Belief and Knowledge

Editorial Belief and Knowledge When I was growing up I attended a school in which memorization was an important component. Among the things we had to memorize was a prayer that began "I believe in..." This was followed by a long enunciation of beliefs. We were not required to know these things. Knowledge was reserved for math, science, and self-evident truths, such as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (We also had to memorize parts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution!). Although the lines sometimes blurred, an effort was made to maintain a distinction between belief and knowledge. Unfortunately, in our field no such distinction has been made. As we splinter into more and more warring factions, the tendency grows to present opinion (beließ as fact (knowledge) and we are reduced to trading slogans rather than admitting our lack of knowledge in virtually every area. Whether we are dealing with school placement ("Mainstreamed deaf children are pathetic social outcasts." "Mainstream children successfully adapt to the hearing world."), bilingual-bicultural education ("It is the natural right of all deaf children." "It condemns deaf children to a mute, restrictive, subculture."), cochlear implants ("They bring the gift of speech to deaf children." "They are a form of cultural genocide."), or whole language—by now you get the picture, we deal in cliches rather than scholarly, principled inquiry. An individual's position on any of these issues may serve as a litmus test. In a way, we function much like political campaigns, if I may move from the sacred to the profane. Each group has its own convention in which there is little or no room for differences of opinion. When there are so-called debates one candidate may have 90 seconds to address an issue such as placing American troops in Bosnia, funding for the social security system, or late-term abortions, and the other candidate has 60 seconds for rebuttal. At the end, spin doctors for each side take over and declare a clear victory. We all know that complex issues cannot be defined, let alone resolved, in 60 second sound bites, but we persist in the behavior, perhaps because it absolves us of our obligation to try to honestly explore the complexity of the questions that confront us. The discerning reader is probably thinking that the same limitations apply to very short editorials that appear four times a year. I am painfully aware of these limitations, and so try to use the allotted space to raise questions and explore difficulties rather than resolve them. What do we know about educating deaf children? The honest answer is very little. In fact, we may know less now than we did in the not so distant past. The federal commitment to long-range educational research has decreased. At universities, increased emphasis is being placed on teaching (the dissemination of knowledge) rather than on research (the generation of knowledge). Increasingly, when research is done, researchers work to validate a particular approach or procedure rather than to explore alternatives. When the people doing the research are affiliated with or paid by those who are identified with a particular position, there is a vested interest in outcome and it is difficult to maintain objectivity. It is also difficult, as consumers, to accept reports without a grain of salt. As a start, let us acknowledge our ignorance and try to clear the decks and begin anew. I do not know, but I believe that would be helpful. Donald F. Moores Editor Volume 141, No. 5 American Annals of the Deaf ...