This article from the Denver Post stresses the usefulness of philosophy, including how “emphasis on informal and symbolic logic” helps with computer science. In accounts of philosophy curricula, unfortunately, reference to informal logic is typically just name-dropping, as the textbook authors are mostly not scholars in the field, and instructors rarely have any relevant training. That seems to be the case here: Colorado State has only one logician on faculty, and he specializes in formal logic.
This problem is deeply ironic, for the scholarship being neglected was developed for the very purpose of filling the gap between logical theory and logical practice. Much scholarship in symbolic logic may be irrelevant to undergraduate pedagogy, but informal logic is a movement developed substantially for the purpose of creating an approach to logic that would be more relevant to students.
When philosophers appeal to “informal logic” or philosophers claim ownership over the teaching of “critical thinking,” it verges on fraud. The baiting with informal logic scholarship devoted to critical thinking and switching it for a loose distillation of the cultural standards in the discipline of philosophy is going to catch up with us eventually.
It’s time for philosophers to wake up and put our money, our faculty positions, our textbook buying power, and our textbook reviews where the scholarship is. Philosophy can be highly relevant if we hold ourselves to higher scholarly standards.
RAIL 
Great first post Cate!
Couldn’t agree more too. In fact, the further I dig the worse it gets. I find all kinds of articles–books even–by “mainstream” philosophers that are good fits for the kinds of things we work on in informal logic and argumentation theory, and yet the connections are never made. Case in point: sitting on my desk right now is an informal logic text circa 1992 by formal logic legend Irving Copi–but who ever uses it, even with his philosophical cache? (In fact, who even knows about it outside of informal logic circles? And why is that?) It’s a shame really. The discussion in general could (should) be so much richer than it is–especially these in a logical climate largely driven by non-classical logics!
Thanks Steve! I’m afraid this is more than just a shame and will catch up with us (philosophers at least). Those who decide which departments live and die may come to recognize the emptiness of the rationale that philosophy provides “critical thinking.” We have no better claim to it than any other discipline, at least so long as the education we provide proceeds disconnected from the scholarship.
My hope is that I can recruit feminist philosophers to the cause — if not to research in the area, then to adopt texts that reflect the most recent research in the field, and to demand the same in their departments. Many concerns of feminist epistemology resonate strongly with the concerns of informal logic. I suspect formal logicians are a lost cause because they see engagement with informal logic as slumming. It’s more like solidarity from a feminist angle.
It worries me when I hear discussions on the AILACT list or argthry that assume we can affect pedagogy by writing new textbooks. The most progressive textbooks are already neglected and come mostly from minor publishers.
[…] the Chronicle of Higher Education on the decline of philosophy in the academy stresses again (see my previous post) the importance of philosophy in providing critical thinking education. I’m pleased to see […]
[…] Of course, Wood is not alone in this. As Cate Hundleby rightly points out here on RAIL, much “mainstream” philosophy is guilty of a similar sin. […]