Epistemology and elementary education
Posted: Fri Feb 28, 2025 6:48 pm
(The latest cap essay for… I don’t know why I’m doing this.)
A lot of tragedies have been caused by what I call the faithful approach to epistemology. I’ll illustrate this with an example from COVID that I saw more than once.
Somebody thinks COVID is a hoax. He attends superspreader “COVID is a hoax” events in which people engage in conspicuously high-risk behavior to show off the strength of their conviction that COVID is a hoax. He nearly dies, and while recuperating in the ICU is interviewed by someone from the media. The interviewer asks what life lesson he has learned and what message he wants to send the readers. The answer: “COVID is real. I thought it was a hoax, but it’s real.”
The answer shows that he really hasn’t learned his lesson at all. He’s saying, “COVID is either a hoax or real, it’s a question with two possible answers, I picked the wrong one, and everything followed from that. The life lesson is that I picked the wrong one of two possible answers on that particular question.”
No. The thought he needs to abandon isn’t “COVID looks like a hoax to me”; the thought he needs to abandon is “Uncertainty is for pussies, pick a side and fight.” A Bayesian thinker might suspect COVID is a hoax and still avoid superspreader events just in case, but a faithful thinker might see such doubt as weakness.
I wonder, is this thinking in part the fault of our school system? “I’m not sure, but I think probably…” isn’t an answer that gets kids good grades on tests. This kid approached the COVID question the way one might approach a question on a test in school: on the test, there are two possible answers and only one of those two answers can get you credit for answering. If you don’t know, you take a guess and go with it.
Do we need our schools to do a better job of teaching kids about recognizing and dealing with uncertainty? How could we do this?
A lot of tragedies have been caused by what I call the faithful approach to epistemology. I’ll illustrate this with an example from COVID that I saw more than once.
Somebody thinks COVID is a hoax. He attends superspreader “COVID is a hoax” events in which people engage in conspicuously high-risk behavior to show off the strength of their conviction that COVID is a hoax. He nearly dies, and while recuperating in the ICU is interviewed by someone from the media. The interviewer asks what life lesson he has learned and what message he wants to send the readers. The answer: “COVID is real. I thought it was a hoax, but it’s real.”
The answer shows that he really hasn’t learned his lesson at all. He’s saying, “COVID is either a hoax or real, it’s a question with two possible answers, I picked the wrong one, and everything followed from that. The life lesson is that I picked the wrong one of two possible answers on that particular question.”
No. The thought he needs to abandon isn’t “COVID looks like a hoax to me”; the thought he needs to abandon is “Uncertainty is for pussies, pick a side and fight.” A Bayesian thinker might suspect COVID is a hoax and still avoid superspreader events just in case, but a faithful thinker might see such doubt as weakness.
I wonder, is this thinking in part the fault of our school system? “I’m not sure, but I think probably…” isn’t an answer that gets kids good grades on tests. This kid approached the COVID question the way one might approach a question on a test in school: on the test, there are two possible answers and only one of those two answers can get you credit for answering. If you don’t know, you take a guess and go with it.
Do we need our schools to do a better job of teaching kids about recognizing and dealing with uncertainty? How could we do this?