I think that we can all agree on something: Accessible education is the most important service for modern civilization (which has food, water and shelter). However, perhaps the understanding of the importance of education is oversimplifying the matter, which in turn, leaves the accessibility of education to be taken for granted.
There is an important polarity of terms which can be perhaps over-simplified as a need for education: Misconception and Comprehension. Each of these terms, misconception and comprehension, breed their like kind. Misconception breeds misconception, comprehension begets further comprehension. It is the role of education to deliver comprehension, but not to address misconception, generally speaking. Misconceptions are designed to be stealthy, and avoid radar. We don’t know what we don’t know. Comprehension is the exact opposite, it must be obvious to the individual or the instructor, so that further instruction can take place.
I am considering this a misconception of the importance of the term “education”, the very institution that encourages comprehension. Perhaps a better, more sophisticated way to frame the most important service for modern civilization, is a matter of understanding the problem. Should education focus on addressing misconception rather than promoting comprehension? Does comprehension occur naturally from a misconception being popped? For instance, I’ve been of the mind recently that creationists and intelligent designers may have misconceptions about large numbers. This inability to conceive and appreciate astronomically large distances, hypothetical numbers, and even the relatively simple understanding of just how much of anything can be a billion, let alone a million, is telling.
The concept of evolution is an educational problem in that it predicates a certain capacity for comprehension, and a rather low threshold of misconception. If, however, the tables are turned (a high threshold for misconception, which encourages a low capacity for comprehension), such issues of extreme importance are bandied about as heresy. Rather, unfortunately hot-button issues such as evolution may be better taught in our schools as, in the case of evolution, a campaign to kill misconceptions about our world, such as how big a million is; reinforce non-hot-button issues such as understanding large numbers. There is no controversy in the understanding of large numbers. Evolution may only be controversial because there is a large, qualified and shared misconception amongst the general populace, or maybe a definitive set of misconceptions, but nonetheless, these misconceptions share one attribute: there is nothing controversial about them.
Yes, the more we know, the better off we are, and less fearful are we of the world. However, my argument is that the problem is improperly framed. We don’t need better education, that may be a misnomer. We may need to address misconception as an active phenomenon, and comprehension as an effect of the cause of popping misconceptions.