3 ms·

> a fact does not exist in a binary state of either definitively known or unknown; it can exist in intermediate states. We can forget things we previously knew,

> a fact does not exist in a binary state of either definitively known or unknown; it can exist in intermediate states. We can forget things we previously knew, and knowledge can be unreliable, especially when recently learned. I’m sorry, what? If I only vaguely understood physics and believed now that the earth is flat, that would neither count as knowledge in some intermediate state. Knowing is binary—you either know or you don’t, no matter how strongly believe what you think.

Cerium 3y ago
An example: What did you eat for dinner? If you know the answer for sure, go back a day, or another day, etc. At some number of days you will have an idea of what you ate but not be entirely sure. You certainly knew what you ate when you were eating it, but now?
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
  If I don’t know that now but knew it then, then knowledge is still binary is it not?
  - RoyalHenOil 3y ago
    You don't have perfect recollection one day and then no recollection whatsoever the next day. Memories become vague as they deteriorate. For example, you may remember something you learned in 4th grade, but you probably don't remember exactly how the teacher explained it or what questions about it were on the test.
    - master-lincoln 3y ago
      Ok, but then I don't know how I was taught that thing, even though I know the thing. Still binary
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
      You don't have knowledge if you don't have perfect recollection. Put in other words, if you cannot fully remember something, then you do not know it. We need to come terms with that and honestly I might be striking a nerve here because I'm triggering people's Dunning-Kruger. The state of knowing at any point in time is binary, which means that it is possible to un-know something that you used to know.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    I think we're being overly nitpicky about "knowledge" and "memory". Memory is not binary (with current knowleddge on the topic). I can recall exactly what I had for dinner tonight. I can't precisely recall what I had last week but I have blurry ideas of what, which can be kickstarted by other sources (even if the actual source is wrong, saying "I had seafood last week" can prompt me to realize I went to a seafood restaurant and ordered a burger), or recalled if it was logged somewhere. However, I can read a log from over a year ago on some dinner and it can still feel unfamliar. Are these 2 states really the same level of "memory" (or lack, thereof)? >if you cannot fully remember something, then you do not know it. I guess most people don't "know" how to program then, with them constantly relying on pesky documentation every-time they type a function in an IDE. People can judge how they want. I'm glad my job doesn't care if I know off the cruft if it's "X.length" or "X.size()" or "len(X)" in Language Y as long as I take a second to google whichever language and library I'm using.
BlackFly 3y ago
This just isn't how the verb "to know" and the noun "knowledge" are commonly used and understood. By your understanding, it is impossible to know anything about the future. Yet, I know my wife will come home in a few hours. Very few people would object to such usage and people would stand by me and agree how unexpected it was if she failed to return. That our knowledge is imperfect surprises few people in everyday usage.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
  There's much that can be said about how so many words turn out, in fact, to be very poorly understood especially if when using common sense as basis for definition---but the point is, the article is talking about learning from a scientific standpoint, so the colloquial sense of "knowledge" is irrelevant.
Tainnor 3y ago
Let's take something like Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem. I may not know anything about it. I might have heard something vague about it being about "the limits of mathematics". I might know somewhat more specifically that it has to do with statements that are unprovable, but not much more beyond that. I may know that it's about arithmetic. I may know that it's related to the Halting Problem. All of that is possible without remembering the exact wording of the theorem with all its conditions. It would be easy to forget, for example, that Presburger arithmetic is complete and that you need addition and multiplication for incompleteness. Or to remember that Gödel's original theorem requires omega-consistency[0] and that only Rosser's modification makes it work for general consistent theories. And even if you do remember the exact statement of the theorem - would you be able to reconstruct the exact proof (or at least one proof)? If so, in how much detail? Would you remember the exact trick involved in showing that Robinson Arithmetic can describe all mu-recursive functions? And in all of this, are you going to be sure you have no gaps or slight misunderstandings? At which point would you say you "know" Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem? [0] Case in point, I actually had to use google to verify that the condition really was called omega-consistency. This was the name I remembered, but I was only about 80% sure of it. And if there's any mistake in my explanations above, then that also wouldn't massively surprise me.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
  No, I don’t think that you know a composite fact if you only know some of its composing parts, because the whole is not the same as its parts. Simpler example: would you tell your peers that you “know tax law” if you only know a few specific laws of taxation?
  - Tainnor 3y ago
    You haven't answered my question: at which point do you say you "know" Gödel's first theorem? Or for an easier example: at which point do you "know" Java? Do you need to understand all the intricacies of the class loader? Or at which point do yoh "know" English? Only when you know every word in the OED? I think your definition of knowledge is entirely unworkable. It requires you to split every fact into a million little subfacts, it doesn't account for vague recollection, for uncertainty, etc., and it makes it so that basically almost nobody ever knows anything of value. I think this totally flies in the face of how people actually know things and how people apply their knowledge. The vague and fuzzy understanding that comes with being an expert in a field - IOW having absorbed the principles without remembering the minutiae - is exactly what constitutes valuable knowledge.

Cerium 3y ago

An example: What did you eat for dinner? If you know the answer for sure, go back a day, or another day, etc. At some number of days you will have an idea of what you ate but not be entirely sure. You certainly knew what you ate when you were eating it, but now?

rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
If I don’t know that now but knew it then, then knowledge is still binary is it not?
- RoyalHenOil 3y ago
  You don't have perfect recollection one day and then no recollection whatsoever the next day. Memories become vague as they deteriorate. For example, you may remember something you learned in 4th grade, but you probably don't remember exactly how the teacher explained it or what questions about it were on the test.
  - master-lincoln 3y ago
    Ok, but then I don't know how I was taught that thing, even though I know the thing. Still binary
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
    You don't have knowledge if you don't have perfect recollection. Put in other words, if you cannot fully remember something, then you do not know it. We need to come terms with that and honestly I might be striking a nerve here because I'm triggering people's Dunning-Kruger. The state of knowing at any point in time is binary, which means that it is possible to un-know something that you used to know.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  I think we're being overly nitpicky about "knowledge" and "memory". Memory is not binary (with current knowleddge on the topic). I can recall exactly what I had for dinner tonight. I can't precisely recall what I had last week but I have blurry ideas of what, which can be kickstarted by other sources (even if the actual source is wrong, saying "I had seafood last week" can prompt me to realize I went to a seafood restaurant and ordered a burger), or recalled if it was logged somewhere. However, I can read a log from over a year ago on some dinner and it can still feel unfamliar. Are these 2 states really the same level of "memory" (or lack, thereof)? >if you cannot fully remember something, then you do not know it. I guess most people don't "know" how to program then, with them constantly relying on pesky documentation every-time they type a function in an IDE. People can judge how they want. I'm glad my job doesn't care if I know off the cruft if it's "X.length" or "X.size()" or "len(X)" in Language Y as long as I take a second to google whichever language and library I'm using.

BlackFly 3y ago

This just isn't how the verb "to know" and the noun "knowledge" are commonly used and understood. By your understanding, it is impossible to know anything about the future. Yet, I know my wife will come home in a few hours. Very few people would object to such usage and people would stand by me and agree how unexpected it was if she failed to return. That our knowledge is imperfect surprises few people in everyday usage.

rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
There's much that can be said about how so many words turn out, in fact, to be very poorly understood especially if when using common sense as basis for definition---but the point is, the article is talking about learning from a scientific standpoint, so the colloquial sense of "knowledge" is irrelevant.

Tainnor 3y ago

Let's take something like Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem. I may not know anything about it. I might have heard something vague about it being about "the limits of mathematics". I might know somewhat more specifically that it has to do with statements that are unprovable, but not much more beyond that. I may know that it's about arithmetic. I may know that it's related to the Halting Problem. All of that is possible without remembering the exact wording of the theorem with all its conditions. It would be easy to forget, for example, that Presburger arithmetic is complete and that you need addition and multiplication for incompleteness. Or to remember that Gödel's original theorem requires omega-consistency[0] and that only Rosser's modification makes it work for general consistent theories. And even if you do remember the exact statement of the theorem - would you be able to reconstruct the exact proof (or at least one proof)? If so, in how much detail? Would you remember the exact trick involved in showing that Robinson Arithmetic can describe all mu-recursive functions? And in all of this, are you going to be sure you have no gaps or slight misunderstandings? At which point would you say you "know" Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem? [0] Case in point, I actually had to use google to verify that the condition really was called omega-consistency. This was the name I remembered, but I was only about 80% sure of it. And if there's any mistake in my explanations above, then that also wouldn't massively surprise me.

rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
No, I don’t think that you know a composite fact if you only know some of its composing parts, because the whole is not the same as its parts. Simpler example: would you tell your peers that you “know tax law” if you only know a few specific laws of taxation?
- Tainnor 3y ago
  You haven't answered my question: at which point do you say you "know" Gödel's first theorem? Or for an easier example: at which point do you "know" Java? Do you need to understand all the intricacies of the class loader? Or at which point do yoh "know" English? Only when you know every word in the OED? I think your definition of knowledge is entirely unworkable. It requires you to split every fact into a million little subfacts, it doesn't account for vague recollection, for uncertainty, etc., and it makes it so that basically almost nobody ever knows anything of value. I think this totally flies in the face of how people actually know things and how people apply their knowledge. The vague and fuzzy understanding that comes with being an expert in a field - IOW having absorbed the principles without remembering the minutiae - is exactly what constitutes valuable knowledge.