Abstract
The philosophy of education is a difficult (but very important) discipline since it branches into ethics, metaphysics, epigenetics, and socio-political domains. The goal of this essay is to propose a Popperian strategy for the decision-making processes that go into the re-evaluation of scholastic systems. It begins by suggesting that our current capitalist values may create feelings of alienation as coined by Karl Marx. Using John Lott's research, a case is made about the connection between political values (such as capitalism) and the ability education has to change them. Since education is a powerful tool, it would be most important to analyze it carefully and implement changes in a way that maintains democracy and protects against dictatorships. Plato's theories on utopia and social reformation contrasted with Karl Popper's falsification and critical rationalism showcase the difference between a humanitarian and totalitarian intervention that one should consider while adapting changes to scholastic systems. These differences are largely represented by 'closed' versus 'open' societal principles. Stephanie Chitpin adopts an 'open'-style framework that she applies as problem-solving techniques in schools, which seem highly conducive to the preservation of autonomy for both individuals and educators.
Keywords: Education; Scholastic system; Totalitarianism; Falsification; Open Society; Social-reformation; Democracy; Alienation; Critical Rationalism; Popper; Plato; Chitpin
I
Sipping on a glass of red wine one evening, a friend of mine who is extremely well-read asked me what it is that I intend to do with my philosophical studies. "I have big plans," I said with a small smile. "Oh, yes?" he asked, "Which?". My friend here considers himself to be a conservative, while my ideologies tend to be more liberal. My friend, an Italian self-educated genius with a crippling heart disease that led to his first transplant at 13 years old, is lucky enough to have come from a wealthy family able to pay for his medical needs. I, an Italo-Israeli immigrant of Canada, with two parents in alternative medicine and practicing Taoists, definitely had a very different outlook on life. I eagerly explained to my dear friend my hopes in creating an institution of research that carries out meta-analyses on the education systems cross-globally, implementing pragmatic measures to scholastic systems to achieve Utopia. The underlying goal of the research studies overtaken by such an institution is to improve education on the basis of human well-being.
Well, my friend looked at me and began to laugh. He said, "are you sure you're Buddhist? Because you sound like a dictator!" "What do you mean!?" I pronounced. How was my intention of creating a better world, my humanistic, liberal-like vision anywhere close to the proposition of a totalitarian state? I believed capitalism was the reason education emphasized building good workers — I wanted to see happy people.
One of my friend's biggest objections to my intention was linked to my idea of creating happy people by reducing capitalistic efforts. He said: "Capitalism is only a financial system. It's the values that humans derive from it that create your problems." By alluding me to a new point of view on capitalism, I had realized the dangers of using inductive methods to promote an education system that solved the 'ills' that I, singularly, believed in. Needless to say, he was quite right. His worry was an important one; if I believe that the education system is capable of making concrete changes in the world, then indoctrinating my own values could be dangerous for the protection of freedom of those who don't agree with my world vision.
To protect against making totalitarian propositions, I must iterate my opinion on the problem, propose education as the solution, and then carefully devise a method of applying changes to the scholastic systems that promote autonomy. So, the questions I focus on in this essay are as follows: (i) what political values of current society call for action; (ii) how does the link between politics and education rectify education being that 'call'; (iii) in what ways is the use of induction in decision-making limiting (specifically when attempting to re-create political value systems); and lastly, (iv) what are some examples of education benefiting from non-inductive decision-making methods.
In section II I introduce Karl Marx and his theory of alienation to propose how the current economic organization of society negatively affects its citizens by emphasizing monetary gain over individual true freedom. By free will, I mean the maintenance of autonomy in making decisions that accurately reflect individuality during any kind of political or institutional change. In the section afterwards, I use John R. Lott's research to demonstrate the connection between politics and education. In section III, I bring up Karl Popper's analysis of Plato's theories from République and Laws as an example of how induction leads to a "closed society" that reinforces totalitarian intervention. In section IV, I explain in more detail why Popper believes such risks are achieved through using induction as a method of decision-making, and why he proposes that falsification is a better method for the protection of democracy. In the last section, I present Stephanie Chitpin's successful use of Popperian theory in her research on scholastic leadership.
II
There are a few questions left to tackle before moving on to the distinguishing factors of totalitarian statements. First, what is wrong with our current society, and then, why is education a good means for change? In the above paragraph, I suggested that the values of capitalism might be at fault. As my friend suggested, it's not capitalism itself that's the issue, for capitalism is only a system of economical definition — the issue, if one, is the values it might breed. I started questioning what would life look like if those values were changed.
One philosopher who has made a considerable impact in this domain is Karl Marx — specifically his work on a term he coined as Alienation. Marx's theory — often referred to as historical materialism — attempted to understand how capitalism increased the pursuit of profit, and how it led to the exploitation of humanity (Wolff & Leopold, 2003). Alienation was the feeling of dissociation from human nature as a result of monetizing human potential (Leopold, 2018). He says: "It is true that animals also produce... they produce only when immediate physical need compels them to do so, while man produces even when he is free from physical need and truly produces only in freedom from such need" (Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, 1844, p. 329). For Marx, an individual is only free when he has the chance to produce out of his own individual personality — like an artist who produces as a form of self-expression rather than economic gain.
Alienation stems from the distancing of oneself from the essence of human life, which for Marx not only includes individual freedom but also depends on other "species-being" (Eagleton, 1997). By separating individual workers from their product through their labour, one becomes separated from himself and also from society. Marx states:
"estranged labour not only (I) estranges nature from man and (ii) estranges man from himself, from his own active function, from his vital activity; because of this it also estranges man from his species. It turns his species-life into a means for his individual life." (Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, 1844, pp. 324, 328)
Communism, for Marx, is the solution to this problem of class struggle and alienation. He believes that by actualizing human essence, one re-establishes "communal bonds" (Eagleton, 1997) and increases individual freedom. This is only one of the current issues in society that motivated my desire to propose educational implementation of different values in efforts for positive change.
III
The philosophy of Education is extremely complicated as it branches into a wide range of issues. I would like to focus on the policies and practices that should or should not be implemented within an educational system — specifically the justification of curricular decisions and government interferences in such decisions (Siegel, Phillips, & Callan, 2008). In this section, I hope to demonstrate first how politics and education are linked, and make a case for why investing in education is the means for the social change we want to see in the world.
I read the article Public Schooling, Indoctrination and Totalitarianism (1999), where John R. Lott observes the link between the state's public educational investments and the type of government ownership. He concludes that "Totalitarian governments and governments with high transfers spend a lot on public education and are likely to own television stations" (Lott, 1999). My objection here is that Lott is observing that states who take advantage of the education system have been able to indoctrinate their values successfully — but he fails to question whether an education system whose values did correspond to democracy would lead to the same level of success. If a totalitarian state limits an individual's ability to make informed decisions (autonomy), it is obviously not going to increase democracy. But I assume that if the education system promoted autonomy, then it would increase democracy. The question is how do we use the education system to institutionalize a positive change that increases autonomy?
My initial thoughts were inspired by Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, which depicts a dystopian society where the science fiction novel warns against advancements of technology controlled by government as means of a hedonistic lifestyle. Individuals were cognitively conditioned to enjoy the roles they were pre-determined for. At first glance this seemed to remedy the issue Marx defined — everyone had a role that fulfilled certain needs of the societal whole, and was conditioned to love it. The problem? Not everyone believes in what is being socially conditioned. By attempting to condition individuals to enjoy pre-determined roles, Huxley's world satisfies the alienation problem but creates a new one: the loss of genuine free will.
So it would be wise to evaluate totalitarianism, in an effort to describe what kinds of humanitarian approaches should be used when standardizing education. Karl Popper has written astonishing work on the subject suggesting the importance of limiting certain interventions that could lead to totalitarianism.
IV
Karl Popper is regarded as one of the most influential philosophers of science from the twentieth century (Thornton, 1997). For Popper, science is only "scientific" if it is falsifiable. His tactic, that of a critical-rationalist, advocates for a level of skepticism in social and political affairs that defends the "Open Society" outlook. In his work, Popper displays obvious reservations against stagnation, and suggests that it is the underlying factor of tyranny, totalitarianism, and thus the limitation of freedom in a state. He uses Plato's politics as an example of emphasized stagnation.
Plato has two important books on the topic of politics: République and Laws. In Laws, Plato begins by questioning the goal (telos) of legislation — he concludes that it is the virtue of its citizens. He continues to say that a state is just insofar as it defends the virtue of its citizens (Bobonich & Meadows, 2002). Because Plato's definition of virtue lies necessarily in the responsibility of the state, laws and state interests cannot be divided — his theory promotes obedience and is therefore totalitarian. Plato states:
"So the state founded on natural principles is wise as a whole in virtue of the knowledge inherent in its smallest constituent part or class, which exercises authority over the rest." (Plato, Laws, 429(a))
Popper picks up on Plato's intention of creating a state so politically perfect it stands the test of time. He claims that Plato's world depicts a "closed society", one where stagnation is emphasized and where change becomes the enemy (Popper, 1945, p. 173). Contrarily, Popper believes democracy is a tool that allows for social feedback in political settings. His theory of falsification demonstrates that science is a fluid process that allows for constant problem-solving (Popper, 1999). Political science should make suggestions that propel a desire to continuously evaluate its status of change for the sake of evolving the theory.
Thus, in contrast to Plato, Popper suggests a different approach: piecemeal engineering. Unlike a Utopia that attempts to achieve perfection, the alternative method of piecemeal engineering allows for the constant search and fighting for pragmatic changes that decrease unhappiness rather than increase happiness. It promotes autonomy by making democracy the primary tool for constant change. Such a system would limit claims of what is "better," and ensure that such attempts aren't forced onto individuals who don't agree — since change is constant, and the purpose is decreasing unhappiness, claims must be revisited in the event of an issue. It's this approach that distinguishes, for Popper, the difference between totalitarian and humanitarian ideals.
V
Plato's theories stem from the realization that his current society was unhappy. His method was to use reason to create sets of statements into well-thought-out arguments that would prove the validity of his conclusions — essentially believing there was a way of arriving at the absolute "right" and "wrong" in the world.
Popper on the other hand is famously known for his humbled approach to philosophy. In All Life is Problem Solving he makes a case for all knowledge being conjectural knowledge, saying "we do not know, we guess" (Popper, 1999, p. 37). Popper was greatly influenced by Emmanuel Kant's theories which boast critical rationalism (Thornton, 1997). He states that scientific knowledge is "the best we have in the field" and hopes to motivate the constant curiosity that allows one to revisit theories and hypotheses. Thus, science cannot be a means to an end, but rather must stay a means for constant rediscovery.
David Hume famously argues against induction in science as well. In the Treatise of Human Nature (1739), Hume brands observations for the sake of later predictions as unsatisfactory (Henderson, 2018), concluding:
"Thus, not only our reason fails us in the discovery of the ultimate connexion of causes and effects, but even after experience has inform'd us of their constant conjunction, 'tis impossible for us to satisfy ourselves by our reason, why we shou'd extend that experience beyond those particular instances, which have fallen under our observation." (T. 1.3.6.11/91–2)
Popper defends a hypothetical-deductive method in an attempt to rectify science (Couto, Saraiva, & Carrieri, 2021). The logical inaccuracy of absolute knowledge leads Popper to distinguish between pure "knowledge" — a concept he thinks we have none of epistemically — versus conjectural "knowledge" which allows us to make assumptions to the best of our ability (Thornton, 1997). To assume that science equals certainty is to invite unchanged rules based on "facts", which in politics can lead to decision-making processes that look like dictatorships because it implements a single ideal rather than allow the option for more.
Popper distinguishes the humanitarian from the totalitarian question thus:
Humanitarian question: what I demand from the state is protection; not only for myself, but for others too (Popper, 1945, p. 109)
Totalitarian question: justice is that which is in the interest of the best state (Popper, 1945, p. 89)
The humanitarian question is a technological one, where the functional properties are examined to determine the general aim of the politics existing within the society before the "construction or reconstruction of any political institution." This is in direct contrast to Plato's approach. By contrasting his theory with Plato's, Popper manages to depict some key differentiating factors between totalitarian dictatorships and democratic strategy — factors that are wildly important when attributed to changes in scholastic systems.
VI
Stephanie Chitpin's work brings Popper's theories into the practical realm of educational leadership. In her research on scholastic leadership and decision-making, Chitpin applies what she calls the Objective Knowledge Growth Framework (OKGF), which draws directly from Popper's philosophy of science and critical rationalism. Her framework proposes that problem-solving in schools should follow a process of conjecture and refutation: identify a problem, propose a tentative solution, implement it, observe the results, and revise accordingly.
Chitpin's studies propose that Popper's theories on critical rationalism should be applied for problem-solving and scholastic decisions, and that they benefit not only the students but also the educators (Chitpin, 2011). The OKGF encourages educators to avoid dogmatic attachment to any single pedagogical method or administrative policy, instead treating all decisions as provisional — subject to revision in light of new evidence or changed circumstances. This mirrors Popper's piecemeal engineering at the level of individual institutions.
What Chitpin demonstrates in practice is precisely what Popper argues for in theory: that open, self-correcting systems produce better outcomes than closed, rule-bound ones. Her case studies in Canadian schools show that when principals and teachers adopt this framework, the culture of the school shifts — away from compliance and toward collaborative inquiry, away from the enforcement of fixed norms and toward the co-creation of evolving standards. The result, she argues, is not chaos but a more robust and adaptive form of order: an "open society" at the institutional level.
Conclusion
The goal of this essay was to propose a Popperian strategy for the decision-making processes that go into the re-evaluation of scholastic systems. Beginning with Marx's concept of alienation, I argued that the values embedded in our current economic organization give education systems a genuine reason to change — but that the method of change matters enormously. Lott's research shows that education is a powerful tool for political transformation, which makes it all the more important that it be used in ways that protect rather than undermine individual autonomy.
Plato's utopian vision, however well-intentioned, illustrates the dangers of inductive, top-down social engineering: a "closed society" in which the pursuit of a fixed ideal licenses totalitarian control. Popper's alternative — falsification, piecemeal engineering, the open society — provides a framework for educational reform that is both humble about what we can know and ambitious about what we can achieve. Chitpin's application of this framework in real schools demonstrates that it is not merely theoretical: it is a practical guide to how educational institutions can change without sacrificing the freedom and autonomy of those who inhabit them.
The institution of research I envisioned over that glass of red wine — one that carries out meta-analyses on education systems cross-globally, implementing pragmatic measures to achieve something like utopia — turns out to require exactly this kind of Popperian humility. Not the certainty of a blueprint, but the patience of a process. Not a closed society of correct answers, but an open one of better questions.