Nowadays “reflection” and “reflective practice” is nearly in every curriculum for psychiatric training. Trainees are asked to keep reflection diaries, journals, and participate in “reflection workshops”.

To prove that reflection on or in action does not lead to learning.

Using epistemological notation.

Because sciences including psychiatry are approximate, evolving and inexact, the classical definition of propositional knowledge becomes: A knows that p if:

– (a’) A believes that p is an approximate true;

– (b’) p is approximate truth;

– (c’) A has reason to claim that p is a better approximation than its rivals on available evidence.

Condition (c’) implies that A is not possible at the same time to have two mutually contradictive approximate truths.

In reflective learning we need to add two more conditions:

– (d’) A knows the outcome of p;

– (e’) A is satisfied in believing that p.

In cases of reflection in-action, the (e’) remains even the outcome is not favourable. Similarly, in reflection on-action the condition (e’) remains unchanged since this happened in the past. This leads to controversy. Is p better or worse approximation of truth than its’ rival p’? However, p has passed rigorous and different scientific tests and has proved scientifically superior to its rival p’. Therefore subject A cannot change his knowledge despite the unfavourable outcome, but A can tests further the p. Within the former reflecting learning does not occur, within the latter “critical thinking” occurred.

Reflection does not lead to learning but critical thinking does.

The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.