1. Education should be centralized.
2. Our knowledge is not based upon theories (guesses), but unquestionable premises.

In other words, I think education should be decentralized, and like Karl Popper, the famous philosopher of science, I believe our knowledge is theoretical all the way down.

My main point is that if there are different views, making the student aware of this and teaching those views is a good idea.

There “seems” lots of assumption here. If you criticize something and subsequently post it, you’d better job than making a “guess”. If you have not done homework, you should read this: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B2%96%E7%B8%84%E6%88%A6

In short, we will never find out if there was a direct order or not. Therefore, teaching that the Japanese Imperial Army forced Okinawans into a mass suicide is just one-sided. And this is from somebody embracing alternatives?

http://japan.shadowofiris.com/politics/japan-local-elections-april-22

Thank you for commenting with some challenging remarks.

It’s nice to know someone else is paying attention and cares about this issue.

You mention pluralism. I’ll say this, I am a pluralist because I’m a fallibilist, not because I think there is a plurality of truths.

I take my fallibilism very seriously, and though I’m a avid follower of evolution going so far as to see it as paradigmatic for how we learn, I don’t want to get to a point where I’m so sure of myself that I feel everyone else must learn the RIGHT truth.

Now, if you have a large nation with strong central control of education, this is a bit like a lever. One small push from the center can have a lot of force throughout the entire country. I don’t want any agency or department to be able to exert such a force. The opportunity for amplifying error is just too great. Personally, I would go so far as to say frightening.

Now we know what we could expect from such an educational system in the worst of times, but even in the best of times, truth is not something to be decided democratically, it’s something that’s got to be decided individually. So, again, even in the best of times education from the center is going to be an education full of compromise and lowest common denominators.

In short, I don’t think education can be decentralized enough. In fact, though there are its critics, I even support home schooling.

Another problem is that under centralized state education people tend to think morality is some how the state’s responsibility and not the parent’s responsibility. When morals are perceived to be failing nationwide, parents complain about the school system and how it is failing. This is fostered dependency.

Ultimately, if the parents are strong advocates of creationism or intelligent design, are we to wrestle their kids away from them, and using the full coercive power of the state, MAKE them learn evolution? Are we that sure of ourselves? It sounds like hubris to me.

Best,
Matt

Imagine a high school in some small town in the Midwest where they decided to teach more than one side to the evolution/creation debate (I use debate in a loose manner). Suppose now that the teacher of the class is already biased towards creationism or intelligent design. Can we assume that the teacher will give equal hearing to the side of the debate that s/he does not subscribe to?

Although the debate is not the same, the presence of historical revisionists in some classrooms could lead to poorly (more so?) educated children coming out of the system. Of course, this holds true for many aspects of education, and sure promoting independent thought would go some way to balancing that, but the risk is quite great, is it not?

Indeed, if I recall, this has always been a problem for Japan. The textbooks were not always been written by right-wingers/nationalists/revisionists, but were for some time also heavily biased towards the left as well.

This is indeed about homogenising Japan and perpetuating groupthink, but it might also be about a lack of trust in educators.

Great stuff, Matt, I really enjoy reading your posts.