4 ms·

Rethinking Knowledge in the Internet Age

39 points by Dowwie 10y ago

EGreg 10y ago
I think the old definition of knowledge as "justified belief" is too simplistic and not useful. Knowledge is essentially another word for bias. We can never really know something for sure. We only have our beliefs and common language. The best we can do is communicate our beliefs in the common language and agree to work on removing the double standards. That is to say, if I have one standard for believing X to degree Y, then I shouldn't have a completely different standard elsewhere. Thus, I can never really disprove anything totally (unless that concept is logically impossible), I can only show you that your believing it constitutes a huge double standard relative to other things you don't believe.
- brudgers 10y ago
  Knowledge as justified true belief has been questioned since before Knuth began TAoCP. http://www.iep.utm.edu/gettier/ http://www.iep.utm.edu/gettier/
unabst 10y ago
There is knowledge as in what someone knows, then there is knowledge as in what is known to be true. The internet has an abundance of both. And there is a clear intellectual divide between those that can and cannot distinguish these two. For the most part, what we know says more about us, and the truth value requires proper validation. What is known, on the other hand, is what has already been properly validated. It's the objective evidence and insights that have scientific integrity. Studying the subjective knowledge of masses leads not to any advancement of facts, but to anthropology. Today, if I say something racist it just paints me a racist. Yet there are those who still take the words of random people, detach them from the speaker, and attempt to validate them themselves with gut and instinct. Or worse yet, take common sentiment and intent as validation. To them, it's about kinship and common sense, about right and wrong, though for the most part they don't know what the hell they're talking about because they are incapable of proper validation. These two forms of intellect are incompatible. Ultimately, all it boils down to is knowing that your gut cannot recognize the truth.
mpbm 10y ago
Knowledge is, and always has been, direct experience. The complication is that people don't acknowledge the limitations on what they're actually experiencing.

39 points by Dowwie 10y ago

EGreg 10y ago

I think the old definition of knowledge as "justified belief" is too simplistic and not useful. Knowledge is essentially another word for bias. We can never really know something for sure. We only have our beliefs and common language. The best we can do is communicate our beliefs in the common language and agree to work on removing the double standards. That is to say, if I have one standard for believing X to degree Y, then I shouldn't have a completely different standard elsewhere. Thus, I can never really disprove anything totally (unless that concept is logically impossible), I can only show you that your believing it constitutes a huge double standard relative to other things you don't believe.

brudgers 10y ago
Knowledge as justified true belief has been questioned since before Knuth began TAoCP. http://www.iep.utm.edu/gettier/ http://www.iep.utm.edu/gettier/

unabst 10y ago

There is knowledge as in what someone knows, then there is knowledge as in what is known to be true. The internet has an abundance of both. And there is a clear intellectual divide between those that can and cannot distinguish these two. For the most part, what we know says more about us, and the truth value requires proper validation. What is known, on the other hand, is what has already been properly validated. It's the objective evidence and insights that have scientific integrity. Studying the subjective knowledge of masses leads not to any advancement of facts, but to anthropology. Today, if I say something racist it just paints me a racist. Yet there are those who still take the words of random people, detach them from the speaker, and attempt to validate them themselves with gut and instinct. Or worse yet, take common sentiment and intent as validation. To them, it's about kinship and common sense, about right and wrong, though for the most part they don't know what the hell they're talking about because they are incapable of proper validation. These two forms of intellect are incompatible. Ultimately, all it boils down to is knowing that your gut cannot recognize the truth.

mpbm 10y ago

Knowledge is, and always has been, direct experience. The complication is that people don't acknowledge the limitations on what they're actually experiencing.