Teaching is Not Indoctrination

B.W. Wojciechowski, January, 2024,

In a teaching[i] environment,

students are encouraged to think independently and form opinions

based on their learned information.

In contrast, indoctrination[ii] does not allow for individual thought.

Instead, students are expected to accept

and repeat the provided information without question.

Anon, Cited from Google Search.

One could say it is somewhat better but in the opposite sense. The Googlers have confused teaching and indoctrination leading to an absurdity. This is not the only example of the media’s linguistic confusion.

According to the above definition, schools of Engineering indoctrinate their students whereas various departments in the Humanities and Social Sciences teach students how to think, not necessarily logically. This kind of misleading language serves only one purpose, it distorts reality.

We need to set the record straight. The above definitions have confused the two words making indoctrination into teaching and teaching into indoctrination. For years I taught Engineering, I balked at the idea that I was indoctrinating the students. The end notes contain the correct definitions of these words but it may do some good if I explain the need to clarify this confusion.

Teaching

Teaching traditionally involves making students familiar with unquestionable truths, this takes place in the Hard Sciences and for some in Theology. But Teaching does not exclude the need for out-of-the-box thinking. In the Hard Sciences thinking is essential because knowing is not enough, one seeks to understand. At its roots, teaching involves understanding.

When one understands the meaning of a concept such as potential, one knows why river dams are used to generate electricity but also why great wealth generates progress in industry and society. Since Engineers understand potential, you will find few Engineers who support equal distribution of wealth among the citizens. To ideologues dedicated to this kind of egalitarianism, this makes Engineers into antiquated obstacles to progress. I wonder how they would prosper applying their ideology without a wealth potential or engineers who have been taught well-defined principles. The Hard Sciences are difficult, but the word Hard should also remind us of their firm foundations. Such foundations can help scientists identify errors in bad social policies. That is why Hard Science practitioners are often the Bȇte Noire of poorly thought-out social progressivism.

However, there are limits to out-of-the-box thinking in Hard Sciences. For example, new hypotheses must be integrable with existing fundamental facts that are widely accepted as valid. Data must be verified, repeatedly. Einstein certainly changed our view of physics and the universe but on a basis that improved our understanding of hard facts, facts that we had already ascertained. They were well established, and the quantification of the total picture of physics was improved by a new model that solved some existing puzzles and gave a different view of what we knew was true or could not explain before. But be prepared. the theory of Relativity is likely to evolve.

Teaching the multiplication table is unquestionable. It is true when you look at it in the decimal system we use. In a duodecimal system, there would be a similar multiplication table but it must give the same answers when applied in practice. Multiplication is something that is taught because it is true. That is not indoctrination.

However, accepting the age of the universe as 13.8 billion years may not be a lasting bit of scientific truth. Nonetheless, until a convincing argument can be made that it should be 22 billion years, practicing scientists will use the 13.8-billion-year number in their deliberations. It is the currently documented truth. It fits all we have ascertained to date. Science can change but not on a whim or by unsubstantiated musings.

Teaching in the sciences is therefore unquestionable at the time since it is constrained by current knowledge, but the facts are open to reexamination at a later stage of the student’s career or as new evidence or understanding is verified. One does not educate engineers to question what is established. Chaos would ensue. Facts are taught, not indoctrinated.

Standards can change and new materials or designs are certain to come to be during an engineer’s career. An engineer needs to continue his/her education throughout his/her career to keep up with “established” truths. Science is truly Progressive. Engineers are not wedded to an everlasting ideology.

In the hard sciences

Teaching is what is done at universities,

technical colleges, and professional courses.

Indoctrination

In the humanities, and some of the less developed Social Sciences, this is not the standard. Much of the instruction is based on musings and half-baked ideas circulating in the pertinent community. Instructors need not stick to well-documented facts or accepted narratives if any exist. They are prone to “stimulating” the students with what may be “fairy tales” or at best “fresh ideas.” Not infrequently these ideas conflict with reality. There is a tendency to laud contrarianism per se. Not to worry, “We shall overcome,” is the conviction in vogue.

The indoctrination prevalent in the “Soft Sciences” or humanist “Studies” tends to encourage contrarian ideologies as a means of fostering “fresh” thinking. But progress is not mere change, it needs to lead to quantifiable improvements in policy and understanding while doing little or no harm along the way. The idea of quantitative and even qualitative evaluation of novel social ideas before they are implemented is missing in social indoctrination. It is anathema to progressivism. At best, indoctrinators are inclined to believe in iteration. You promote a change, and if that does not work, you abandon that idea and you implement another ill-substantiated hypothesis. In the Hard Sciences, this kind of progress is known as a “drunkard’s walk[iii].”

Most of the disciplines where indoctrination is used involve social structures and can make powerless citizens the abandoned detritus of failed experiments. Among these ill-conceived ideas are financial experiments, such as unlimited budget deficits that can lead to the financial collapse of societies, antinuclear activism which has led to critical energy supply problems, or socialist top-down power structures, which time and again have resulted in the loss of human rights and dispiriting limitations on individual freedom and initiative.

Social Cohesion

However, indoctrination can also be a useful tool to maintain social cohesion. Take the USA as an example. Indoctrination in a well-structured history of this social experiment can be used to praise achievements and minimize past errors. Or it can emphasize past errors and minimize or ignore the achievements. Which of the two kinds of indoctrination is socially beneficial? In practice, forbearance is beneficial while condemnation, regrets, or recrimination are not. Social cohesion benefits from selective, positive, indoctrination.

To be beneficial, selective indoctrination in history need not neglect the whole picture, rather it must emphasize the positives and not wallow in the negatives. Many societies that exist and existed were strengthened by selective views of themselves. What was wrong was bad, but it was over and society would strive to build and improve on what was good and right. No apologies need be made for honest errors of the past. These were usually due to circumstances and often not even seen as errors at the time. The internment of the Nisei during WWII was an honest error as we see it today, but soon appropriate apologies were offered. However, at the time it was thought to be a wise step to take to protect society.

We should always insist that new policies be based on well-understood actions that are applicable to the demands of the situation. They must be convincingly shown to promise improvements without doing serious damage. The rightly feared “unforeseen consequences” should be diligently avoided. The importation of slaves looked like an appropriate action for the benefit of the slave-importing societies but, oh boy, did it leave a stain in the form of “unforeseen consequences.”

When slavery was implemented, few thought it was an error. It was a practice from ages past. It does not mean that apologies are to be made or reparations paid to descendants of slaves several generations later. The slightest familiarity with the history of the world will show that such a view, implemented everywhere, will require every nation to recompense several other nations incalculable sums of money to compensate for harm done in ancient times. That would make the huge bureaucracy of the United Nations busy and even more quarrelsome than it is. Paying for all the necessary compensations would be well beyond the resources of Mongolia for example. What can they do? Slavery was a hurtful part of the progress of expanding the utilization of newly accessed resources. To judge and try to undo all the actions of those days in modern terms is idiotic. But there are enough idiots to make it an issue.

We conclude that

Teaching is essential in the Hard Sciences

and Indoctrination, well-aimed, makes societies strong.

Teaching in the Hard Sciences is on safe ground but malign Indoctrination in the Humanities and Soft Sciences can do a lot of harm. Let me tell you more.

Malign Indoctrination

It is a notable fact that ‘influencers,” ‘talking heads,” and other self-proclaimed “intellects” thrive on notoriety. It is also a fact that these personalities are of necessity bold and glib, else they would be ignored. These same personalities vigorously seek to convert others to their various views of progress. This drives them to aspire to positions of influence and power. None of it attests to the merit of their ideas. Generally, they should be ignored. However, a small segment of their membership has merit, but how are we to tell who they are?

The more reserved personalities among the population tend to avoid argument and confrontation or, in the interest of not being demonized, go along with the noisemakers. Thus, opinions and ideas of various sorts are propagated in modern society, and confusion reigns. All progressives believe that their idiosyncratic ideas must be implemented to speed up and improve social progress, to save us from current malaise or even from extinction. The more successful among them emerge as Dictators or as influential Politicians and even as successes in Business.

Some Dictators do indeed improve their societies, but because they operate without constraints and because not all their ideas are good and often have to be enforced, most “come a cropper” before their influence ends. Consider the merits and demerits of Hitler, Mao, Peron, Mussolini, and others like them. Look at the uneven benefits of unrestrained power among the Emperors of Rome. Some dreamers in our times, talk of “Benevolent Dictatorships” as the preferred form of government. That is delusional.

Today the problem of malign ideologies persists and perhaps has grown worse. The emergence of influential talents and aberrant ideas seducing ill-informed or somnolent populations has not diminished. Surprisingly the presence of out-of-the-box thinkers with ideas ranging from good to dangerous has complicated the issue of worthy indoctrination and verifiable information.

The Communication Revolution

Strange, but the availability of information has not been a blessing in some cases It brought to the fore the village idiot segment of our population. They now eagerly gather followers aplenty. These people were always around but were suppressed by the upper classes that were clannish, well-connected, and educated. It was easy for them to dismiss any ferment among “the people.” When Enlightenment burst the dam of domination by the nobility and we all became equal, a problem arose and, as I like to say,

All solutions cause problems.

How do Ideologies Differ from Religions

In the past social and technological progress was slow and largely due to the upper social classes and church officials. However, the time came when some contrarian nobles and lower-level church officials became unruly and brought on the Reformation while lay intellectuals took to interpreting religious ideals into lay ideologies. One such idea is that we are all equal.

From religious egalitarian postulates came Democracy and from that plus an additional postulate, Socialism. Democracy is built on the idea of unchallengeable equality while Socialism is also built on the Christian idea of unassailable leadership. Both ideologies are deformed secularizations of Christianity, more specifically of Catholicism. Both ideologies led us out of the woods of ignorance into the wilderness of uncertainty.

First of all, Christian principles do not proclaim equality in Earthly life. They proclaim equality in the chance to achieve salvation. This is very different from placing underachievers in positions of authority in industry, education, or transportation. Such responsible offices must rely on merit and skills. One should not hire commercial pilots based on an ideologically prescribed quota. However, I am sorry to tell you that University students and professors are now often selected according to quotas. That is a croque of s…., mesieur.

There is this other glaring misinterpretation of Catholicism in Socialist ideology. The case of unassailable Papal power is based on the willing submission of believers. Socialists, who also claim the unassailable infallibility of their leaders, are dedicated to vigorous indoctrination and the unflinching culling of opponents. Christianity went through such a phase much earlier, remember the Albigensian heresy. Socialism goes so far in its imitation of Catholicism that they have obligatory gatherings where their doctrine is proclaimed from an elevated podium midst a formal ceremony. There is more. To this day I treasure a banner depicting Baby Lenin, suitable for display on ceremonial occasions. No kidding.

Socialism also proclaims undisputable equality. An early version of the Manifesto promotes the idea of women being held in common (?), something that will remove the invidious distinctions and advantages they may otherwise acquire by their looks or wiles. Now, being held in common would surely make them all equal. Don’t believe this text exists? it’s in writing in the early versions of the Manifesto, though later versions do not contain this progressive idea.

A Final Judgement

Teaching inculcates Truth as we grasp it at the time and can document it with repeatable demonstrations. The ifs and buts are limited in Teaching. Some of the truth as we understand it will change as our knowledge and capabilities evolve, but while the current truth prevails it is our guide in how to proceed.

Indoctrination revolves around postulates and preferences. It proclaims a selected set of facts and conjectures aimed at achieving a more or less consistent, though not necessarily true, view of the world and practical procedures. There are few truths in indoctrination, usually just conjectures and convenient compilations of facts. The “thinking” that indoctrination promotes is either a convoluted justification of unproven ideological stances or contrarian arguments aimed at currently established mores.

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating uncompromising

ideas, attitudes, strategies, and methodologies.

It can have nothing to do with “hard” facts.

Instead, it promotes “essential” beliefs, behaviors, lifestyles, etc.

It is teaching only in the broadest sense of conveying information.

[i] Teaching is an engagement with students to enable the understanding and sound application of well-founded knowledge. It is the means of passing on established scientific knowledge. The subject being thought needs no sanctions to be accepted. Examinations simply verify the level of understanding.

[ii] Indoctrination is the instilling of selected ideas without a robust underlay of clearly defined truths.

Ideologies are indoctrinated, not taught. Students being indoctrinated are tested to determine if they

accept the matter being discussed by the threat of sanctions, not by objective examinations.

[iii] A random stumbling from lamp post to lamp post, describing progress in which by changing one or more variables one changes the result of an action. One aspires to attain a desired goal (say the next lamp post) using a series of random steps. In the limit, it may work but it may not. The indoctrinators supply ever-changing, “intellectual booze,” to encourage the activity, regardless of consequences.