So we know some stuff. We know that we don’t know it.
Then we learn some things, then we think we have working knowledge.
So what if there is an anomaly in the stuff we knew that we didn’t know.. and later we thought we had working knowledge?
Then we would know we did not have “working knowledge” of the stuff.
So do we really have knowledge or we are given a sphere …where we live under idea of having knowledge ?
As a professor do not always say after physics lecture “btw we don’t know a thing about so many things”
But they call student “graduates” like sort of uni. prof. put a circle around their knowledge.
Not they are limiting student. If student did come to study he/she would be on centre of the circle.
Now they could touch the boundary of the circle.
So to conclude: those boundary of our knowledge could be funny as hell, once we know more reality. Of some where in future.
But I think that feeling of knowing, even a illusion, is essential to doing stuff.
"So to conclude: those boundary of our knowledge could be funny as hell, once we know more reality. Of some where in future.*
But I think that feeling of knowing, even a illusion, is essential to doing stuff."
I can remember the first time I learned geometry. Diameter. Circumference. I knew the formula. And thought I knew it all.
Then you get to sphere. And spherical coordinates. Then you realize how little you knew.back then. And as you struggle with spherical.coordinates, you doubt if you can handle it. So the knowledge that you think you had - you realize it is an illusion.
Then reality hits you - there is so much to learn. And that someone is always going to be smarter than you. No matter how hard you work.
That's when you find some escape - watch movies, surf GS etc. Because you need a respite from the rat race.
Then u get back on the horse and do it all over again.
What I mean is, a giver of knowledge gives it knowing its not complete.
But its sort of working knowledge.
Some thing like that.
Thats true but why did you have to right it in a convoluted way in first post.
I always tell this to my residents and interns, what we teach you is how we construct the bits and pieces of knowledge gained from animals and human studies into a working theory. Many times we are well aware of things which go against the working theory/knowledge but we they dont start teaching those things till they can fit into a workig theory. They are like bricks lying on side not part of teh building yet.
Good books don't have boundary conditions. We should learn more, integrate things and think on own. We learn in graduate college, we get some knowledge so that we can add specific knowledge and skills according to need. A plant engineer may not have knowledge to that of a design engineer and vice versa. This could turn into a generalist vs specialist debate. All civil servants are generalists, they seek specialists as and when needed. Working knowledge does not mean having wrong knowledge. There is a saying "neem-hakeem khatara-e-jaan"
Fundamental of concepts are necessary. World is continuously exploring and Mars is not the limit. Conceptual knowledge plus research....
University professor prepare student by teaching them fundamentals. An individual effort give student further knowledge.
Yes but that sort of illusion of knowing a boundary of some thing or some discipline, make us act out.
If we did not have that illusion then we would continuously seek knowledge.
Which may not be practical since we might not have tools(yet) to seek more.
Many student say. "we did not apply any thing we learned at uni."
But they were given the idea they knew..
So that idea helped, because they were giving the idea that they were the kind who knew.
(I am not arguing with you, your post helped say what I was thinking)
Thats true but why did you have to right it in a convoluted way in first post.
Because I did not know how to say it. I still grasp a little then lose it.
Could it be OP is trying to convey this message? I don't know.
first of all I am not convey a message. I am borrowing all your brains to think what I could not think.
Second of all, that statement can kill a mathematician. How could you possibly know what you don;t know ??
Third, thanks for help, it explained some more.. so we can only know which some one else knows. And we don't yet.
Or we can push the boundary little further.
I think you misunderstood. The saying know what you don't know does not mean if a person does not know theory of relativity he shoukd know theory of relativity.
It simply means that he should know he does not know theory of relativity.
I think this post just revived a dead mathematician or two.
Re last point, right now you are correct. We only know what has been discovered (or what someone else knows as you stated).
As you rightly point out, we can continue to push the boundary of what is known and try to discover new things. It is not an OR. I would modify ur last sentence by deleting Or.
So the one who gives knowledge also encompasses it. Unless he gives all he has.
In case of uni. they have tons of stuff, but they give small part and call you graduate.
Act of being encompassed even fuzzy in nature, could be very rewarding for the one go through it.
