Earlier this week I suggested that sharing knowledge is a positive action that benefits both the person sharing and the recipient. Steve challenged that statement, and I felt that a proper response was necessary. I’m going to explain why (and when) knowledge sharing is a good thing, but I’m going to do so over a couple of posts.
To begin, I’ll start with a definition of knowledge. Epistemology, or the theory of knowledge, provides a well-accepted explanation that this diagram clarifies.
Simply put, knowledge is where truth and belief intersect.
In other words, for me to claim knowledge on an subject, it must be true, and I must believe it to be true. Of course, it’s possible that I might later learn that what I thought was true was, in fact, false. If such a case were ever to happen (hypothetically, of course), then you would say that I, in fact, did not possess knowledge on that subject. The same is true on a macro level. As we discover new truths about the world around us, previously held views are found to be false.
The three areas outside of the intersection should not be neglected. First, there are truths that we do not believe. We may not know enough to believe them to be true, or we may be skeptical of the reliability of proof. The second area, belief, contains what we either cannot know (i.e. does God exist?) or do not know, but personally believe.
The third area… I’ll go into more in my next post.
Ok… since you taunted me with your “killed feedback” comment, I’ll share some more thoughts on the subject.
You know I love Venn diagrams, but they imply that a thing is either contained inside or lies outside the boundary.
Are there degrees of truth or belief,and the resulting degrees of knowledge that should to be addressed in the model? May not be important.
Also, to clarify my original comment, I questioned the word “power”, and do not see “benefit” and “power” to have the same meaning.
Am waiting for your next installment – especially when you start dealing with the white space outside the diagram (i.e. the untruths that are not believed – are those urban legends?)
Ok… since you taunted me with your “killed feedback” comment, I’ll share some more thoughts on the subject.
You know I love Venn diagrams, but they imply that a thing is either contained inside or lies outside the boundary.
Are there degrees of truth or belief,and the resulting degrees of knowledge that should to be addressed in the model? May not be important.
Also, to clarify my original comment, I questioned the word “power”, and do not see “benefit” and “power” to have the same meaning.
Am waiting for your next installment – especially when you start dealing with the white space outside the diagram (i.e. the untruths that are not believed – are those urban legends?)
Steve, this Venn diagram (have you seen Eddie Izzards bit about Venn?) should probably have porous borders, because there are indeed “degrees of belief.” But are there degrees of truth? Is truth relative or absolute?
I’m old school. I tend to BELIEVE that truth is absolute; “I know this bridge is strong enough to hold me, because I designed it.”
Most arguments that truth is relative (“Pistachio ice cream is delicious…”) are missing the implied qualifying statment (“…to me”). That doesn’t make it relative; it just provides the appropriate level of specificity.
As for power. Power and value both are in the eye of the beholder. If you think of power as control, then knowledge hoarding might give you control in greater measure. But hoarding also limits your ability to impact the world around you — you can’t do it all yourself; you need minions.
For purposes of this discussion, I’m viewing power as strength; ready capability. Think of it as charging a lithium ion battery to it’s maximum potential charge.
Steve, this Venn diagram (have you seen Eddie Izzards bit about Venn?) should probably have porous borders, because there are indeed “degrees of belief.” But are there degrees of truth? Is truth relative or absolute?
I’m old school. I tend to BELIEVE that truth is absolute; “I know this bridge is strong enough to hold me, because I designed it.”
Most arguments that truth is relative (“Pistachio ice cream is delicious…”) are missing the implied qualifying statment (“…to me”). That doesn’t make it relative; it just provides the appropriate level of specificity.
As for power. Power and value both are in the eye of the beholder. If you think of power as control, then knowledge hoarding might give you control in greater measure. But hoarding also limits your ability to impact the world around you — you can’t do it all yourself; you need minions.
For purposes of this discussion, I’m viewing power as strength; ready capability. Think of it as charging a lithium ion battery to it’s maximum potential charge.
I had to go dig up that Eddie Izzard bit…
‘Who was Venn and his diagrams? Was he the most boring child ever? (upper middle class accent) “Father, I have my foot in your bedroom and also in the hallway. As you can see from my diagram I am not only in the bedroom, I am also in the hallway.” “Venn, fuck of out of this house!” “All right, father. But I am outside of the house but my hand is in the window and my foot is in a grapefruit. As you can see from my diagram… (mime of patricide) Father, me and Socrates…both died.”‘
I had to go dig up that Eddie Izzard bit…
‘Who was Venn and his diagrams? Was he the most boring child ever? (upper middle class accent) “Father, I have my foot in your bedroom and also in the hallway. As you can see from my diagram I am not only in the bedroom, I am also in the hallway.” “Venn, fuck of out of this house!” “All right, father. But I am outside of the house but my hand is in the window and my foot is in a grapefruit. As you can see from my diagram… (mime of patricide) Father, me and Socrates…both died.”‘
Jeff, thanks for the Izzard. 🙂
I love your phrase, “I tend to believe truth is absolute”. Implies either that truth may NOT be an absolute – or – that your level of belief is less than maxed-out.
That said, I agree with your defnitions of truth, power, and sharing. (Hey, is that another way of saying “Truth, Justice, and the American Way”, Superman? 🙂
Waiting for Part II
Jeff, thanks for the Izzard. 🙂
I love your phrase, “I tend to believe truth is absolute”. Implies either that truth may NOT be an absolute – or – that your level of belief is less than maxed-out.
That said, I agree with your defnitions of truth, power, and sharing. (Hey, is that another way of saying “Truth, Justice, and the American Way”, Superman? 🙂
Waiting for Part II
I agree. With most of everything posted thus far here.
I have to qualify the extent of the truthfulness of the following statements, so I’ll preface this with two important words: “to me.”
To me, truth is absolute. We can choose to believe in that truth, or we can choose to disbelieve it, or we can choose to somewhat believe it. “I believe that bridge will hold me, but I’m not gonna test my belief by walking on it.” Of course there are necessarily degrees of uncertainty where things are relative to any given observer. Sure, to you the sky is blue, but it’s not necessarily the same blue that I see. Maybe Bill over there doesn’t think the sky is blue at all. We can measure the mean wavelength of the light coming from the sky, but that’s just wavelengths, not color per se.
Power is the ability to accomplish goals. What those goals are doesn’t particularly matter. If your goal is to build a bridge, then to you power is the ability to do that. It doesn’t mean you have to do it yourself, you can get others to do it for you. But then the goal has changed… it’s no longer just building a bridge, it’s become the task of getting others to work towards your goal.
If you share knowledge of how to build that bridge with some of the workers, then you have increased your power in that you have increased the likelihood that your goal will be realized (it’s hard to get people to build a bridge if they have no idea how to do that).
If you hoard that knowledge, you’re going to end up with a lot of confused workers and no bridge.
On the other hand, if your goal is to keep yourself from getting killed (you can substitute the nation as a whole for “you” in this example), and you have knowledge of how to go about killing off someone (or a nation), denying others access to that knowledge keeps you safe. The goal there is to stay safe and alive, and you keep the power to do that so long as the other side doesn’t acquire that knowledge.
That all seems a bit long-winded, but to me it makes some kind of sense. Or it could be that I’m just out of my mind.
I agree. With most of everything posted thus far here.
I have to qualify the extent of the truthfulness of the following statements, so I’ll preface this with two important words: “to me.”
To me, truth is absolute. We can choose to believe in that truth, or we can choose to disbelieve it, or we can choose to somewhat believe it. “I believe that bridge will hold me, but I’m not gonna test my belief by walking on it.” Of course there are necessarily degrees of uncertainty where things are relative to any given observer. Sure, to you the sky is blue, but it’s not necessarily the same blue that I see. Maybe Bill over there doesn’t think the sky is blue at all. We can measure the mean wavelength of the light coming from the sky, but that’s just wavelengths, not color per se.
Power is the ability to accomplish goals. What those goals are doesn’t particularly matter. If your goal is to build a bridge, then to you power is the ability to do that. It doesn’t mean you have to do it yourself, you can get others to do it for you. But then the goal has changed… it’s no longer just building a bridge, it’s become the task of getting others to work towards your goal.
If you share knowledge of how to build that bridge with some of the workers, then you have increased your power in that you have increased the likelihood that your goal will be realized (it’s hard to get people to build a bridge if they have no idea how to do that).
If you hoard that knowledge, you’re going to end up with a lot of confused workers and no bridge.
On the other hand, if your goal is to keep yourself from getting killed (you can substitute the nation as a whole for “you” in this example), and you have knowledge of how to go about killing off someone (or a nation), denying others access to that knowledge keeps you safe. The goal there is to stay safe and alive, and you keep the power to do that so long as the other side doesn’t acquire that knowledge.
That all seems a bit long-winded, but to me it makes some kind of sense. Or it could be that I’m just out of my mind.
Thanks for jumping on the discussion, Tigerblade. I think you seen where I’m going with this.
I’ll post Part 2 tomorrow.
Thanks for jumping on the discussion, Tigerblade. I think you seen where I’m going with this.
I’ll post Part 2 tomorrow.