Education and Error

Education and Error

In education we seek to impart knowledge to the student. The logic of the process is additive: we add to the student’s stock of knowledge. But this has not always been the way education has been conceived: sometimes the aim is to subtract something—not knowledge, to be sure, but error. That was Socrates’ method: he had nothing positive to impart, but he did teach an important lesson—that his interlocutor did not know what he thought he knew. Socrates exposed error, false belief, unjustified assumption, fallacious reasoning. His aim was negative, but he had a salutary effect; he cleared the mind of error. For him, education was critical not constructive—not a matter of accumulating information. In this he belongs to a long line of destructively-inclined philosophers: the ancient skeptics, Plato (the cave), Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Russell, Popper, and many others. They sought to undermine what we thought we knew, to refute, falsify, disprove. They did this because they recognized that human beings are singularly prone to error. We must therefore root out error before we can install truth. A crucial part of education is accordingly the removal of false belief. Perhaps this is all we can do, given the power of skepticism and the difficulty of obtaining knowledge. We can’t even define knowledge let alone acquire it! Maybe we should lower our sights and aim to instill skills and useful opinions. We can puncture pretensions to knowledge, but to impart actual knowledge is a tall order. So it has been supposed. If knowledge is wisdom, this seems realistic—how do you teach wisdom? (“Know thyself!” Okay, but how?) But you can at least teach the avoidance of stupidity—ignorance masquerading as knowledge. You can work to defeat sophistry, delusion, fallacious reasoning, outright falsehood. Education can be positively negative.

I say all this because today the urgent task is to defeat error: we are drowning in the stuff, up to our neck in it. We need to teach people how to avoid falsehood—children and adults both. Especially children, because they have no natural defenses against error—they believe what they are told. Thus, they need to learn logic, rational argument, scientific method, statistics, clarity of expression, epistemic modesty. Don’t teach them what to believe; teach them what not to believe. They need an education in criticism and sound thinking. Don’t stuff them with things they should know, the more the better; encourage them to question what they hear. This is banal advice, I know, but it has to be repeated—from Socrates to today. We are now suffering from an epidemic of misinformation, lies, empty slogans, ill-formulated policies, utter nonsense, bizarre conspiracy theories, and absolute crap. Education should equip students with the ability to criticize all this garbage, starting at the earliest days. Don’t teach them what they should believe but what they can believe—what can stand up to criticism. Bertrand Russell was described as a “passionate skeptic” and the label is not wide of the mark, but I would prefer “dispassionate analyst”. You don’t need to deny that human knowledge is possible, as the skeptic does, and you don’t need to get all hot under the collar about it; what you need is a calm habit of intellectual evaluation, careful, methodical. Boring, if necessary. The opposite of political. Socrates gives the impression that he doesn’t much care what the truth turns out to be; he cares only that it be arrived at in a rational manner. This is why Socrates is the founder of all that is good in what we call Western Civilization. The Socratic method is the best method of education. Popper was not wrong to focus on refutation not verification, rejection not acceptance. Everybody should take Error Avoidance 101.[1]

[1] Abby Philip is a contemporary model of what I am advocating: she calmy, pleasantly, firmly, corrects the errors of her guests on Newsnight (CNN, 10pm). Her style is serenely Socratic.