Knowledge is limited.
The knowledge deficit is unlimited.
Knowing something – all things you don’t know collectively is a form of knowledge.
So far, there are many forms of knowledge – to think about knowledge of physical weights. The unclear awareness is a “light” form of knowledge: low weight and intensity and duration and urgency. Then a specific awareness, maybe. Concepts and observations, for example.
Somewhere beyond awareness (which is unclear) can be knowledge (which is more consistent). Beyond “knowledge” can be understanding and beyond the understanding of use, and beyond this, they are many of the more complex cognitive behaviors, activated by knowledge and understanding: combining, review, analysis, evaluation, transfer, creation, etc.
As you move left to right on this hypothetical spectrum, “knowledge” becomes “more severe” – and is rethought as discrete functions of increased complexity.
It is also worth it to clarify that each of them can be both the causes and the effects of knowledge and are traditionally considered cognitively independent (ie different) of “knowledge”. “Analysis” is a thinking act that can lead to or improve knowledge, but we do not consider analysis as a form of knowledge in the same way that we do not consider jogging as a form of “health”. And so far it’s good. We can allow these differences.
There are many taxonomies that are trying to provide some hierarchy here, but I am interested in seeing it as a spectrum filled with different forms. What are these forms and what is “highest” is less important than the fact that there are These forms and some are considered “more complex” than others. (I created TeachTought/Heick Learning Taxonomy as a non -asel -a -faced taxonomy of thinking and understanding.)
What we do not know has always been more important than what we do.
This is subjective, of course. Or semantics – or even meticulous. But to use what we know is useful to know what we do not know. We do not know that it is in the sense of possessing knowledge, because – well, if we knew it, then we would know it and we would not need to be aware that we did not.
Sigh.
Let me start over.
Knowledge is for deficits. We need to be aware of what we know and how we know we know it. By “I realize” I think I mean “I know something in shape, but not the essence or content.” Yes vaguely I know.
By extracting a border both about what you know (eg quantity) and how well you know it (eg quality), you not only make a knowledge list for the future, but also learn to use better what you already know in the present.
In other words, you can become more known (but maybe you still don’t know) the boundaries of our own knowledge and this is a wonderful platform to start using what we know. Or use ItS
But it can also help us understand (we know?) The boundaries not only of our own knowledge, but also in general knowledge. We can start by asking, “What is knowing?” And ‘are there any thing This is unknowable? “And this can prompt us to ask,” What do we know (collectively, as a species) now and how did we understand it?
For analogy, consider a car engine disassembled in hundreds of parts. Each of these parts is a little knowledge: fact, data point, idea. It can even be in the form of its own tiny machine in the way the mathematical formula or ethical system is types of knowledge, but also functional – looking as its own system and even more useful when combined with other knowledge bits and exponentially more useful when combined with other knowledge systemsS
I will return to the engine metaphor in a moment. But if we can observe the collection of bits of knowledge, then to form theories that have been tested, then we create laws based on these tests theories, we not only create knowledge, but we do it by waving what we do not know. Or maybe it’s a bad metaphor. We are to know Things, not only eliminating the bits of unknown so far, but also in the process of their illumination, are then creation Countless new bits and systems and potential for theories and testing and laws, etc.
At least when we are aware of what we do not know, these gaps are embedded in a system of knowledge. But this embedding and contextualization and qualification cannot happen until you are at least aware From this system – which means understanding this regarding the consumers of knowledge (ie you and I), the itself is characterized by both what is known and unknown – and that the unknown is always powerful than what it is.
For now, just let every system of knowledge are made up of both known and unknown “things” – both knowledge and a deficit of knowledge.
An example of something we didn’t know
Let’s do this a little more. If we learn about tectonic plates, it can help us use math to predict earthquakes or design machines to predict them, for example. By theoretizing and testing of concepts for continental drift, we approached a little to the tectonics of the plates, but we did not know this. We, as a society and species “We have not identified these processes, so that they did not exist to us,” when they actually had all the time.
In this way, knowledge is strange. Until we give a word to something – a series of characters we used to identify and communicate and document an idea – we think of it as existence. In the 18th century, when Scottish farmer James Hutton began to make clearly argued scientific arguments about the earth’s terrain and the processes that are formed and changed, it helps to harden modern geography, as we know it. If you know that Earth is billions of years old and you think it is only 6000 years old, you will not “look” or form theories about the processes that take millions of years.
So faith also matters language. And theories and argumentation and evidence and curiosity and a long -term study. But it also makes humility. Starting, asking what you do not know, it transforms ignorance into a kind of knowledge. By taking into account your own deficits and restrictions on knowledge, you mark them – either as strangers, they are unknown, or something that needs to be learned. They stop blurring and darken and become a kind of self-actualization-and clarify the processing of exploration.
Learning.
Learning leads to knowledge and knowledge leads to theories, just as theories lead to knowledge. Everything is circular in such an obvious way, because what we do not know has always mattered more than what we do. Scientific knowledge is powerful: we can divide an atom and make bombs that are stuck with species, or provide energy to eat. But ethics is a kind of knowledge. Science asks, “What can we do?” While the humanities can ask, “What should we do?”
The liquid utility of knowledge
Back to the car engine in hundreds of parts of parts. All these bits of knowledge (parts) are useful, but they become exponentially more useful when combined in a certain order (only one of the trillions) to become a functioning engine. In this context, all parts are relatively useless until a system of knowledge (eg the combustion engine) or “created” is identified and triggered, and then all are critical and the combustion process as a form of knowledge is trivial.
(I will miss the concept of entropy so far, but it really shouldn’t be, because it can explain everything.)
Do you see? Knowledge is for deficits. Take the same unnamed collection of engine parts that are just parts but not yet an engine. If one of the key parts is missing, it is not possible to create an engine. This is good if you know – knowledge – that this part is missing. But if you think you already know what you need to know, you will not look for a missing part and you will not even be aware that the functioning engine is possible. And this is partly why what you don’t know is always more important than what you do.
Each thing We learn that it is like a box tick: we reduce our collective uncertainty to the smallest degrees. There is less unknown. A smaller box.
But even this is an illusion, because all the boxes can never be marked, really. We mark one box and 74 take up its place, so it cannot be for quantity, only quality. Creating some knowledge creates more knowledge.
But clarifying knowledge deficits qualifies existing knowledge sets. Knowing that this is to be humble and to be humble means to know what you do and do not know and what we have in the past, familiar and unknown and what we have done with all the things we have learned. It is to know that when we create labor devices, we rarely save work, but rather change it elsewhere.
It should be known that there are few “big solutions” for “big problems” because these problems themselves are the result of too many intellectual, ethical and behavioral failures to count. Review the “discovery” of the “pure” nuclear energy, such as in the light of Chernobyl and the apparent unlimited toxicity it added to our environment. What if we replace the spectacle of knowledge with the performance of making and the short and long -term effects of this knowledge?
Learning something as a whole makes us ask, “What do I know?” And sometimes: “How do I find out that I know? Is there better evidence of or against what I believe I know?” And so on.
But what we often fail to ask when we learn something new is, “What else I miss?” What can we learn in four or ten years and how does this kind of expectation can change what I believe I know now? We can ask, “Now I know what now?”
Or more recently, if knowledge is a kind of light, how can I use this light, while using a vague feeling of what lies right beyond the edge of this light -Veria that is not yet illuminated with knowledge? How can I work outside, starting with all the things I do not know, then I moved inward to now the clear and fierce feeling of what I do?
A closely considered knowledge deficit is a staggering type of knowledge.
