What I've noticed with people with PhDs, MDs, etc is that a lot of them think that makes them more intelligent in every subject that is brought up when, in fact, they know more than the average person in their specialty. I was a systems analyst for years and was pretty good at it but I'm sure not gonna argue with you or goat when in comes to lawyerly things because I know both of you know a lot more than I do. I used to think I wanted to be a lawyer but after listening to you and goat I'm glad I didn't go down that path even though I find it extremely interesting.
My wife has a microbiology degree and I worked with organisms before becoming a computer nerd and I found that very interesting.
I agree with you. Most people think well in their particular field. Once outside it, they fall into the same traps the general public does. Some are able to transcend that, but they are few in number.
Lawyers generally benefit from a few things (I'm not saying this makes them the best thinkers or even better than all others and I'm not saying every single lawyer who has ever lived shares all of these traits. You could obviously also make a list of beneficial things for other types of education):
(1) selection bias via the LSAT for a certain type of logical ability.
(2) an education that focuses more on the meta-level analysis of their subject than the actual laws, etc. (dependent on law school and teacher) that includes studying the types and quality of authority; weighing various, sometimes contradictory, values; the importance of history and context (including the constant comparing of factual situations to sift out the main difference(s) between them).
(3) a profession that demands purposeful learning of a subject (science, medicine, etc.) within a restricted time frame that has real feedback, an adversary, and high stakes. I think that tends to focus the mind and creates an ability to find the main issue quickly and drill down on it while perhaps sifting through a mountain of information. The downside is that it can cause tunnel vision and an unjustified feeling of mastery over an entire area when really you've only mastered that one question needed for your particular legal dispute.
These three things translate to an array of subjects outside one's bailiwick more usefully than, for example, the scientific method.
To bring this into the stoll discussion re philosophy, though, I think the best education to "learn how to think" is a combination of philosophy and science (and/or economics). But of course, I'm biased--I studied philosophy and physics.
If you want to learn how to solve real-world problems, though, I'd go with engineering (which I would include computer science) and business (I really am not sure what "business" that would be--whatever the subject is where they do case studies?).
