Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences (MI) theory is certainly very fashionable at the moment. The reasons for all the excitement puzzle me a little.

This is because the spirit of the theory basically reflects the folk wisdom of my upbringing, and especially the warnings of my late father on the danger of identifying intelligence with academic achievement alone.

Gardner's theory also reflects the insights of two of my favourite thinkers: the philosopher Gilbert Ryle and the psychologist Margaret Donaldson. In the witty and insightful book, Concept of Mind, published in 1949, and in many articles, Ryle emphasises the difference between intelligence in action and theoretical reasoning.

Acting intelligently and reasoning are not the same thing, Ryle says. Our intelligence is expressed in many ways, from cooking and driving the car to trying to solve Fermat's last theorem.

A similar argument from a psychologist's point of view is made in Donaldson's wonderful and very readable book, Children's Minds, published in 1978. Donaldson's contrasts the intelligence required to manage the tasks of ordinary living with that used in academic work. She further highlights the unique difficulty of the theoretical reasoning which much of conventional schooling is concerned to develop.

This is a consoling message for all who are daunted by the world of the written word.

My reasons for feeling puzzled at the excitement generated by Gardner's theory are due, then, to a sense of having encountered similar arguments before. However, John White, professor of philosophy of education at the Institute of Education, University of London, is far more sceptical: he actually casts doubt on the very plausibility of the theory itself.

In a recent short volume, Do Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences Add Up?, he has set about a critique of the assumptions underlying the theory.

First, let me give a snapshot of Gardner's theory. Gardner asserts the existence of a number of definable categories of human intelligence. These are the linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily kinaesthetic, intrapersonal and interpersonal. More recently, Gardner has added to the list the classificatory intelligence of the natural scientist and (somewhat tentatively) spiritual intelligence.

White acknowledges the "liberating" influence of Gardner's theory on the self-image of children who had previously experienced difficulty within the conventional classroom. Indeed, the success of the Multiple Intelligences Unit in UCC in demonstrating the application of Gardner's theory to classroom practice is one of the most impressive achievements in recent curriculum innovation in Ireland.

So what does White find wrong with the theory? He argues that the categories of intelligence identified by Gardner are too limited.

Gardner, claims White, attempts to "regiment" or "corral" the wonderful varieties of human intelligence within a limited number of categories, or within what Gardner himself refers to as "the charmed circle of intelligences".

White also believes that the grounds for the inclusion of areas of intelligence are too subjective and arbitrary. The criteria offered by Gardner in selecting domains of intelligence are ultimately based, argues White, on Gardner's own "value preferences".

White is further concerned at the emphasis in Gardner's theory on symbol-systems. Mastery of symbols is, he feels, very close to conventional versions of intelligence. Gardner's categories fit too comfortably with traditional intellectual pursuits and "familiar curricular areas".

The developmentalism underlying Gardner's theories also makes White uneasy. This is the assumption that human intelligence in its different forms can be understood as a developmental unfolding leading to an end state.

Such developmentalism belongs only in the biological realm. Human beings are not like seeds which grow or develop in a pre-determined way. White is concerned at the implication in Gardner's theory that there is a ceiling to the possibilities of intellectual development open to human beings.

How, then, should we appraise White's critique? He does well also to draw attention to difficulties in Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences.

Yet I suspect that White underestimates the flexibility of Gardner's categories in accommodating the intelligences of ordinary life and of affirming these in the classroom. After all, Gardner's theory does resonate with our intuitions and it has served the educational community well.

But I do wish that some of Gardner's followers would cease promoting the theory of multiple intelligences as if the ideas had never struck anyone previously.

John White, Do Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences Add Up?

published by the Institute of Education, University of London, 1998 as part of a series entitled Perspectives on Education Policy. ISBN 0-85473-552-6 (£6.95 in UK).

Dr Kevin Williams lectures in the Mater Dei Institute of Education, Dublin.