Editing Philosophy of education (section)

=== Aims of education ===
A central question in the philosophy of education concerns the aims of education, i.e. the question of why people should be educated and what goals should be pursued in the process of education.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="OxfordHandbookIntro"/><ref name="Schmitt2005">{{cite journal |last1=Schmitt |first1=Frederick |title=What Are the Aims of Education? |journal=Episteme |date=2005 |volume=1 |issue=3 |pages=223–234 |doi=10.3366/epi.2004.1.3.223 |s2cid=144420008 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHWAT-3 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231103113057/https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHWAT-3 |url-status=live }}</ref> This issue is highly relevant for evaluating educational practices and products by assessing how well they manage to realize these goals. There is a lot of disagreement and various theories have been proposed concerning the aims of education. Prominent suggestions include that education should foster knowledge, [[curiosity]], [[creativity]], [[rationality]], and critical thinking while also promoting the tendency to think, feel, and act morally.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="OxfordHandbookIntro"/> The individual should thereby develop as a person, and achieve [[self-actualization]] by realizing their [[potential]]. Some theorists emphasize the cultivation of [[Liberalism|liberal ideals]], such as [[freedom]], [[autonomy]], and [[open-mindedness]], while others stress the importance of docility, [[Obedience (human behavior)|obedience]] to authority, and ideological purity, sometimes also with a focus on [[piety]] and [[religious faith]].<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="OxfordHandbookIntro"/> Many suggestions concern the social domain, such as fostering a sense of community and solidarity and thus turning the individual into a productive member of society while protecting them from the potentially negative influences of society. The discussion of these positions and the arguments cited for and against them often include references to various disciplines in their justifications, such as [[ethics]], [[psychology]], [[anthropology]], and [[sociology]].<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="OxfordHandbookIntro"/><ref>{{cite book |last1=Brighouse |first1=Harry |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=30 October 2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-003 |language=en |chapter=Moral and Political Aims of Education |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=27 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211227154851/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-003 |url-status=live }}</ref>

There is wide consensus concerning certain general aims of education, like that it should foster all students, help them in the development of their ability to reason, and guide them in how to judge and act. But these general characteristics are usually too vague to be of much help and there are many disagreements about the more specific suggestions of what education should aim for.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Schmitt2005"/> Some attempts have been made to provide an overarching framework of these different aims. According to one approach, education should at its core help the individual lead a good life. All the different more specific goals are aims of education to the extent that they serve this ultimate purpose.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Haack |first1=Robin |title=Education and the Good Life |journal=Philosophy |date=1981 |volume=56 |issue=217 |pages=289–302 |doi=10.1017/S0031819100050282 |jstor=3750273 |s2cid=144950876 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3750273 |issn=0031-8191 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2022-04-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220407165937/https://www.jstor.org/stable/3750273 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> On this view, it may be argued that fostering rationality and autonomy in the students are aims of education to the extent that increased rationality and autonomy will result in the student leading a better life.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/>

The different theories of the aims of education are sometimes divided into ''goods-based'', ''skills-based'', and ''character-based'' accounts. ''Goods-based'' accounts hold that the ultimate aim of education is to produce some form of epistemic good, such as truth, knowledge, and understanding. ''Skills-based'' accounts, on the other hand, see the development of certain skills, like rationality as well as critical and independent [[thinking]] as the goal of education. For ''character-based'' accounts, the character traits or virtues of the learner play the central role, often with an emphasis on moral and civic traits like [[kindness]], [[justice]], and [[honesty]].<ref name="Watson2016"/>

==== Epistemic ====
Many theories emphasize the epistemic aims of education.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="MacmillanEducationEpistemological">{{cite book |editor1-last=Borchert |editor1-first=Donald |title=Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd Edition |date=2006 |publisher=Macmillan |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/philosophy-education-epistemological-issues |chapter=Philosophy Of Education, Epistemological Issues In |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2024-05-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240531092733/https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/philosophy-education-epistemological-issues |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Robertson2009">{{cite book |last1=Robertson |first1=Emily |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=30 October 2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-002 |chapter=The Epistemic Aims of Education |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=28 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211228183510/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-002 |url-status=live }}</ref> According to the epistemic approach, the central aim of education has to do with [[knowledge]], for example, to pass on knowledge accumulated in the societal effort from one generation to the next. This process may be seen both as the development of the student's [[mind]] as well as the transmission of a valuable heritage.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> Such an approach is sometimes rejected by [[Pragmatism|pragmatists]], who emphasize experimentation and critical thinking over the transmission of knowledge.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> Others have argued that this constitutes a [[false dichotomy]]: that the transmission of knowledge and the development of a rational and critical mind are intertwined aims of education that depend on and support each other.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> In this sense, education aims also at fostering the ability to acquire new knowledge. This includes both instilling true [[belief]]s in the students as well as teaching the methods and forms of [[evidence]] responsible for verifying existing beliefs and arriving at new knowledge. It promotes the epistemic autonomy of students and may help them challenge unwarranted claims by epistemic authorities.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref name="MacmillanEducationEpistemological"/><ref name="Robertson2009"/> In its widest sense, the epistemic approach includes various related goals, such as imparting true beliefs or knowledge to the students as well as teaching dispositions and abilities, such as rationality, critical thinking, understanding, and other [[intellectual virtue]]s.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/>

==== Critical thinking and indoctrination ====
[[Critical thinking]] is often cited as one of the central aims of education.<ref name="Siegel">{{cite book |last1=Siegel |first1=Harvey |title=Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd Edition |date=2006 |publisher=Macmillan |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/philosophy-education-epistemological-issues |chapter=PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION, EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUES IN |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2024-05-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240531092733/https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/philosophy-education-epistemological-issues |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> There is no generally accepted definition of critical thinking. But there is wide agreement that it is reasonable, reflective, careful, and focused on determining what to believe or how to act.<ref name="Ennis">{{cite book |last1=Ennis |first1=Robert H. |title=The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education |date=2015 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan US |isbn=978-1-137-37805-7 |pages=31–47 |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137378057_2 |language=en |chapter=Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception |doi=10.1057/9781137378057_2 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-02-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230212201906/https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137378057_2 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Davies">{{cite book |last1=Davies |first1=Martin |last2=Barnett |first2=Ronald |title=The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education |date=2015 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan US |isbn=978-1-137-37805-7 |pages=1–25 |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137378057_1 |language=en |chapter=Introduction |doi=10.1057/9781137378057_1 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2022-07-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220730081138/https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137378057_1 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Hitchcock">{{cite web |last1=Hitchcock |first1=David |title=Critical Thinking |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=1 November 2021 |date=2020 |archive-date=31 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240531092733/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/ |url-status=live }}</ref> It has clarity and rationality as its standards and includes a [[Metacognition|metacognitive]] component monitoring not just the solution of the problem at hand but also ensuring that it complies with its own standards in the process.<ref name="Davies"/> In this sense, education is not just about conveying many true beliefs to the students. Instead, the students' [[ability]] to arrive at conclusions by themselves and the disposition to question pre-existing beliefs should also be fostered, often with the goal of benefitting not just the student but society at large.<ref name="Siegel"/><ref name="Davies"/> But not everyone agrees with the positive role ascribed to critical thinking in education. Objections are often based on disagreements about what it means to reason well.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> Some critics argue that there is no universally correct form of reasoning. According to them, education should focus more on teaching subject-specific skills and less on imparting a universal method of thinking.<ref name="Hitchcock"/><ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Monteiro |first1=Sandra |last2=Sherbino |first2=Jonathan |last3=Sibbald |first3=Matthew |last4=Norman |first4=Geoff |title=Critical thinking, biases and dual processing: The enduring myth of generalisable skills |journal=Medical Education |date=2020 |volume=54 |issue=1 |pages=66–73 |doi=10.1111/medu.13872 |pmid=31468581 |s2cid=201674464 |language=en |issn=1365-2923|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> Other objections focus on the allegation that critical thinking is not as neutral, universal, and presuppositionless as some of its proponents claim. On this view, it involves various implicit biases, like egocentrism or distanced objectivity, and culture-specific values arising from its roots in the philosophical movement of the [[Age of Enlightenment|European Enlightenment]].<ref name="Hitchcock"/><ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/>

The problem of critical thinking is closely connected to that of [[indoctrination]].<ref name="OxfordHandbookIntro"/><ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> Many theorists hold that indoctrination is in important ways different from education and should be avoided in education.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> But others contend that indoctrination should be part of education or even that there is no difference between the two. These different positions depend a lot on how "indoctrination" is to be defined. Most definitions of indoctrination agree that its goal is to get the student to accept and embrace certain beliefs.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> It has this in common with most forms of education but differs from it in other ways.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> According to one definition, the belief acquisition in indoctrination happens without regard for the [[Evidence#Nature of the evidential relation|evidential support]] of these beliefs, i.e. without presenting proper arguments and reasons for adopting them.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> According to another, the beliefs are instilled in such a way as to discourage the student to question or assess for themselves the believed contents. In this sense, the goals of indoctrination are exactly opposite to other aims of education, such as rationality and critical thinking.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> In this sense, education tries to impart not just beliefs but also make the students more [[open-minded]] and conscious of human [[fallibility]].<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Adler2009">{{cite book |last1=Adler |first1=Jonathan E. |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-006 |chapter=Why Fallibility Has Not Mattered and How It Could |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2021-12-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211230022523/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-006 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Petrik |first1=Kathryn Rose |title=A fallibilistic approach to education policy |date=2016 |url=https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/156937/PETRIK-THESIS-2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-01-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230121202707/https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/156937/PETRIK-THESIS-2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y |url-status=live }}</ref> An intimately related issue is whether the aim of education is to mold the mind of the pupil or to liberate it by strengthening its capacity for critical and independent inquiry.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/>

An important consequence of this debate concerns the [[Philosophy of testimony|problem of testimony]], i.e to what extent students should [[Trust (social science)|trust]] the claims of teachers and books.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Siegel |first1=Harvey |title=Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy |date=2018 |url=https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/epistemology-of-education/v-1/sections/3-teaching-indoctrination-and-belief |language=en |chapter=Epistemology of education |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2024-02-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240223030751/https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/epistemology-of-education/v-1/sections/3-teaching-indoctrination-and-belief |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Taylor2016">{{cite journal |last1=Taylor |first1=Rebecca M. |title=Indoctrination and Social Context: A System-Based Approach to Identifying the Threat of Indoctrination and the Responsibilities of Educators |journal=Journal of Philosophy of Education |date=2016 |volume=50 |issue=4 |pages=38–58 |doi=10.1111/1467-9752.12180 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/TAYIAS-4 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102183413/https://philpapers.org/rec/TAYIAS-4 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Callan2009">{{cite book |last1=Callan |first1=Eamonn |last2=Arena |first2=Dylan |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=30 October 2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-007 |language=en |chapter=Indoctrination |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=30 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211230022547/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-007 |url-status=live }}</ref> It has been argued that this issue depends a lot on the age and the intellectual development of the student. In the earlier stages of education, a high level of trust on the side of the students may be necessary. But the more their intellectual capacities develop, the more they should use them when trying to assess the plausibility of claims and the reasons for and against them.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> In this regard, it has been argued that, especially for young children, weaker forms of indoctrination may be necessary while they still lack the intellectual capacities to evaluate the reasons for and against certain claims and thus to critically assess them.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> In this sense, one can distinguish unavoidable or acceptable forms of indoctrination from their avoidable or unacceptable counterparts. But this distinction is not always affirmed and some theorists contend that all forms of indoctrination are bad or unacceptable.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Taylor2016"/><ref name="Callan2009"/>

==== Individual and society ====
A recurrent source of disagreement about the aims of education concerns the question of who is the primary beneficiary of education: the [[individual]] educated or the [[society]] having this individual as its member.<ref name="Reich2009">{{cite book |last1=Reich |first1=Rob |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=30 October 2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-026 |language=en |chapter=Educational Authority and the Interests of Children |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=27 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211227154804/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-026 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> In many cases, the interests of both are aligned. On the one hand, many new opportunities in life open to the individual through education, especially concerning their career. On the other hand, education makes it more likely that the person becomes a good, law-abiding, and productive member of society.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Partington |first1=Geoffrey |title=Educating for a More Law-Abiding Society |journal=The Australian Quarterly |date=1990 |volume=62 |issue=4 |pages=346–360 |doi=10.2307/20635601 |jstor=20635601 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/20635601 |issn=0005-0091 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231103014614/https://www.jstor.org/stable/20635601 |url-status=live }}</ref> But this issue becomes more problematic in cases where the interests of the individual and society conflict with each other. This poses the question of whether individual [[autonomy]] should take precedence over communal welfare.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> According to ''comprehensive liberals'', for example, education should emphasize the self-directedness of the students. On this view, it is up to the student to choose their own path in life. The role of education is to provide them with the necessary resources but it does not direct the student with respect to what constitutes an ethically [[good]] path in life. This position is usually rejected by [[communitarians]], who stress the importance of [[social cohesion]] by being part of the community and sharing a common good.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Davis |first1=Gordon |last2=Neufeld |first2=Blain |title=Political Liberalism, Civic Education, and Educational Choice |journal=Social Theory and Practice |date=2007 |volume=33 |issue=1 |pages=47–74 |doi=10.5840/soctheorpract200733135 |jstor=23558510 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/23558510 |issn=0037-802X |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102183413/https://www.jstor.org/stable/23558510 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Golby |first1=Micheal |title=Communitarianism and education |journal=Curriculum Studies |date=1 July 1997 |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=125–138 |doi=10.1080/14681369700200010 |issn=0965-9757|doi-access=free }}</ref>