Knowledge is limited.
Knowledge defects are infinite.
Understand something – All things you don’t know are a form of knowledge.
Now, there are many forms of knowledge, that is, considering knowledge from the perspective of body weight. Fuzzy consciousness is a “light” form of knowledge: low weight, intensity, duration, and urgency. Then there is a specific consciousness. For example, concepts and observations.
Somewhere beyond consciousness (ambiguity) might know (this is more specific). In addition to “knowledge” may be understood, and in addition to understanding the use and, there are many more complex cognitive behaviors that are achieved through understanding and understanding: combining, modifying, analyzing, evaluating, transferring, creating, etc.
As you move from left to right within the scope of this assumption, the “knowledge” becomes “heavy” – and is re-labeled as a discrete function that increases complexity.
It is also worth clarifying that these can be the causes and influences of knowledge, traditionally considered to be cognitive independence (i.e., different from “knowledge”. “Analysis” is a thinking behavior that can lead to or improve knowledge, but we do not regard analysis as a form of knowledge, just as we think jogging is a “healthy” form. For now, it’s good. We can allow these differences.
There are many taxonomy that try to provide a hierarchy here, but I just want to think of it as a spectrum filled in different forms. What are these forms, which is the “highest” importance, not the fact that there is yes These forms and some forms are considered more “complex” than others. (I created it Teaching/Heick Learning Taxonomy As a non-hierarchical taxonomy of thinking and understanding. )
What we don’t know is always more important than what we do.
Of course, this is subjective. or semantics, or even ped. But it is useful to use what we know and know what we don’t know. Don’t know that this is in the sense of having knowledge because – well, if we know, then we know that there is no need to realize that we don’t.
sigh.
Let me start over.
Knowledge is about deficits. We need to be aware of what we know and how we know what we know. By “consciousness”, I think I mean “things that are known in form, not in essence or content.” to vaguely Know.
By portraying a boundary for what you know (e.g. quantity) and what you know (e.g. quality), you can not only provide knowledge acquisition for the future, but also better use what you already know now.
In other words, you can become more familiar (but still unaware) the limitations of our own knowledge, and it is a wonderful platform to start using what we know. Or use Excellent.
But this can also help us understand (know?) not only our own knowledge, but also the limitations of general knowledge. We can first ask: “What can we know?” ‘Is there anything thing Is that unknown? “This may prompt us to ask, “What do we (as a species) know now?” When did we know?
For analogy, consider dividing the car engine into hundreds of parts. Each of these parts has some knowledge: facts, data points, an idea. It is even more useful in the way that mathematical formulas or moral systems are knowledge types, even in the form of its own micro-machines, but can also be used as its own system, even when combined with other knowledge. Bit More useful when combined with other knowledge system.
I’ll go back to the engine metaphor later. But if we can observe that we collect knowledge bits and then form testable theories and then create laws based on these testable theories, we are not only creating knowledge, but also doing this by eliminating knowledge that we don’t know. Maybe that’s a bad metaphor. we are Come and know Things not only eliminate previously unknown bits, but also during lighting, create Countless new bits and systems as well as the potential of theory, testing and law, etc.
These gaps embed ourselves into the knowledge system when we at least realize what we don’t know. However, this embedding and context and rankings until at least you are at least in Aware of In this system, this means to understand that knowledge itself is characterized by known and unknown content relative to users of knowledge (i.e. you and me), and unknown is always stronger than that.
For the moment, as long as any knowledge system is allowed to be composed of known and unknown “things” – knowledge and knowledge deficiencies.
An example we don’t know
Let’s be more specific. For example, if we know about constructing plates, it can help us use mathematics to predict earthquakes or design machines to predict them. By theorizing and testing the concept of continental drift, we are closer to plate tectonics, but we don’t “know”. As a society and species, we may know that the traditional order is that learning one thing leads us to learn something else, so it may be suspected that continental drift may lead to other discoveries, but although plate tectonics have already “existed”, we do not identify these processes for us, but they do not “exist”, but they are actually always there.
Knowledge is strange. Until we say a word about something (a series of characters we use to identify and communicate and record ideas), we think it doesn’t exist. In the 18th century, when Scottish farmer James Hutton began to make clear theoretical and scientific arguments about the earth’s topography and the process of forming and changing it, he helped consolidate what we know about modern geography. If you do know that the Earth is billions of years old and think it is only 6000 years old, you are not “looking for” or forming a theory about a process that takes millions of years.
Therefore, belief is important and language is important. Theory, argument, evidence, curiosity, and ongoing investigation questions. But so is humility. First ask what you don’t know to reshape ignorance into a kind of knowledge. By considering your own knowledge flaws and limitations, you mark them as agnostic, unaware or to learn. They stop muddy and cover up, become a self-realization and clarify the knowledge.
study.
Learning leads to knowledge and knowledge leads to theory, just as theory leads to knowledge. It’s all so obvious in the way that we don’t know about things are always more important than our job. Scientific knowledge is powerful: we can separate atoms and create bombs of species or provide energy to feed ourselves. But morality is a kind of knowledge. Science asks: “What should we do?” Humanities may ask: “What should we do?”
Knowledge of fluid utility
Back to the hundreds of parts metaphorical car engines. All of these knowledge bits (parts) are useful, but they become more useful when combined in a certain order (only one of a trillion) to become the running engine. In this case, all parts are relatively useless until the knowledge system (e.g., combustion engine) is identified or “created” and driven, then all of which are critical and the combustion process as a form of knowledge is trivial.
(For now, I’m going to skip the concept of entropy, but I really shouldn’t be because that might explain everything.)
look? Knowledge is about deficits. Remove the same unassembled engine parts collection that are only parts and not engines. If one of the key parts is missing, the engine cannot be created. If you know – knowledge – that part is missing, that’s fine. But if you think you already know what you need to know, you won’t look for missing parts, or even know the engine you can use. This is in some way why things you don’t know are always more important than your job.
Each thing We learn that it’s like ticking a box: we’re reducing the minimum degree of collective uncertainty. There is less unknown thing. An unpatched box.
But it’s a fantasy because in reality, all boxes cannot be ticked. We checked a box and 74 replaced it, so it couldn’t be quantity, only quality. Creating some knowledge creates more knowledge exponentially.
However, clarifying knowledge defects can be consistent with existing knowledge sets. To know that it is humble and humble is to know what you do, not know and what we have known in the past, not know and everything we have done with all the knowledge we have learned. It can be seen that when we create labor-saving equipment, we rarely save labor, but instead transfer it elsewhere.
You should know that “big problems” have almost no “big problems”, because these problems themselves are the result of too much intelligence, morality and behavioral failure. For example, according to Chernobyl, the “discovery” of “cleaning” nuclear energy, and the seemingly infinite toxicity adds to our environment. What if we replace the vision of knowledge with the wonders of doing things and the short-term and long-term effects of this knowledge?
Learning something often leads us to ask, “What do I know?” Sometimes, “How do I know? Is there better evidence to prove what I know?” and so on.
But when we learn new things, we often don’t ask what is: “What else am I missing?” What will we learn in four to ten years? How does this expectation change what I know now? We can ask, “Now I know, how is it now?”
Or, if knowledge is a kind of light, how can I use that light while also having ambiguity about the edges of that light – not yet understood? From everything I didn’t know, I could work outside and then move inward toward the clearer, more modest feeling now?
A carefully studied knowledge deficit is amazing knowledge.
