Over inauguration weekend, the White House Press Secretary, in his first formal press conference, made a number of easily disproven claims, something my grandmother would have described as "whoppers". The following day, a senior White House advisor, when questioned about these blatant falsehoods, clumsily dissembled, arguing that the Press Secretary had simply reported "alternative facts". Until that moment, I was unaware such things existed. I assumed that the alternative to fact was falsehood, the alternative to truth, a lie.
I make no political point here. Rather, I want to highlight what is increasingly our reality, that what we call facts, those widely accepted notions easily confirmed, and upon which we can all agree, are now fluid and contested. Truth has always been a more difficult proposition, solidified only by independently verifiable fact. Oh how things have changed. The veracity of our claims, and our ethical responsibility to ensure the same, is swept away in a tide of misinformation and political expediency. Ethical Egoism, the notion that we ought rightfully serve only our own self-interest, is a thin veneer for narcissism, is fundamentally destructive, and is a viral feature of our virtual and literal realities. Essentially, from this point of view, if falsehood and hyperbole get you what you want, don't let fact or truth get in the way.
This new reality is fraught with danger. If there are no facts, no apolitical or objective statements about the world, no truths or expert witnesses, we are left with only unsubstantiated opinion. All knowledge becomes suspect, from the mundane, the nuts and bolts of things, to the hugely impactful, whole systems and methodologies. Falsehoods become some species of linguistic and social currency. In this parallel cosmos, truth is whatever you make of it, for whatever purpose you so choose, and ethics pretty much go out the window. Remember that ethics are fundamentally our rules of engagement in our various moral and social ecosystems. Without socially responsible and responsive ethics, what follows is an increasingly tolerant environment in which any and all human behaviors are both possible and justifiable. History is riven with examples of why this is a terrible idea.
In The Abolition of Man, acclaimed author, academic, and critic C.S. Lewis, insists that “The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts. The right defense against false sentiments is to inculcate just sentiments. By starving the sensibility of our pupils we only make them easier prey to the propagandist when he comes. For famished nature will be avenged and a hard heart is no infallible protection against a soft head.” Lewis is all about Natural Law, the belief that we are, as Cicero contends, obliged to contribute to the general good. In a world without facts, without truth, this compulsion is undermined, perhaps eradicated.
Okay, this is no philosophical rant about epistemology. Rather, I make a serious point about why education is inoculant for our children against this trend, critical thinking their shield against such nonsense. We must prepare our children to negotiate a deteriorating secular knowledge framework, to be a literal bulwark against the intellectual incongruity of our modern age, to return to reasoned and independently substantiated discourse. We must hold them fully accountable for their thoughts, their justifications, their evidences, and their ethics. If you're wondering "Why IB?", this is why. It's the most substantial difference between the International Baccalaureate and traditional education.
See you around campus.