Keeping it simple

Tacklebox wrote: »

When religion stop's being a dominant part of primary school, would it be a good Idea to implement a subject which mixes in philosophy theology, sociology and mythology all into one subject.

I see a fundamental flaw in your proposition already But for the purposes of discussion, I’ll go with the idea that religion will inevitably at some point no longer be a dominant ideology in education. In essence what you’re proposing is replacing one ideology with another.

Critical thinking is, in and of itself, an ideology, a philosophy. One of the problems common to any philosophy is that one of the fundamental drivers behind it is the idea that everyone will come to the same conclusions eventually, on the basis of course of rational thought and logical argument. The fundamental problem is that people are egocentric, and children infinitely more so. Children certainly possess the capacity from the early stages of their development to think critically (and creatively), if critical thinking is regarded as a healthy skepticism for claims which aren’t supported by evidence. In a way, what comes before critical thinking is contextual thinking - the capacity to examine evidence objectively. Children are terrible at it, because they lack so much of the information necessary to form an objective test of the veracity of any claims. Adults have a greater capacity to obtain and process information about the veracity of any claim, but natural prejudice and bias can influence how we evaluate evidence as either credible, or incredible, and more often than not, we simply reject anything which doesn’t square with our already held beliefs. To move an adult from that position is even more impossible than to move a child from that position, because children are generally lead by what adults tell them, whereas adults are more belligerent (or rather, “steadfast” in their thinking), and unlikely to be moved by evidence which contradicts their already held beliefs. They simply conveniently rationalise it away.

Essentially, it’s not simply a question of education reform, but rather parental reform, as parents are first and foremost for most children, their repository of where they get their information, and how they are influenced to process the information they receive from a whole variety of other sources. It’s one of the reasons why “fake news” is as popular as it is - because it’s delivered in such a way as to manipulate people’s biases and prejudices, in order to reinforce those prejudices and biases which a person already holds - that’s why fake news is so attractive, and why humans are so attuned to ideas which support our already held beliefs, and reject or veer away from or steer entirely clear of ideas which contradict our already held beliefs.

It’s considerably more difficult to do that in the age of the Internet when as well as being bombarded by fake news, we are also bombarded with information which presents evidence that our fundamentally held beliefs which were once supported by what we evaluated as credible evidence, is now being turned on it’s head by new evidence which presents a direct contradiction in our thought processes. If you’ve ever experienced yourself saying to yourself - “I could swear that was a woman!”, that’s a very simple example of what you once held to be true based upon evidence which was available to you, being contradicted by new evidence. Your first thought whether you’re conscious of it or not will be to reject the fundamental contradiction rather than embrace it, like giving your mother in law an awkward hug :pac:

Put simply - education reform won’t matter a jot as it’s simply replacing one dominant ideology for another, you have to back further in the context developing of critical thinking skills, developing a healthy skepticism and encouraging parents to encourage their children to question everything their parents impart to them as true (or in philosophical terms “the nature of reality”). You’re unlikely to get much traction for that idea among parents, but that’s where it has to start if your aim is truly to develop adults capacity and faculties which enable them to think critically. It’s not like riding a bike where it’s a skill that remains with you from childhood to adulthood, but it’s more like learning, understanding and using a language on a daily basis - you don’t use it, you lose it (I still think in Irish as I was raised in a family where we were compelled to use it), but the French I took in school? I think it was Percy Sledge (no it wasn’t, thank you Internet ) Sam Cooke summed up my abilities in that regard -

Sam Cooke - Don't Know Much About History Lyrics


Basically, to keep it simple, it’s not about what a person learns in school will influence how they perceive the nature of reality, their thinking will be far more greatly influenced by their experiences (or indeed lack thereof), in determining what appears rational and logical to them, and when it doesn’t appear rational and logical, how do they close that gap in their cognitive dissonance. Education though, in any of it’s forms, will always start with their parents, and it’s there that you need to start reform if your intent is to promote your own ideology -


Critical thinking in children: Are we teaching our kids to be dumb?


Education reform doesn’t happen without positive support from the parents, and in Ireland, that support doesn’t appear to be forthcoming, so forming the initial question as ‘when’ rather than ‘if’, assumes facts for which there is currently not much in the way of credible evidence that parents are all that interested in education reform, as current evidence suggests that most parents are only interested in their children receiving a minimum standard of education which enables their children to function in how those parents view society as they would wish it to be, rather than how society actually functions in reality - as a collection of competing and conflicting ideas rather than collaborative ideologies which complement each other. There is of course an assumed advantage in promoting an ideology as early as possible to as many young minds as possible (and what better way to do that than in an environment with a captive audience), but that assumption has the fatal flaw of being predicated upon the idea that children’s development is more influenced in a school environment than outside of it, where they encounter reality.