Expansion of Knowledge: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Expansion of Knowledge » Expansion of Knowledge

Expansion of Knowledge
Increases the horizon of ignorance

Expansion of Knowledge

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Poverty Book of the Day: The Support Economy

Posted 04/21/08 - 08:03 PM:	#1
Knowledge of a new thing can raise more questions then it answers. For example, you may not have knowledge of what some guy named Josh was doing today. If you found out that Josh told you that he had surgery today, you would have gained that knowledge but it would have raised more questions--or increased the horizon of ignorance, as Miller might say.
_____________________ Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

Cafe Rob
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2007
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 114

Posted 04/21/08 - 11:19 PM:	#2
"qtip" wrote: In expanding the field of knowledge we but increase the horizon of ignorance" (Henry Miller). Not sure that I agree with this statement. I was reading recently where the printing press was seen as a significant leap forward for mankind and that the spread of knowledge was responsible for social change. Consider the theories of Marx and Engels and other socialist reformers. Another example; I watched a film recently, "The Departed," and subsequently read an article in the U.K.magazine; Philosophy NOW by Eric Wills where he used the film to explain Nietzsche's moral 'Overman' thoery. It was an excellent piece and greatly added to my understanding of the film.

qtip
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3

Posted 04/26/08 - 04:02 PM:	#3
Cafe Rob wrote: Not sure that I agree with this statement. I was reading recently where the printing press was seen as a significant leap forward for mankind and that the spread of knowledge was responsible for social change. Consider the theories of Marx and Engels and other socialist reformers. Another example; I watched a film recently, "The Departed," and subsequently read an article in the U.K.magazine; Philosophy NOW by Eric Wills where he used the film to explain Nietzsche's moral 'Overman' thoery. It was an excellent piece and greatly added to my understanding of the film. If it added so greatly to your understanding of the film (increase of knowledge) , it would provoke more questions about the film in your mind (increasing ignorance), correct? I have given deep thought to instances in which the paradox would not apply, and I have come up with the idea that it does not apply to definitional and analytical ideas (IE 12 inches is equal to one foot). Thoughts?

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1490

Posted 04/26/08 - 04:45 PM:	#4
qtip wrote: "In expanding the field of knowledge we but increase the horizon of ignorance" (Henry Miller). In gaining knowledge, we don't really increase our ignorance, it's rather that we just become aware of being ignorant of something(s) that we hadn't realized we were ignorant of all along. Before the gain in knowledge, we didn't even know that we didn't know, but after the gain in knowledge we know that we didn't know. So, after the gain in knowledge, for each new thing that we now realize we don't know, we've gained the knowledge that we don't know. We don't know new things A, B, C ... but we didn't know them before the new knowledge either, so we're no more ignorant now than we were before. And besides, now we also know that we don't know A, and we now know that don't know B, and we now know that we don't know C ... . P.S. - Can anyone think of a notable person in history who opposes the paradox of knowledge? It is needed. If I were looking for someone who held an opinion contrary to any man, I'd check out the opinions of his former wives. Cheers. jd Edited by jdrw on 04/26/08 - 04:50 PM
_____________________ OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

qtip
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3

Posted 04/26/08 - 08:59 PM:	#5
jdrw wrote: In gaining knowledge, we don't really increase our ignorance, it's rather that we just become aware of being ignorant of something(s) that we hadn't realized we were ignorant of all along. Before the gain in knowledge, we didn't even know that we didn't know, but after the gain in knowledge we know that we didn't know. So, after the gain in knowledge, for each new thing that we now realize we don't know, we've gained the knowledge that we don't know. We don't know new things A, B, C ... but we didn't know them before the new knowledge either, so we're no more ignorant now than we were before. And besides, now we also know that we don't know A, and we now know that don't know B, and we now know that we don't know C ... . If I were looking for someone who held an opinion contrary to any man, I'd check out the opinions of his former wives. Cheers. jd LOL! Very insightful. I will mull this over. Thanks so much EDIT: I really enjoyed your response, jdrw, but could you clarify the following for me, please? "We don't know new things A, B, C ... but we didn't know them before the new knowledge either, so we're no more ignorant now than we were before. And besides, now we also know that we don't know A, and we now know that don't know B, and we now know that we don't know C." When you say we don't know new things A, B, and C, are you meaning that A B and C is new information? Edited by qtip on 04/26/08 - 09:10 PM

unenlightened
Mysteriosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 813

Posted 04/27/08 - 01:21 AM:	#6
One day I learned there were 26 letters, so I set out to learn them all; A is for apple, etc. Then I learned that there were many thousands of words to be made from these letters... then I learned that there were an unlimited number of sentences... other languages... other alphabets... I have always been ignorant, but am becoming less ignorant of my ignorance. For opposition, you might look to those who talk about the end of physics, ie a unified theory. I think the imminent end of physics was being predicted around the end of th 19th century, too. Can't give any names though.
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1490

Posted 04/27/08 - 08:31 AM:	#7
qtip wrote: EDIT: I really enjoyed your response, jdrw, but could you clarify the following for me, please? "We don't know new things A, B, C ... but we didn't know them before the new knowledge either, so we're no more ignorant now than we were before. And besides, now we also know that we don't know A, and we now know that don't know B, and we now know that we don't know C." When you say we don't know new things A, B, and C, are you meaning that A B and C is new information? I mean that when we learn something new to us, as for instance commonly happens in intro survey courses in college, we are made aware of a whole new realm of things that we now realize that we don't understand, that we are ignorant about. Thus this situation can be depicted as Miller has, as one in which every time we learn something we increase the horizon of our ignorance. We can see that there are unknown things out there in the distance that we hadn't seen before--the horizon of ignorance is increased. But my point is that we actually were ignorant of these things all along, and all that's happened is that we now realize that we're ignorant of them. And this realization is knowledge. We now know that we don't know about these many things, whereas before we didn't even know that we didn't know. IF we think about some experience in learning about something or some area that we'd previously known little or nothing about, we soon realize how much more there is to learn about it, whether it's about how to cook breakfast or how the visual processing in our brains works. Actually, I think Miller's point has to do not so much with individuals learning something that is new to them personally, but with cutting edge advances in knowledge where no one has gone before. Many cutting edge advances in science lead to meany more new question--that is, many new things we are ignorant about. But at least with such advance we know that we don't know these things, whereas before the advance we didn't even know that we didn't know about them. Also, some new knowledge results in integrations with other knowledge, and resolves much ignorance all at once. If we think about certain historical advances, such as, say germ theory, we can see that many questions were answered (much ignorance was dispelled) in one fell swoop. But upon learning that there actually were such things as germs, we became aware of our ignorance about what germs were and how they worked. It would seem that the horizon of our ignorance was dramatically increased. But my claim is that we already had been ignorant about what germs were and how they worked--but we didn't even know that we were ignorant of these things before. Cheers. jd
_____________________ OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

qtip
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3

Posted 04/27/08 - 03:40 PM:	#8
jdrw wrote: I mean that when we learn something new to us, as for instance commonly happens in intro survey courses in college, we are made aware of a whole new realm of things that we now realize that we don't understand, that we are ignorant about. Thus this situation can be depicted as Miller has, as one in which every time we learn something we increase the horizon of our ignorance. We can see that there are unknown things out there in the distance that we hadn't seen before--the horizon of ignorance is increased. But my point is that we actually were ignorant of these things all along, and all that's happened is that we now realize that we're ignorant of them. And this realization is knowledge. We now know that we don't know about these many things, whereas before we didn't even know that we didn't know. IF we think about some experience in learning about something or some area that we'd previously known little or nothing about, we soon realize how much more there is to learn about it, whether it's about how to cook breakfast or how the visual processing in our brains works. Actually, I think Miller's point has to do not so much with individuals learning something that is new to them personally, but with cutting edge advances in knowledge where no one has gone before. Many cutting edge advances in science lead to meany more new question--that is, many new things we are ignorant about. But at least with such advance we know that we don't know these things, whereas before the advance we didn't even know that we didn't know about them. Also, some new knowledge results in integrations with other knowledge, and resolves much ignorance all at once. If we think about certain historical advances, such as, say germ theory, we can see that many questions were answered (much ignorance was dispelled) in one fell swoop. But upon learning that there actually were such things as germs, we became aware of our ignorance about what germs were and how they worked. It would seem that the horizon of our ignorance was dramatically increased. But my claim is that we already had been ignorant about what germs were and how they worked--but we didn't even know that we were ignorant of these things before. Cheers. jd Like, for example, the advances in microscopes, allowing us to see things so very small, but yet, not so clear, and more precise instruments being developed to see even smaller things, with a greater amount of detail? Currently, with the electron microscope, we can see an atom, however, it is blurry thanks to its rapid movement speed. More precise instruments will be created, allowing us to see something we never saw before, increasing the amount of knowledge we never knew we knew, thus, broadening our horizon of ignorance?

The_Rational_Animal
Übermensch

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: München, Germany
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 137

Posted 05/09/08 - 11:27 AM:	#9
You are ignorant of many things already, especially those things you don't know that you are ignorant of. There is a finite number of things in the universe that you can be ignorant of (spatial, temporal locations of objects, forces, fields, etc.), but the number of things you are not ignorant of is always decreasing: this is knowledge. Knowledge and ignorance are opposites; that is, one does not bring about the other.
_____________________ "Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~Ayn Rand

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.