7 Answers

  1. Because when we master some knowledge, we start by studying a very simplified scheme, and then we start studying the details, and the more we learn, the more details we learn.

    The simplified scheme is really very good to study and know everything or almost everything in it, but when you start to go deeper, you realize that you can only go deeper into part of this scheme.

    Example: you can perfectly study a school physics course and know it all. At this point, it seems to you that you know ALL of physics very well and have understood all of it. But then you start to study a certain section more deeply (for example, only electricity) and realize that you have already mastered 10 times more information on electricity alone than the school course, and there is still a lot left.

    And you understand that with all other sections the situation is the same, i.e. your school knowledge on the same optics is not even the tip of the iceberg, but a snowflake on the iceberg.

  2. There is such a thing-the Dunning-Kruger effect. This is a cognitive distortion, which consists in the fact that people who have a low level of qualification make erroneous conclusions, make bad decisions, and at the same time are not able to realize their mistakes due to their low level of qualification. At the same time, there is a downside: with advanced training, we understand how much knowledge in this world we have not yet mastered; we understand that it is often not only black and white, but also halftones; we understand the influence of various variables necessary for making a decision. And this often plunges us into a decadent mood, a belief in our profanity, and so on. And only over time, continuing practice and increasing experience and skill, we begin to level our self-esteem, making it adequate to our qualifications.

  3. From the book “On General misconceptions”. Foreword by Stephen Fry.

    Sometimes people reproach me for knowing too much. “Stephen,”they say reproachfully,” you know a lot.” Yeah, it's like telling someone with a few grains of sand stuck to them that they're covered in sand. If you imagine all the huge amount of sand that exists in the world, such a person, in fact, can be considered a sandless person. We're all bespesochniki. We are all ignoramuses. There are so many beaches, deserts and dunes of knowledge around that we don't even know exist — let alone visit them!

    Can I tell you, my friends, who we should be most wary of? Those who think they know everything they need to know. “Everything is explained in this text,” they tell us, ” and you don't need to know anything else.” For thousands of years, we have put up with such statements. And those who said: “Uh-huh … wait a minute, in my opinion, we are ignorant of this issue, let's see… ” – they poisoned them with poisons, put out their eyes and pulled out their intestines through the anus.

    We may be in even greater danger today of believing that we know more than we did in those dark and distant days of religious prejudice (if indeed they are a thing of the past). All the knowledge accumulated by mankind is now at our service-just click the mouse. Of course, this state of affairs is simply excellent, but the danger is different now: all this can easily turn into another sacred text. What we really need is a treasure trove — not of knowledge, but of ignorance. A book of misconceptions that doesn't provide answers, but raises questions. A book that will shed light — no, not on the obvious facts, but on the dark and raw corners of our ignorance. And the volume that you, my friends, are now holding in your hands is exactly the flaming torch that will help us all embark on a journey to simplicity, understandable even to ignoramuses and fools.

    Read it wisely, for the power of error is great.

  4. One of my good teachers explained to me using the example of circles, where the circle is the volume of acquired knowledge, and the line on the edge of this circle is the visible volume of information that has not yet been mastered. Thus, by increasing this circle, we increase the visible horizon of undeveloped knowledge.

    You can even use your own example – while studying programming, you had to improve mathematics, physics, and other areas. But none of the directions are “mastered” completely. It turns out that having achieved good results in the main direction, I see more and more clearly the amount of information from related topics that I have not mastered.

  5. If your question is not a subtle trolling of the audience (which it looks like), then I will venture to answer more or less seriously.

    You misinterpret your doubt. The knower has doubts not about the knowledge itself, but about its reliability. That is, familiarity with a wide range of possible views on the subject, sometimes mutually exclusive, leads to the inevitable conclusion about the relativity of truth.

    This gives rise to the inner anxiety that the Pythia helped Socrates formulate and express in his time.

  6. In my understanding, this happens because with new knowledge, I get different points of view on certain things, which I begin to compare with what I knew before, in search of what I find most convincing for myself.

  7. Probably because you start to think. I.e. not just accept the knowledge you have gained on faith, but also try to understand it. And the more you think about it, the more you doubt whether it's true, whether it's true. One will say that white is white and only white, the other will say that white is the totality of all colors, well, or at least rbg. And we know that only one person is right, but at the same time, one person is also 100500% sure that he is right. It's not for nothing that they say: live for a century, learn for a century, and still you will not die as a scientist.

Leave a Reply