The Perfect Model of Truth Is The Multiplication Table
“The perfect model of truth is the multiplication table”, so says Bertrand Russell, as one socialist arguing with another, John Dewey. While both agreed on many common points (in the 40s) about the desirability of a socialist economy, Russell took on their divergence on the matter of truth.
“[I, Russell] dissent from his most distinctive philosophical doctrine, namely the substitution of ‘inquiry’ for ‘truth’ as the fundamental concept of logic and theory of knowledge. Russell goes on to disagree with Dewey’s relativism, subjectivism, the collective power of human communities, and particularly his lack of humility (pride) in face of objective evidence.
To depend on context or circumstances and use “inquiry” to determine some kind of conditional truth, Russell saw as “a certain kind of madness—the intoxication of power . . . I am persuaded that this intoxication is the greatest danger of our time, and that any philosophy which, however unintentionally, contributes to it is increasing the danger of vast social disaster.” (A History of Western Philosophy, 1945, 819-828)
It was around this juncture in time that “discovery math” and all the others (New Math, Fuzzy Math, Everyday Math, Chicago Math, etc) became justified as appropriate — that “truth” “discovered” was better than transmitted knowledge or rote memory — regardless of incorrect results.
In later decades “critical thinking” also became a declared cover for this “inquiry” approach, but we should remember that critical thinking really arose with the “oppression” theory of mankind (You’re either oppressed or an oppressor.) of Paulo Freire, whose book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970) is a fundamental text in teacher training.
A more current socialist on socialist critique is E D Hirsch of the Core Knowledge project who deplores the path taken in public education. It is the current progressivism and constructivism he takes issue with. In his dedication to Antonio Gramsci (communist) in his book — The Schools We Need and Why We Don’t Have Them, 1996 — he says Gramsci “explained in the 1930s why the new educational ideas would lead to greater social injustice” and regrets that the public education system refused the Gramsci ideal of using the tools of strong academic skills. “They should learn the value of hard work, gain the knowledge that leads to understanding and master the traditional culture in order to command its rhetoric . . . In this debate history has proved Gramsci the better theoretician and prophet than Freire.” (pg7)
Hirsch decried the “inegalitarian consequences of ‘naturalistic,’ ‘project-oriented’ ‘hands-on, ‘critical thinking,’ and so-called ‘democratic’ education . . . There is an inverse relation between educational progressivism and social progressivism.” (pg 7)
What do we have now, in 2015? Why, Common Core in the USA, 21st Century Learning in Canada and many similar offshoots of “transformations” in UK, Australia and NZ. A continuation of what Russell (socialist) and Hirsch (quasi-socialist) denounce as NOT the way to greater justice, fairness and equality!
Let’s be clear about definitions. Isn’t socialism about central control? What is public education if not the ultimate example — compulsory, centrally controlled monopoly, government curriculum, produced by state workers (unionized public servants) ?
Either the left should get public education right, instead of dumbing-down citizens and miseducating impoverished and marginalized youth or get off their objection to models that work for all — charters, vouchers, education savings accounts.
[comment in response to
"Common Core: Where a Wrong Answer Can be Right and the Right Answer Can Be Wrong"
Lennie Jarratt | Dec 02, 2015
& ECC]