Education or indoctrination?

In listening to someone recently they made a comment that an organization told people if they want to understand their position they should read a particular opponent that had described their position perfectly, better than their own authors. That got me to thinking. I thought about when I had bought a motorcycle for my kids, they were less than enthusiastic. Their first experience with a motorcycle had resulted in a crash. From that experience they decided they wanted nothing to do with motorcycles. I made a deal with them, if they showed enough proficiency to successfully negotiate an obstacle course then we would sell it if they still didn't want it.

If you don't know something then you are unqualified to say whether or not it is valid. The opponent cited above was qualified to criticize the position because he understood it. My kids had no idea whether or not they enjoyed motorcycling, all they knew was the fear of the first ride. They assumed every ride would be like that. By forcing them to see both sides, the side of inexperience and the side of proficiency, I helped them make an informed decision. My daughter still enjoys riding 20 yrs later.

If you can't articulate the other side of an issue you are unqualified to say it is wrong. If a person is ignorant about the petition (story here) (another story here) (view petition here)that rejects the so-called scientific "consensus" on global warming, how can they honestly know whether it is true or false? When someone more informed brings it up the indoctrinated will be stammering, the educated should be able to respond. The educated would know about the medieval prime and the ice caps melting on Mars.

I'm not saying they would agree that global warming is not man caused, I'm just using that as an example, but the educated should be basing their opinion on knowledge and information, not on a politically correct dispensed dogma. In the end it is still opinion. What I see in the lame stream media is dispensed "truth" and anyone that disagrees is labeled either a contrarian or some other derogatory term. The issue of why they don't buy into the dogma is never addressed. Mainly because I think they know they can't argue on the merits, or I think they would. I think society would benefit, people wouldn't be so quick to ridicule others because they would understand there are valid reasons for the other person's opinions. They wouldn't be so quick to ridicule because they might be holding the same opinion at some later point.

My definition of an educated person would be someone who looks at every important issue getting as much information as they can. After getting information from both sides, they would evaluate the merits and decide which is most likely. They would keep an open mind in case new information came to light, they would be willing to reevaluate and realign. I try to get information from other sources but it's hard to find honest sources, people put up straw men, or outright lie about things to make their position look better. The indoctrinated agree and support these tactics and the other side just digs in more.

Using this definition I think our schools are more into indoctrination than education. How many of our grads could articulate the other possible causes of global warming? How many of our grads could explain irreducible complexity? How many of our grads could explain how DNA is a problem for evolution? How many grads could explain the problems with the peer-review process? Our schools are churning out more and more ideologues, who have lost the ability to be rational. As we turn into a nation of sheople we are in trouble.