Abstract

Psychologist Richard Nisbett argues that fundamental aspects of critical thinking and logic are culturally conditioned. Nisbett’s claims, if correct, have substantial implications for the teaching of logic and critical thinking. In this paper I examine Nisbett’s arguments and conclude that he overstates the degree to which his empirical work justifies his theories about cultural difference. I will argue that we have good reason to be cautious about revising our pedagogy on the basis of assumptions about cultural difference, and that Nisbett’s work does not provide convincing enough evidence to justify setting that caution aside.