Saturday, July 25, 2009

Being Knowledgeable II

In an excellent polemic on knowledge and theory, "History Written by Losers", Nassim Nicholas Taleb makes this very thoughtful comment:

The biggest myth I've encountered in my life is as follows: that the road from practical know-how to theoretical knowledge is reversible-in other words, that theoretical knowledge can lead to practical applications, just as practical application can lead to theoretical knowledge. After all, this is the reason we have schools, universities, professors, research centers, homework, exams, essays, dissertations, and the strange brand of individuals called 'economists.'

Yet, the strange thing is that it is very hard to realize that knowledge cannot travel equally in both directions. It flows better from practice to theory-but to understand it you have nontheoretical knowledge. And people who have nontheoretical knowledge don't know these things.

Indeed, if knowledge flowed equally in both directions, then theory without experience should be equivalent to experience without theory-which is not the case.
It seems like our whole educational system should be based on disproving knowledge, as opposed to approving it. How do we ever evolve if knowledge becomes a theory?

Perhaps we need more hypotheses, that which is not known or accepted as fact. It is knowledge itself that seems to come in between practical evolutionary application.

But it is also a posturing, a lack of humility, that undermines knowledge. By this I mean, those with knowledge can become non-theoretical by simply adjusting their mindsets to the vast continuous possibilities of their own limited understanding.

Knowledge is itself limiting; it is forever evolving; we enter this world in a place of unknowing and leave in the same state, for we do know from where we have come or where we will go even though we have experienced life and shall experience death and see the same in others.

Knowledge in this regard still evades us. Others spoke of our birth and will speak of our death. This is humbling in itself and should teach us something about the not-knowing of knowledge. Openness is essential to knowledge for in it lies the essence of not-knowing, the forever disproving of theory.

6 comments:

wmmbb said...

Evolution is a theory, and we are its embodiment. The knowledge of action and of process must always be theory. Knowledge of outcome - the feedback loop - is factual.

Just because we see the result does not mean that we understand the interaction and interrelationships inherent in process. Then we often, or it seems to me, we events with processes, and fail understand that the observed processes are larger than our field of view.

To illustrate the point, in order to act in the world we need sufficient, albeit most often intuitive knowledge, to understand light and gravity. Greater theoretical knowledge would not necessarily improve our actions.

So, I think I end up agreeing with Nassim Taleb.

Marion said...

"...we enter this world in a place of unknowing and leave in the same state, for we do know from where we have come or where we will go even though we have experienced life and shall experience death and see the same in others." This part I understood, but the rest sort of messed with my head!!!

I do know that knowledge is power and ignorance is NOT bliss. Have you read a little book entitled, "The Cloud of Unknowing"? I'm still working on it but your post brought it to my mind. Blessings!

Judith Ellis said...

Thank you, wmmbb. Your words are thoughtful and insightful.

Knowledge of outcome being factual seems based on our understanding of it at any time in history. History itself can prove at any given time that any theory is the "embodiment" of understanding or agreed upon theory. How a thing evolves, for example. But this does not mean that all facts or theories are true indefinitely.

"Just because we see the result does not mean that we understand the interaction and interrelationships inherent in process."

For me, it is sort of like faith and healing in reverse. Just because we do not see the "processes" we "fail" to "understand that the observed processes," limited by understanding of not-knowing, "are larger than our field of view," our ability to comprehend.

I love your illustration of acting in the world, which is often the death of philosophers who are in the world but not of it in their theoretical analyses. It's sort of like masturbation of the mind or faith without works. It's dead.

The "feedback loop" of which you spoke seems merely intellectual. This is to me the important point Nassim addresses in the article which allows for continuous repeated schemes, like those on Wall Street, based not on experience--if so the repetition would be avoided--but desire. If everyone desires a thing, the thing becomes factual and all challenges to it marginalized and dismissed.

Many times theory is like Napoleon’s understanding of history: "History is a set of lies agreed upon."

Thanks again, wmmbb. I like it when you pass through and leave comments.

Judith Ellis said...

Marion - I have not read that book, but it sounds like something that I perhaps should pick up.

Wmmbb's opening statement of evolution and embodiment perhaps seeks to get at the knowing of our entrance and exist, but it is still the knowing of others and not we ourselves.

Regarding knowledge being power and ignorance not being bliss, I think perhaps there can be some real misunderstanding about the power of knowledge and the ignorance of bliss. Perhaps both can be enlightenment based on how we view, understand, and use each.

Hmm? How to use bliss?

Knowledge can be limiting and bliss most rewarding, depending on how we use both. Both can be a decided state of being. Knowledge is not structural alone and bliss is not without understanding or purpose.

DB said...

A lot of assumptions are made, the chief one being that what we see and what we know are necessarily related to reality.

Judith Ellis said...

Good point, DB.