We know what we know and we don’t know what we don’t
know. That we can be rather sure
of. But think about this question: “What
is the ratio of what we know to what we don’t know?”
That ratio, it would seem, is part of what we don’t
know. If we think about everything that
humans currently know – e.g. the information that fills the great libraries --
most of us should admit that the ratio is rather small. And even if we are among the most
knowledgeable of people, the ratio is still likely not very large.
Another question: “What is the ratio of everything that
humans currently know to everything that could possibly be known?” There are cosmological theories that posit
countless numbers of other universes. If
these theories are true (whether they are or not being another thing we don’t
know), then the ratio is possibly infinitely small.
But to narrow things, what if we just consider the visible
portion of this universe? Well, there
might be numerous solar systems with intelligent beings, some possibly
considerably more so than us. Currently
we know nothing of their worlds; currently we don’t know if such worlds exist. So even here the ratio is possibly very, very
small.
We could get even narrower and consider just this earth; we
would seem to know quite a bit about that.
For instance, it is probably the case that the known and cataloged
species of plants and animals currently living are a fairly large ratio of all
the currently existing species. But it
has been suggested that for every currently living species there have been a
thousand that are now extinct. If this
number is anywhere near being correct, than the number of extinct species we know
anything about would seem to be a rather small percentage of the total. So the ratio of what we know about the living
species that have comprised the earth’s biosphere throughout its history
compared to everything there is to be known is again very small.
At this point a person may throw up her or his arms and say,
“well I know what I need to know!” But
how would a person know this since we don’t know what we don’t know? Most of the people I know seem to me to be
missing some important pieces of knowledge about quite basic things, and they
also seem to be blithely unaware of it.
Socrates, who was considered by many a very wise and
knowledgeable person, famously stated that “I know that I don’t know.” From the foregoing discussion, I think this
is something of which each of us could be reasonably sure.
To know that we don’t know seems to be negative knowledge,
and should we not be more concerned with positive knowledge? Perhaps, but anyone who spends time reading comments
on the Internet might wish that more people understood the limits of their
knowledge. (Why are there so many people
who passionately believe in the most un-belief-worthy notions?) I would
suggest that having at least some sense of the limits of ones knowing is actually
a very positive kind of knowledge.
You need to know a great deal, I would suggest, to truly
know that you don’t know. One has to
spend a lifetime trying to know if one is going to have any creditability in
saying “I know that I don’t know.” So if
the person who says “I know that I don’t know” actually knows a lot relative to
most, is this person a liar? Or is it a
recognition that all knowing isn’t equal?
There are the answers to big questions and answers to small questions,
and while Socrates and most of us probably had plenty of the later, it is in relation
to the former that our un-knowing is significant. But here again, do we know what the really
significant questions are?
The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: “what can be said
at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot state clearly we must pass over
in silence.” I don’t necessarily think
this statement is true and later in his life Wittgenstein apparently became doubtful
about this himself. But I do think it is
sometimes wise to be silent. Silence,
like the knowing of one’s ignorance, might seem the negation of knowledge, but
is it? Perhaps I’ll just shut up and listen
to what the silence says.
