The Transformation of Personal to Collective Knowledge
The dangers of "post-truth era"
All knowledge arises from personal experience: Our understanding of the world is grounded in our individual perceptions, interpretations, and interactions with reality.
Michael Polanyi said:
"All thought originates in personal knowledge in the sense that it can only start from what is already known to the knowing person as something intuitively real." (Personal Knowledge, p. 30)
Central to this discussion is the question of how personal knowledge can be transformed into collective knowledge, achieving inter-subjectivity. This challenge of personal-to-collective knowledge transformation lies at the heart of understanding knowledge itself.
Transforming individual knowledge into collective understanding is crucial, as it prevents us from being trapped in personal or cultural biases. Only through shared insights can we achieve genuine common ground, effectively make sense of complex issues, and make informed decisions that benefit everyone.
Notes:
We have avoided the use of the term objective knowledge, because it would lead to complex philosophical questions.
When we speak of collective knowledge, we don't mean the focused expertise and resources specific to an organization, which falls under the umbrella of 'enterprise knowledge.' Collective knowledge refers to the broader shared wisdom of humanity, accumulated through experience and passed down through generations.
To understand how personal knowledge transforms into collective knowledge, let's first explore two successful examples: the rigorous process of scientific knowledge creation and the collaborative, evolving space of Wikipedia.
Scientific Knowledge Formation
The hallmarks of scientific knowledge formation are:
1) accessibility through open ideas and free access, 2) evidence-based presentation relying on data and logic, 3) critical thinking that embraces skepticism and analysis, and 4) continuous refinement through self-correction and peer review.
The principle of free access has faced its share of challenges, but it remains a fundamental value for many.
Historically, the path of scientific progress has been strewn with obstacles, both external and internal. Uncritical adherence to religious or ideological dogma has acted as a formidable barrier, silencing dissent and impeding the free exchange of ideas and information. Similarly, the allure of pseudoscience has often muddied the waters, eroding public trust and tarnishing the scientific reputation.
However, the challenges to knowledge formation within science extend beyond external adversaries. Internal limitations inherent in our own tools and understanding also come into play.
For instance, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the concept of bounded rationality remind us that there are inherent limits to our logic and reasoning. Computability constraints and the limitations of language (including tacit knowledge), further illustrate the difficulty of achieving absolute collective agreement.
Science prides itself on objectivity and consensus, yet even its most robust frameworks can become murky when confronted with certain fundamental questions. Take, for instance, the enigma of quantum physics. While its mathematical apparatus is universally accepted, a conundrum reigns over its interpretation. At the heart of it lies the observer paradox, where the very act of observing a quantum system alters its behavior.
We encounter similar conundrums in other frontiers of science, such as the nebulous terrain of consciousness. Do we possess the elusive gift of free will, Even the burgeoning field of artificial general intelligence (AGI) wrestles with this very question.
Wikipedia.
Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, is an excellent example of collaboration. It relies on the collective efforts of individuals to create and update its content. While anyone can contribute, the information undergoes a collaborative editing process where multiple contributors review and refine the articles. Through this collective effort, Wikipedia has become a valuable source of shared knowledge, covering diverse topics.
Simon DeDeo, is a renowned complexity scientist and researcher who has explored various aspects of collective knowledge creation and dynamics within Wikipedia. His work delves into the complex interplay between individual contributions, collaboration, and the emergence of collective knowledge on the platform.
Some of the themes DeDeo explored are dynamics of collaboration, network structure, knowledge controversies, and information flow.
Here are two of his interesting work on Wikipedia:
As of April 2021, Wikipedia has over 55 million articles in 309 languages, making it probably the largest collection of human knowledge ever assembled. But while it democratizes access to information, this open platform also faces unique challenges, as DW unveils.
Failures of transformation.
The following are examples where the transformation from personal to collective knowledge fails
Echo chambers: Echo chambers occur when individuals with similar beliefs or perspectives surround themselves with like-minded individuals and reinforce their existing views. In such cases, the exchange of knowledge is limited, and alternative viewpoints are often dismissed, hindering the formation of robust collective knowledge.
Conspiracy Theories: the networks created for social communication does not only facilitate flow of ideas, but many other kinds of information and misinformation. Opinions, beliefs, propaganda, and narratives.
These are just two negative examples, there are many more, but I want to draw your attention particularly to the multifaceted role played by narratives, serving as both a powerful tool for communication and a potential source of misinformation.
Narratives shape our understanding of reality and influence our beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. They can create shared meanings, values, and norms within a society or group. They can tap into emotions, appeal to personal experiences, and create a sense of connection between the storyteller and the audience. This persuasive power makes narratives a valuable tool for marketing, politics, and social movements.
At the same time, and for the very same reasons, narratives are used for misinformation in the so-called “post-truth era”, where "truth" becomes a malleable tool for agendas, be it political, ideological, or commercial.
In conclusion, it is not just in scientific environments that we need to cultivate open-mindedness and critical thinking, but in every day life as well, particularly in the “post-truth era”
"The problem with the post-truth world is that it's not just that people are lying. It's that they're not even trying to tell the truth." - Jon Stewart