unversity of Southern Indiana.