Four former truths about knowledge
Don't know how I missed this one: David Weinberger on understanding knowledge. In this short article, he argues that our understanding of knowledge needs to change. If it were any other writer, I would have skipped this argument, but knowing David's ability to ignite the mundane, I read on and was not disappointed. Check out his description of four former truths about knowledge:
First, we've assumed that just as there is one reality, there is one knowledge, the same for all. This has to be the case (we've assumed) because knowledge is a representation of the one true reality. Dispute this and you get called a "relativist" or—worse--a "postmodernist."
Second, we've assumed that just as reality is not ambiguous--it's either one way or another--neither is knowledge. If something isn't clear to us, then we haven't understood it.
Third, because knowledge is as big as reality, no one person can comprehend it. So we need filters. These people decide what is worthy of our time and consideration, based not on their whims and the accidents of their birth but on education, experience and clear thinking. We call them experts and we give them clipboards. They keep bad information away from us and provide us with the very best information.
Fourth, experts achieve their position by working their way up through societal institutions. The people in these institutions are doing their best to be honest and helpful, but organizations inevitably are subject to corrupting influences. Which ones get funded can determine what a society believes, and funding is always granted by people who know less than the experts within the institution...
Permalink | Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Page 1 of 1 pages