Half knowledge becomes dangerous, when you actually assume that you know enough to take a decision. Half knowledge in medicine, drugs, chemistry, business, engineering, and in other disciplines is too dangerous.
Dear @Mahfuz, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot.” - Albert Einstein
Dear Mahfuz,
Yes, It is dangerous to take a decision without having enough knowledge.
Well-informed decisions can only be made when one knows the subject well and analyze a finite set of alternatives in terms of evaluative criteria.
Dear @Mahfuz, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot.” - Albert Einstein
Yes, it can be dangerous, but no knowledge at all (total ignorance) can be sometimes even much worse.
Mahfuz; my Dear friend:
Can you please define half knowledge?
--Marilyn
Yes, half knowledge is dangerous, sometimes it is more dangerous than the no knowledge at all.
Knowledge permanently evolves, so rephrasing the question from Marilyn: What is half knowledge, for instance when you don't know what future knowledge will be?
Of course, half knowledge is dangerous. Having sufficient knowledge shall be helpful for discussing, analysing, reaching on a rational conclusion, and taking better final decisions. Half knowledge, many times, put you on embarrassing situation.
Half knowledge is dangerous. Often we find people with half knowledge moving with pride and vanity. Full (True) knowledge makes a person humble and unassuming.
I fully agree that sufficient and full knowledge is required for analyzing the thing for making an informed and rational decision.
Knowing in part (and not the full required amount) is certainly dangerous. When we do not see a situation from all angles, we make a poor decision, and come to a wrong conclusion. Half truth is falsehood. (What do you think about those who think they know a lot? As far as I know, I'm always having to read to improve my knowledge.)
I think Mahmoud pointed a different perspective or more precisely a negative side effect of having half knowledge, i.e., often people with half knowledge move with pride and vanity.
In my opinion half knowledge is like you don't know what you know, hence it might be dangerous to make / influence others to make the right decision. Because following might be less harmful than half-knowledge:
1) You Know What You Know - you are sure what you are doing & being assessed objectively by other scholars in authority
2) You Know What You Don't Know - you have alleviated view what is not your area / off-boundary so that you will not comment / influence others to make decision in certain ways
3) You Don't Know What You Don't Know - you will not impact knowledge in any way
However, I think half-knowledge can be dangerous to the person who holds it. But when the half-knowledge or the holder is exposed by others, this can be knowledge contribution for the general public.
“A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers.”
Plato
Yes half knowledge is a real problem. But there is one exception. I one is aware that s/he only knows the half and if this person is accurate, you will find a swotty colleque, who asks and learns and will tell you "sorry I´m no specialist, please give me informations".
These people are not dangerous, this people are imposing and sympathic.
Can knowledge be halved, dear Mahfouz? Either we know or we don't!
This is a Chinese proverb "To have half knowledge of ten things is not as good as through knowledge of just one", which literally means better to master one thing than try to be "Jack of all trades, master of none"
You can have any fractional part of knowledge or ignorance. I don´t know any person with full knowledge. This would be a miracle!
Dear Marilyn, dear Marcel, and dear Marwan,
Half knowledge sometimes called, little knowledge. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot.”- Albert Einstein
Examples of incomplete knowledge are endless, and in some cases can be proven to be dangerous.
For instance, in medicine you might know enough to know that vitamin D is good for bones and forestalls osteoporosis, and not know that vitamin D becomes very quickly toxic, from 1.5 RDA doses and up. Or you might know that vitamin A is good for the eyes, without knowing that over the long haul it can make bones brittle.
In languages, you might know that e.g. the word 'different' comes from the Latin, without knowing that in fact, further back in time, the word comes from three Indo-European roots, di- , fer-, and ent- each respectively akin to the Germanic roots two, (to) bear, and -ing, so that etymologically 'different' is 'two-bearing'. You might not know either that Indo-European relates to all other languages on Earth, and hence you might draw wrong, and potentially dangerous, conclusions about the unitary origin of mankind.
In sciences, you might know all about reductionist mechanistic science and be able to do flawless engineering, and thus become arrogant and set in your ways about things not straightforwardly explainable by non-mechanistic science.
In religion, you might think you know the mind of God from your studies, without knowing that the simple phenomenon of emergence says that infinity cannot possibly be mapped onto finiteness, that you cannot possibly ever fathom infinity from a finite standpoint, and hence that it is mathematically impossible to ever second-guess the mind of God.
In science, half knowledge (= knowing only a part of the whole) is never a problem because we all suffer from it regarding the knowledge of the future. And we know it. Even if someone pretends to know we can find out the half truth in due course.
Han Ping Fung pointed out the dangerous side to the one who knows only half. There probably lies a different danger in half-knowledge if it is conveyed by people who can exert power. If they decide on poor knowledge + without wisdom, then people and the environment can suffer a lot.
«Science sans Conscience, n'est que ruine de l'Âme» Rabelais, 16th. century.
(the French humanist medical writer, Rabelais, told us, as early as the 16th-century, that Science without conscience - half science - is the ruin of the soul...)
A small amount of knowledge can mislead people into thinking that they are more expert than they really are. Therefore, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Yes, dear Mahfuz, your question strongly indicates the permanent need for scientists to keep humble.
It is impossible to have total knowledge of sciences, even in a particular field, but we need to have conscience of this, and to keep the humble mind that will help us learn more, and the sensibility not to loose our practical sense to analyse our questions.
Half-science is dangerous because it leads to boasting and loss of critical sense.
Thank You, for such an interesting debate.
Kind regards. M.
I agree with you dear Maria. It is impossible to have total knowledge of sciences, even in a particular field.
The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.”-Socrates
“I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.”-Socrates
If we ever understand half of what we observe we will be well informed indeed. The more I look at the activities of the cell the more I realise how little we actually know. The same is true in all scientific disciplines and only the super arrogant would ever claim to have found all the answers.
It is not so much that a little knowledge is dangerous it is in thinking that the little we do know is all there is to know.
It´s a sign for a real scientist, that s/he knows not to know all and stays curious.
True knowledge and wisdom can never be dangerous, not even in a little part. Decisions based on ignorance (independently of the percentage) should never be taken.
"Very few people and they are really just the best, who are able to simply say - I do not know !" Dmitri Pisarev
Yes indeed, half knowledge is too dangerous, especially when one is not aware of it.
The version 'a little learning is a dangerous thing'' is widely attributed to Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744). It is found in An Essay on Criticism, 1709:
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.
Hi Mahfuz,
Half knowledge, as long as the one making the decision understands it is not complete Knowledge is not dangerous. It's always better to base decision making on some quantity of Knowledge, than on randomness.
Complete Knowledge is mostly unattainable, because of the intrinsic characteristic of knowledge, which is continuous and accumulative. You can achieve "complete information" for a specific moment of time, and with it you can make a reasonable decision.
Dangerous things for decision making are "half cooked" knowledge and ideologies, because in some cases they have never been verified empirically or they have serious inconsistencies. Prof. Douglass North extensively wrote about 'failed ideas or ideologies', with contemporary history examples.
Rgds.,
Always knowledge is incomplete as there is unknown in the frontiers of any category of knowledge and knowing something is better than not knowing anything as knowledge enables us do things better. But absolute decision based on little knowledge is as dangerous as a decision made based on ignorance. If absolute decision is made on little knowledge then the majority part of the knowledge used for that decision is probably false knowledge.
Having spent years looking at pharmaceutical research I am familiar with the concept of little knowledge being a dangerous thing. It certainly is to patients who are not warned about side effects because that part of the knowledge was kept quiet so as not to damage sales.
Yes it is dangerous when it is used by people not skilled in it, or not skilled at all...
Although, in most cases no knowledge is better than half knowledge, in some cases, we may agree with the phrase that half knowledge is better than no knowledge.
Little knowledge may not be dangerous in itself, yet the results it may bring, are really dangerous. Little knowledge can cause people to think they are more expert than they are and consequently make unwise decisions.
It is like baking a cake when you only have half of the ingredients! (imagine a cake with no sugar)
Back to what dear Ljubomir posted from Albert Einstein , "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot”. What does he mean? Does he mean that a lot of knowledge is a dangerous thing?
Mahfuz, indeed, that is an odd add-on by Einstein. Maybe he meant that if you have a lot of knowledge you might be prone to misusing it, therefore, if you do not leaven knowledge by conscience, it may become dangerous?
Rabelais had said as much as early as the 16th century 'Knowledge without conscience is but the ruin of the soul' ....
I don´t know the original text of A. Einstein. But I´ve no problem to understand. I think he wanted give a hint, that in a "lot of scientific cases" the knowledge is to small to conclude unambigious and clear results.
Is the knowledge bottle half full or half empty? Think positively?
A story on a little knowledge Is a dangerous thing
During the colonial period in Kenya there were three Kikuyu men Kioi, Githogori and Kaminju who thought that they knew everything. They decided to go to adult education classes to learn English. When they went to the school they carried with them books and pencils and put them on a table. When the tutor came he asked them, "Who put these items here?" They said in the Kikuyu language ni ithuii atatu. The tutor told them that to say this in English they should say we three. They learned these words and went home. The following day the tutor found they had sharpened their pencils very badly "like sugarcanes" and asked them, "What did you use to sharpen the pencils?" They said in Kikuyu na banga. He told them that to say this in English they should say with a panga or knife. They went home and came back the following day. But the tutor told them that he would not teach them until they come back with school fees, that the classes were not free. He sent them away and told them if they were asked why they were sent away they should say it wasbecause of money.
As they walked home they feared that they might forget what they had learned so they decided to assign the three phrases they had learned so far -- we three, with a panga or knife and because of money -- to the three of them respectively, that is, to Kioi, Githogori and Kaminju. As they were going home they came upon the body of a man who had just been killed so they started looking around the scene. As they were looking around a colonial policeman arrived in a car, saw the dead man and asked, "Who killed him?" Kioi replied, "We three." The policeman asked, "With what?" Githogori replied, "With a panga or knife." The policeman asked further, "Why?" Kaminju replied, "Because of money." Now the three Kikuyu men thought that they knew English quite well and were eager and happy to speak with a white man. But they were immediately handcuffed and landed in jail. So the English proverb, A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
http://www.afriprov.org/index.php/african-stories-by-season/11-general/61-a-little-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing.html
The poor knowledge or the lack of knowledge of the risks preclude the possibility of adopting the most appropriate preventive measures to eliminate or reduce the sources of danger.
This species (I mean who have half knowledge) is abundant these days specially among students & "may be" some instructors. Being in a university as student or instructor, gives some persons the "wrong" feeling of attaining lot of knowledge. IT & the internet also added "an insult to injury". Those, who move with this illusion, will have an answer for every question! & they may cause enormous harm because those who receive the replies, may proceed with the wrong method. Imagine that a student went to a chemistry laboratory with half the knowledge about an experiment , a disaster will most probably occur. That is why chemical technology stresses upon having total "know-how" about the theory & the application of the theory.
Hi All,
Yes half knowledge is too dangerous. I do agree to it. Regards
Dear Dr. Nizar,
I highly appreciate your contribution. I completely agree with you that those, who move with this illusion, will have an answer for every question! & they may cause enormous harm because those who receive the replies, may proceed with the wrong method.
A lot of knowledge is not dangerous. How you use it might be dangerous?
Dear Mahfuz
Yes indeed, have knowledge is dangerous. I also like your story.
Dear Marcel,
When Albert Einstein said, A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot. May be he meant that the way how you use it might be dangerous.
Yes Mahfuz, can be what you say (directly or indirectly). However it is also likely that both extremes represent false knowledge (a lot of knowledge means simply a false knowledge or an illusion of knowledge – see the Socratic thinking cited by Darko). No one ever knows a lot or too much.
Yes indeed Mahfuz. I think he was thinking about his own work on Quantum Physics, nuclear energy?
“There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know.” - US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, 2002
http://www.isambardgroup.com/2009/08/lot-of-knowledge-is-dangerous-thing.html
http://tristramshepard.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/a-little-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing-so-is-a-lot/
Dear Marcel,
Einstein supported defending the Allied forces, but denounced the idea of using the nuclear fission as a weapon. Later, with the British philosopher Bertrand Russell, Einstein signed a Manifesto, which highlighted the danger of nuclear bomb.
Thus, I am inclined to say that when Einstein said "...so is a lot.", he means the danger of the nuclear weapons.
Dear Ljubomir,
Thank you for the link you attached about a lot of knowledge is a dangerous thing. In fact, I have looked at it and found it interesting and convincing.
@Ljubomir, Rumsfeld was a man who could exert power. His and similar individuals' half knowledge was and is, therefore, really dangerous to people and socieites, even.
Leaving the original about half knowledge and talking about "too much" knowledge, we remember Lise Meitner, who introduced together with Otto Hahn the nuclear fission process. She was later called the Mother of the Nuclear Bomb and was almost left as a broken woman. This kind of knowledge, born out of curiosity, can be very dangerous to mankind and oneself, but when do you know?
It is always easy to mention the potential dangers of new knowledge once the knowledge exists. The underlying cause of danger of new knowledge is that those that will use it do not (always) have the same mental states than the inventors of new knowledge.
Perhaps scientists should start to think about the potential dangers of new potential knowledge before starting to work on it.
Yes indeed, dear Marcel. Scientists should start to think about the potential dangers of new potential knowledge before starting to work on it.
I agree with Marcels statement. We have historical examples (nuclear technology, atomic wapons) and we have recent problems (genetic engineering, virusses, gentechnique crops etc). But I think we all have perceived the reactions if critics started today in modern times.
Half knowledge is not dangerous unless until it misleads people into thinking that they are more expert than they actually are. Something is better than nothing, as long as you know that you know something not everything. You use this half knowledge as extra information and not as the only authentic knowledge in the areas where incomplete knowledge can be disastrous and fatal.
Dear Marcel,
what about life, is life also dangerous? Without life you don´t have danger. My clear consequence is...?
Is wireless technology less dangerous than cable one, (it does not use wire!)? Cables are cool and wireless is Kryptonite! Modern life is full of hassles, deadlines, frustrations, surprises, and demands. Questions and comments are no exception!
You see dear Marcel,
sometimes questions are not pure sense and logic. ;-))
“A solid answer to everything is not necessary. Blurry concepts influence one to focus, but postulated clarity influences arrogance.” ― Criss Jami
“In the past, I always used to be looking for answers. Today, I know there are only questions. So I just live.” ― Sarah Brightman
We as a species evolved by taking risks. We are physically weak compared with other animals, we are very slow compared with other animals, we have less powerful senses than other animals.
Our hominid ancestors took the long slow walk out of Africa not because it was safe to do so and possessing not a fraction, let alone half the knowledge of what lay before them. They did it because they were human and humans are driven by the desire not just to survive but to thrive.
It is great that we do not know everything, we should celebrate our 'ignorance' because it drives us on to even greater discoveries. The only thing that is ever dangerous in any true sense is losing that boundless inquisitiveness. That is the reason we survived against all other odds.
The glass of knowledge is half full, not half empty. A little knowledge is a wonderful thing however 'dangerous' it may seem at times.
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.
-George Bernard Shaw
Science is also principally based on believing what other people tell or write. There exists no fundamental difference in the practice of science and religion when both accept existence of empirically unverifiable theory or both believe in existence of phenomena claimed to be perceived by a minority of the human community.
Science is not about belief so where unverifiable theory is stated as fact it is not science. It is conjecture at best and fraud at worst. The correct philosophy of science is doxasticism, empiricism and epistemology. Doubt, measurement and knowledge. The knowledge is never complete, the measurement only ever approximation and the doubt the product of human ingenuity.
Science is the search for the truth and never the finding of it. Recognising the truth is beyond the capacity of the human intellect.
Yes indeed, dear Ajay. There’s a big difference between ignorance and false knowledge, as Shaw points out. No wiseman thinks he knows things about things he knows nothing about.
No dear Marcel,
science is no matter of believe and is no matter of wished half knowledge. If you produce and publish you scientific results, these data can be proved, controlled, contradicted, refined or quashed. Of course science needs axioms, but these are generally accepted start rules. And science cannot finish because as Barry already mentioned, to find the final truth seems impossible.
So half knowledge is the normal case, but not by irationality and no matter of believe.
A little knowledge is better than no knowledge at all. Danger arises from people who think that with the small (or big) knowledge they could have, they are able to get power or money or authority or to be famous, or to take revenge ..etc;. The problem is not with the amount of knowledge one could have (we should seek for knowledge for the entire life), the problem is with the psychology of who use it, how he use it and for what benefit, or thinks is able to use it, or think is able to have authority on others less knowledgeable...
So little knowledge is better than ignorance, big knowledge is great but should be managed with consciousness. Knowledgeable people should be wise.
Hello Hanno,
Scientists might be able to replicate studies confirming or not confirming former results for X reasons. A medium with supersensory abilities might also claim (s)he is able to replicate the sensations observed by another medium. Each remains in her/his own world or scale of analysis.
How many different mental worlds/scales of perception/analysis exist on planet Earth? Socrates would claim again: The more we known the more we know we don't know?
Dear Marcel,
I agree with your world of perception. But we are talking and discussing here about science. And in science you have accepted rules and the results must be provable. My problem with your further comment is the term "believe". Believe is a matter of another mental world, not of science.
Could you Marcel accept the term "hypothesis" instead of believe? I wouldn´t have any problem. We all start our scientific work and research with any hypothesis and try to find yes, no or another result.
Dear Hanno,
With believe I mean: If you read the results of a study of another scientist, and you were not directly involved in the study, you believe the results more or less, or not?
Dear Marcel,
I prefer less. ;-)
But to be earnest, I try to match these new results with my present knowledge, start discussions, make proposals for improvements or agree that I´m without any power of judgement. In this latter case I would prefer to leave the scene instead of believing implausible "facts".
Dear Hanno,
If you only accept what you perceive/see yourself....., I think we will have a very biased image of the true nature of nature. History teaches use that what has been implausible yesterday has become plausible today? From what moment did people start to believe that humans could indeed walk on the moon (and there are still people today that think that the Apollo mission was a fiction, not a fact?)?
Dear Marcel,
we all live from the knowledge of other people. You are right, you must trust informations, but you must not believe them!
There is a big difference.
PS: a small hint, I´ve read a RG question about intelligence of crows. I would like to hear your meaning, not believe it ;-=).
Dear Hanno,
Trust versus believe: Interesting topic for discussion!
Dear Marcel and Hanno,
Trust is mundane and sensical (earthly, human); belief is metaphysical and ideal. In other words, trust is to believe what we see; belief is to believe what we do not see!
Sincerest regards!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry