An age-old question, a reflection for generations, a branch of philosophy that carries us forward in our lives: what is knowledge? We’ve all asked the questions: What is true knowledge, is there ever something fully correct, and can we ever know something in its entirety? We know that two plus two most definitely equals four. But that is math- a system that proves itself proves nothing- leaving more questions for skeptics, many of which are reasonable in this context. Many skeptics claim that math is a tool, not knowledge, even when provable. Even this simple example can be constructed; inquisitions like these are the cornerstone of epistemological debate; and we all weather these debates one way or another. 

It may seem like a simple formula, but I propose that knowledge is something that can be corroborated, something that is provable through corroboration, something that is true by comparison, and something that is practical in its uses and effects. Knowledge can meet all of these standards. The more standards a scrutinized idea meets, like a historical fact under examination, the closer it is to true knowledge. But first we must identify that knowledge is a fact, with the simplest example being that “trees exist.” We classify trees in the English language as “a woody perennial plant, typically having a single stem or trunk growing to a considerable height and bearing lateral branches at some distance from the ground.” 

Across languages and cultures, trees are described differently. But we all recognize that trees exist. Every living human being who has seen the outer world recognizes the existence of trees, and can confirm that the English definition (at least in some way) matches their witnessed reality. The extreme skeptic may deny this fact; it is best to dismiss their radical skepticism, for example, because this isn’t a practical interpretation. The extreme skeptic, saying “trees do not exist,” wouldn’t pass any of my standards- it isn’t mutually corroborated, practical, provable, or comparatively true with historical records, scientific proofs, and tested theories. 

My issue, as an aspiring college scholar, is to examine and improve my worldview. Like most people I want to get to an impenetrable worldview secure from even the harshest scrutiny. The way we all learn and develop worldviews is through reading, or from what we can tell, “knowledge-acquisition.” The problem that plagues our formative years, especially when we just start out with our educational paths, is that we accept everything to be true based on our teacher’s authority. As an example: “My teacher told me this was true, so I must accept it as an objective reality.” In our young years, we grow to accept most anything adults of authority share. Our reasoning isn’t fully developed by the time we move on to high school. When we learn about our nation’s history, we put it in the hands of our teachers and textbook writers. We are at the mercy of their bias; even as we grow older, this bias seems to impact us, and never seems to vanish. 

An epistemological debate might consider bias that can never be absolved. This may be true. If we can accept this as “common knowledge,” that bias can never be absolved is a fact, then we must also accept that some bias is preferable, and that bias can be more extreme in some situations than others. If there is more corroboration, for example if a teacher’s history lesson is corroborated by historical accounts (primary sources), the student can enjoy significantly less bias than, say, revisionist indoctrination of history delivered by a jingoistic educator. But you can argue that there is always bias in the way the history is presented, even in the teacher’s slightest microexpressions.

As we move forward in our learning careers- as humans constantly changing, we never stop learning- it is expected that we become more resistant to educational biases. The harm that is done in our younger years influences us forever. We may never forget learned ideas because some ideas are never revisited. But the problem that I want to tackle, especially as we move closer to dangerous revisionist education today, is the idea that knowledge must be sought, confirmed, and treated, and we must do everything in our power to recognize truth’s relativity. We must commit our future to this idea, and a proper idea of verifiable “knowledge.” Simply tell students: your conception of knowledge is misguided, and it is up to you to fix it. 

Finally, the idea that students learn knowledge in this sense is contradictory. What teachers present to their students are often opinions that can, and should, be verified as “true.” But that doesn’t make those opinions “knowledge,” because many times- like the teachings of history- truth is relative. My hope is that when students learn, teachers push them to do their own research and corroborate their “opinion teachings” with other opinions to build “true opinions” but not knowledge in the purist form. And all of this must be done with comparison, corroboration, provability, and practicality- the path forward to an unbiased education for all.