Education and knowledge: the dilemma of it

The traditional definition of knowledge suggests that it is a justified true belief. This means that if I have the knowledge that a four-legged, cute little animal is a cat, then first, I must believe it is a cat and my belief must correspond to reality and I must also have legitimate evidence to prove that it’s a cat. The traditional definition, however debatable it may be, has been accepted for over a millennium. It suggests that knowledge and its acquisition is an informal process. In contrastingly, education is a formal and systemic process that is acquired through a specialized institution.

Education and knowledge are often considered synonymous. Knowledge is understood as something acquired through education, application of education, or experience. But, does the formal education system impart both knowledge and education at the same time leaving no void behind? The answer to this question is more complicated than it should be. Formal education gives us the knowledge to read and to write, to understand the basic workings of our bodies, to perform basic mathematical calculations and it also gives us the knowledge that hypotenuse is the longest side of a right-angled triangle and mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell. But it does not give us any knowledge about paying taxes or dealing with our mental health, it does not enable our minds to think critically. In essence, it does not give us any knowledge about dealing with the problems that actually make up most of our lives.

So, do we consider someone who has done a Ph.D. in a certain field as someone who is knowledgeable or we just call them highly educated? That’s the dilemma of education and knowledge, education has limitations while knowledge does not. Living is a continuous process of learning and evolving as a human. Formal education focuses on the pragmatic aspect of knowledge and entirely disregards the fact that the true source of knowledge is skepticism. There’s little to no space for informal education for skeptical analysis which prevents the development of critical thinking skills.

Bertrand Russell and John Dewey, major philosophers of the twentieth century, shared and also disagreed on many significant views on education. The most fundamental difference is over pragmatism and skepticism in education. Dewey was a major enthusiast of pragmatism and Russell a firm supporter of skepticism. Dewey's inclination towards Pragmatism was rooted in his American upbringing and strong democratic values. Russell, on the other hand, suggested that pragmatism meant that knowledge was determined by power and was reduced to the majority opinion. He suggested that this allowed room for the majority to tyrannize the minority. Russell once wrote, “William James preached the will to believe, I wish to teach the will to doubt.”

Russell’s perspective on education brings knowledge and education closer by reducing the gap between the limited nature of education and the unlimited nature of knowledge. The controlled process of formal education can be altered to be more accommodating towards skepticism allowing room for critical analysis.

Critical thinking is not a generic skill that exists independently of knowledge. Critical thinking and knowledge acquisition have quite a strong connection. Properly acquiring knowledge requires understanding and justification which comes from critical thinking. Additionally, the cognitive abilities required to make the right decisions by understanding and analyzing information also include critical thinking. Research suggests that the main requirement to encourage critical thinking and improve knowledge acquisition is through actively involving students in the learning process. Problem-based learning can prove to be an effective strategy that enables students to understand the problem and reflect on problem-solving processes.

One research on critical thinking suggests that to become a skilled critical thinker requires the same amount of practice required to become a highly-skilled athlete or musician which is around 10,000 hours of practice. If this suggestion is even partially correct, it points out a problem, since no single classroom or even years of education can provide this amount of dedicated practice time. This is why it is essential to not just teach critical thinking skills and give students opportunities to put them to use but it is also important to inspire them to continue practicing those skills on their own across academic subjects and in all areas of life.