Recently, I had a conversation with a colleague which brought back memories of similar conversations in the past. This individual was required to teach a course in informal logic for the first time. His background was in formal logic and he did not understand the nature of this course, the curriculum, nor the skills to be taught. This lack caused him to disparage the course as not worthy of his attention, not consisting of any recognized area of expertise and of (...) little value to students. This situation would not be a problem were it atypical. I believe this bias against an understanding of argumentation is, in part, due to a lack of awareness of the theories, issues, and approaches that inform the dynamics of critical thinking. Like most other areas in philosophy, there is controversy; there are different approaches and arguments. Those who have an understanding of ongoing research in this area rarely disparage the field of informal logic, or fail to acknowledge the developing area of expertise and its history. (shrink)