Do the flaws in education discredit the discpline being taught?

Hi ModulousAs a teacher I think that you are overstating the fact that we may be guilty of a vast institutionalized conspiracy. Surely in todays world you have to consider that we are learning many new things, which will always need to be updated, especially in the sciences. As to the 15th centaury, the only history book most people in Europe had was the bible, which was accepted as entirely true, as were a wide range of legends and folklore. Things have changed, and so has what we teach today.Also I would take issue with your initial statement citing flaws in education. More correctly it should be flaws/ gaps in the knowlege that we teach, which we all strive to amend. In consequence we who teach, pass on knowledge which enables other more brilliant minds to expand the borders of human achievement and knowledge.But to answer your question, no, how it can it discredit any discipline, as long as that discipline is willing to change along with what we learn.

And you could say exactly the same about bible classes.....

Wasn't that you initial point 2? "Is it a conspiracy?" you asked.Anyway I don't think that teachers teach incomplete or inaccurate knowledge deliberately, unless, as has been noted, we are simplifying things in order to allow pupils to access the subject without being overwhelmed by information. Teachers should then point out in due course that knowledge has moved on or has more to it. It's known as Blooms taxonomy, whereyou develop pupils knowledge from simply knowing, through 7 identified stages until you have synthesis, where people are taking all that they have learnt and are extending the boundaries..

Indeed, there is much more focus today on making pupils aware of their own learning style, and modifiying our teaching style to accomodate different pupils. If pupils are more aware of how they learn they can be much more successful. It's all quite measurable and does indeed correlate to what we see in the classroom.Also, there has always been resistance to teaching new ideas throughout the ages and I think, because previously knowledge had gone in cycles of (approximately) decades, it was enough time for it to become a paradigm or at least 'accepted' knowledge. This meant that when new ideas arrived, people of the establishment baulked at the thought of changing what had before seemed immutable fact.I think it comes down to people being able to accept that our knowledge is not complete, about anything, and approach that fact, (and that is probably the only thing we can say with certainty, is a fact) in a cautious way.

as for historical revisionists, don't even get me started on the holocaust deniers....