Every truth has two sides. It is well to look at both before we commit ourselves to either side.
Aesop
This weekend I took part in a panel discussion on the meaning of literacy at the Battle of Ideas. Before I was about to go on, grammarian Nevile Gwynne asked me about the stance I was planning to take; I said he’d probably find me ‘quite traditional’. He then took me to task for my equivocation. Gwynne is a man untroubled by doubt and dismissed the position that to err is human as nonsense. But how can we ever know with any degree of certainty what is true? We can, apparently divine truth through perception, logic and faith.
We can know whether a thing is true by consulting the evidence of our senses. This might work for certain quotidian truths, but I’m not sure it works for anything much beyond this. Sometimes we cannot trust the evidence of our own eyes.
Logic tells us that since we know dogs can’t fly, I don’t have to see every dog to know a particular dog will be flightless. While this may be true, logic is a notoriously poor predictor of black swans.
And finally faith. We take our birthdate on faith. We take the fact that the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066 on faith. Whenever we accept the authority of others we act on faith. On faith, I accept that the holocaust occurred; that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon; that Al Qaeda was responsible for the September 11th terrorist attacks. Others may not be so eager to take accept these articles of faith. And, on consideration, there are all too many ‘truths’ about education which I’ve been prepared to take on faith which have turned out to be plain wrong.
Maybe truth is a little more slippery than all that? Maybe contradictory truths can coexist? Or maybe truth can sometimes be subjective? Can a thing just be true for me? These epistemological debates have occupied far deeper minds than mine for thousands of years. Gwynne’s view is that Aristotle tells us everything we need to know and possibly, excepting a few jarring errors on natural science, this might be true.
But I confess to finding the reaching after uncertainty espoused by Keats as far more satisfying than just accepting the very limited, limiting truths as revealed by perception, logic and faith.
Having strong opinions is different from being right…the same way that being louder does not make you so. Just heard more, most likely.
To me, being untroubled by doubt is the first sign of ignorance, of narrow-mindedness, or of lack of imagination. Pick any, or all.
I don’t even think in education the question is about “truth” per se, but about values. Everything is set against a set of values – both beliefs *and* evidence. The way we think education should aim for, occur and enable permeates everything – from the evidence we seek, the books we read about education, the educationalists we frequently interact with, to the very strategies we use in the classroom, the curriculum parts we emphasize, even the way we set the classroom as a physical space, the language we use with students, the expectations we have from them (the hidden curriculum is too powerful to be ignored). On a larger scale, research itself is conducted according to a set of beliefs that the researcher has, or, worse, according to an agenda set by policy-makers.
“Each of the two perspectives on the study of human behavior outlined above (n.n. positivism vs. subjectivism) has profound implications for research in classrooms and schools. The choice of problem, the formulation of questions to be answered, the characterization of pupils and teachers, methodological concerns, the kinds of data sought and their mode of treatment, all are influenced by the viewpoint held.” (Cohen et al, Research Methods in Education, p.28)
“Research and politics are inextricably bound together.
“A research evaluator (…) is faced with competing interest groups, with divergent definitions of the situation and conflicting informational needs . . .. He has to decide which decision makers he will serve, what information will be of most use, when it is needed and how it can be obtained . . . . The resolution of these issues commits the evaluator to a political stance, an attitude to the government of education. No such commitment is required of the researcher.” (MacDonald 1987: 42)
“Truth” in education is only partly a matter of logic – mostly, it is the choices we make. Truth, evidence, and proof are separate concepts. An example can be in the legal system. Fingerprints are evidence that, say, person X touched a coffee mug at a crime scene. They are not, however, proof that person X committed the crime. In science, observations and experiments are evidence that refute, support or change – guess what – a *theory* (or hypothesis) which is man-created. People were convicted unjustly based on evidence, the same way scientific theories had to change in the face of new evidence. Time is a great teacher…
In education, there is *evidence* that certain strategies work in certain environments but they are not *proof* that they may work as well elsewhere. As you read D.T. William, I am sure you recall the first pages of his Embedded Formative Assessment where he analyzes the failures of educational changes of all sorts in the U.S. – from structural (e.g reducing class size) to governance (e.g. charter schools), technology infusion and curricular changes. They failed again and again because the context was different but people expected them to work.
That is why you can have extremely diverse, if not opposite, educational systems (Finland and China) ranked as the best in the world. Where is the “truth” then?…
I agree wholeheartedly with your observation that education debate depends on values. I said as much here: https://www.learningspy.co.uk/education/disagree-purpose-education/
By “DT William”, do you mean either Dylan Wiliam (the author of Embedded Formative Assessment) or DT Willingham (author of Why Don’t Students Like School)? I’m guessing the former.
I *think* we’re saying the same thing?
Dylan, indeed.
And yes, we are on the same page. Do all my comments have to be *against* your point?
I certainly hope not. Just wondered was all
David, whenever faced with people who tell me things like there ‘is no truth’ or ‘truth is just relative’ I dig out my copy of A Devil’s Chaplain and re-read the chapter in which Dawkins writes a letter on truth to his ten year-old daughter. It says it all, I think and you can see it in its entirety here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/richard_dawkins_letter_to_his_10_year_old_daughter_how_to_warn_your_child_about_this_irrational_world
Dawkins also believes we live in a functioning democracy with a free press when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. We all have our ‘delusions’ coloured by authority, tradition etc.
Everyone’s world view is coloured to large degree by faith – simply because it is impossible for one person to be aware of ‘Truth’ in its entirety. We take evidence that is presented to us and fill in all the blanks (the faith part). It’s nothing to do with being religious or anything else but just the way we function.
A great question is to ask: how do authority and tradition function in education? And where is the educational ‘truth’ that the scientists can deliver us?
“Logic tells us that since we know dogs can’t fly, I don’t have to see every dog to know a particular dog will be flightless. While this may be true, logic is a notoriously poor predictor of black swans.”
This seems to be a misconception.
Black swans are a problem with inductive reasoning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning whereas the use of logic in arguments is about deductive reasoning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
As for the issue of truth, the way to get a handle on it is to consider lying (saying what you believe isn’t true) and bullshitting (saying things without regard to their truth). There are always issues of interpretation and certainty around statements and beliefs, but as long as we can grasp that somebody can lie or bullshit, we cannot deny the usefulness of the concept of truth and we have every reason to be suspicious of those who do.
This is pretty good on the problem of induction. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04hvrr5