In part three of this essay, the conclusion was made that we discard the teaching of history—in fact, the teaching of a secular faith purporting to be history—in favor of a thorough and continual grounding, much more than is now done, in critical thinking, rhetoric, polemics, and the Socratic method of teaching.  We looked at possible salutary consequences of such a shift in our schooling, but ended by saying that such a shift would not happen.  What, then, could we do? 

First, while it is highly desirable that everyone make the shift in what he or she learns, that is not necessary.  If a certain percentage of Americans do so, that will be enough to inject rational thinking into decision-making to such a degree that we achieve a desirable “tipping point” leading to much better decisions.  The result will be fewer regrettable decisions, of which we are reminded too often, on television and in our pocketbooks.  (For example, how many hundreds of billions are we spending on Iraq?) 

If we think outside the box, we realize that such schooling need not come from the classroom, but, rather, could be done continually extracurricularly.  A large number of youth and adults could be reached through an incentive-based extracurricular curriculum.  (Hmm, does that pairing of words look like an oxymoron?) 

 The key would be the incentives, so that people young and old take the time to learn.  The incentives have to be attractive to people and affordable to the purveyors of the curriculum. 

Another way, not exclusive from, but, rather, complementary to the extracurricular schooling, would be to include, automatically, a learned rebuttal to every assertion purporting to be a fact.  In plain English, when British Petroleum would tell us on television how they were looking “beyond petroleum”, a rebuttal of equal length, preferably paid by British Petroleum, would appear.  Two positive things could result from this if we the people won the battle with the lobbyists which British Petroleum and many multinational corporations would send to oppose us:  first, there would be less advertising and, second, there would be more honest advertising.  At least two negative things could result:  multinational corporations would look for and exploit loopholes in any “balanced advertising” law and the corporations would become creative in conveying their propaganda, meaning that they might create front organizations, like charities, to convey their propaganda. 

Balanced advertising could have a profound effect on political campaigns, also.  The question which I would have would be, “Who would provide the rebuttal?”  Occasionally, we see a worthwhile analysis by journalists about deceptive political campaigning.  If candidates were compelled to dedicate money to enable journalists to do more investigative reporting, we might have fewer deceptive political advertisements insulting our intelligence.