ASSUMPTIONS, FACTS, ADS, AND THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING

EDUCATED AND BEING

AD-DUCATED

© 2005 by Orchid Land Publications

[20051206, 20060915, 20070512]

     The writer recently heard on the media:  "Some are bothered by the fact that it will be changed next year" or the semantic equivalent.  This incomprehensible use of "fact" for something that has not taken place is not as rare among those who claim to be educated as one might guess, at least not in my experience.  (I could cite an example from a book by a famous scholar who makes a surmise and subsequently refers to it as "the fact that . . ")  Some readers are so addicted to advertisements that they seem to have lost the distinction between what an ad claims to be the case, in the sense of being an existing fact, and what is actually so.  Worse is what happens in conversations with "educated" persons that describe something derived from a private premise (an assumption or axiom) not shared by one's readers as "therefore true" or "therefore false."  But since a premise, assumption, or axiom is simply posited or assumed―it is not factually "true" . . . . or false, though it defines for those accepting the surmise what is true and what is false. 

     One should be careful to say, "IF the premise that XXX is accepted, then it follows that  xxx is true, seeing that it follows with the premise."  See further HERE for more of dialectic and related subjects.  

     A reasonable person tests the validity of a premise by checking whether the data that  it inherently predicts correspond to the inherent prediction or not.  Once the premise has been validated to the satisfaction of the interlocutors in a conversation, they can agree that x (which agrees with the premise X) is true or―if it does not harmonize with the premise, that the premise is likely to be false, but at all events is not clearly true.  In instances in which it is not easy to determine whether a statement or belief agrees with or clashes with a premise accepted by the interlocutors in a discussion, its truth or falsity has to be left in the realm of what is uncertain.

####

    Our educational system could produce scholars better trained in the logical processing of information than what prevails around the world.  I once briefly conversed with a doctor of education in charge of the curriculum of a large and wealthy private preparatory school in the USA.  This was so many years ago that universities routinely required French and/or German for advanced degrees (one could be replaced by a special language one's work was concentrated on).  The school assigned pupils in different categories of expectation based on some sort of tests.  The top group did Latin; the second, French; the third, Spanish―ages before the huge influx of Latinos into the USA, especially its outlying states, began.  When I asked why the third-level group took Spanish, I was told that it was easier than French . . . as if Spanish didn't have far more inflected verb categories than French, two verbs for "be" whose uses had to be learned, etc.  Obviously, the curriculum planner knew practically nothing of foreign languages; it was a time when the doctor-of-education degree at Harvard was said to be the only doctorate lacking a foreign-language requirement that every candidate had to fulfill. 

####

     A famous Russian Saint, Fr. Arsény, subjected to imprisonment and inhumane treatment by the Soviets (who got rid of 60,000,000 Orthodox Christians because of their faith, including an enormous number of clergy), has written that when he was a schoolboy, the boys had selected a book to critique and the class was divided into those who would defend it and those who would put it down.  The boys were, we are told, extremely excited and wrapped up in the project.  The instructor stayed out of the picture for the most part and gave them free rein.  Much research went into the debate.  The boys tested arguments to defend the book and deflate inadequate arguments that might be put forward by the opposite team; if an argument had holes in it, the fallacy was cleared up.   The debate took place with great enthusiasm; some boys were put on the spot to be impartial judges. 

     One wonders whether this kind of education (in some places) played a minor rôle in the downfall of Russian Communism.  I have no idea how prevalent this approach was.  It was likely found in only a few places.  Could it be tried out in an American school?