Education? A non-gullible student would not graduate high school. What most people, seemingly author included, consider to be 'knowledge' is no better than rote. Consider that one person can have the exact same experience, and come out of it with exact opposite beliefs. The difference is whether they are told to believe it, movie versus news, novel versus history book. Just try to verify you kids' history lessons with observable non-narrative evidence. If you do have evidence, does it actually prove the entire narrative, or does it simply bolster a tiny piece within a mosaic of myth? In science and law, the standard of proof is massively greater than the standard of disproof. Any 'knowledge' tested by a different standard is at best a guess, most likely dogma, and at worst, propaganda, intentional disinformation. High school teachers assign Orwell, "He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present, controls the past.", and somehow believe that this is a warning about somebody else, that they are not the primary agents of the second statement, and that they are themselves immune to such manipulation. Has a student ever been asked who controls and manipulates them and received a passing grade by pointing the finger right back at the teacher themselves? No; it's always some boogeyman that they have never met, but must girder themselves against with the dogma taught within these walls. And if you don't believe it, not only will the boogeyman get you, but we will fail you and destroy your life. It's for your own good; you'll understand someday.

I will choose the most basic fact on his list. I want to see the author prove that the earth is a sphere by his own observations. I can almost guarantee that no mandated high school curriculum teaches even how to do this, nonetheless asks students to do so. The standard of belief is 'rational' narrative, as in, a story that contains no major contradictions within itself, and for expediency, is not subject to cross-examination. Dogma. If I recall correctly, this question was asked in an astronomy PhD seminar at MIT, and nobody knew how to do it.

So smug is the author in his ignorance. 'Not believing' should be the default. Narratives should be understood as culture, good to know, possibly true, and likely imperfect, but ultimately just a story that may be learned from just like religion or myth, whether true or not. I have a sense that ancient people understood this better than we do today.

His criticism of others is nothing but tribalism. He's not educating in the sense of providing evidence toward a rational conclusion, or even bolstering his own narrative. He's simply labeling other people as lesser than himself. And, to head off any accusations of hypocrisy, to some extent, so am I with him. The point here is that so-called 'knowledge' is an ancient battleground rooted in disparate sets of values. People should know that they are being indoctrinated, and also that it's nearly impossible to survive among other humans without choosing some flavor of that. But it does have implications for your life, whether your own beliefs serve you, harm you, or shames you into serving someone else.