The real experts and leaders of the future must not only know the “facts” but also deeply understand what is not yet known. Current educational systems are focused on filling our brains with facts and information. An alternative curriculum would focus on assisting the student in understanding the boundaries of knowledge and the big questions that are yet to be answered. It is this understanding that makes many experts present information in a “comparative” manner—which can convey a sense of uncertainty of equivocal to the poorly educated.
As we have described previously, people with less education (especially those with an authoritarian personality type) respond more positively to absolute statements and reject equivocal descriptions from experts. They prefer statements from leaders and experts that imply “I and only I know it all”. William Perry (1970) has identified this stance as one of dualism. There is a right answer and a wrong answer. There is truth that is conveyed by the one true source of knowledge. The world is dualistic: truth and fiction.
However, it is these equivocal and comparative statements that embody the assumption held by experts that they don’t know it all: the body of knowledge we DON”T know is much larger than that which they DO know. Perry identifies this as a move from dualism to a Multiplistic perspective. There are multiple legitimate sources of knowledge that can each lay claim to the truth. Even the criteria for determining what is and is not real will vary—making it that much more difficult to come to a conclusion regarding which “facts” to accept.
Unfortunately, our current educational system seems to be stuck in the world of Dualism. Any move toward Multiplicity is met with displeasure (and even violent objections) from parents and community leaders who insist that only the “truth” be taught. Something must change. As Firestein proposes: “The business model of our (educational systems), in place now for nearly a thousand years, will need to be revised … Instead of a system where the collection of facts is an end, where knowledge is equated with accumulation, where ignorance is rarely discussed, we will have to provide the Wiki-raised student with a taste of the boundaries, the edge of the widening circle of ignorance, how the data, … frames the unknown. We must teach students how to think in questions, (and) how to manage ignorance”.
Knowledge and expertise are specific – the importance of knowing when you are out of your depth
Just because we have expertise in one domain doesn’t mean we are knowledgeable in others. Many of us don’t understand and find it hard to accept this fact Our previous Hatfill story is a good example of where experts fall into this trap: assuming that because they are experts in one domain, they are also knowledgeable in others. Unfortunately, their supporters/followers support and enable this simplistic view: they listen to and believe anything their “expert” states. While on the one hand, this faulty assumption is relatively benign when we buy into a sports figure’s endorsement of a specific cereal, it is much more dangerous when the endorsement coming from someone who is an “expert” on a specific health issue concerns the “real” motives behind the position proposed or actions taken by an opposing social group or political party. They have shifted from health to sociology and political science. This is an unwarranted shift.
Download Article 1K Club
