The Case for Knowledge
An Article of the Modern Survival Guide, Vol. II
This series is titled the Modern Survival Guide for a reason — everything here is supposed to help you survive the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. To my mind, one of the most critical components of that goal is to keep acquiring knowledge, as much as we are able. I’ve seen what happens when people don’t, and it’s the same sad story over and over again. I have no wish to see it repeated.
We are currently wading through an epidemic of ignorance. This is a statement of fact, not of belief or conjecture; I live in a country where the anti-vaxx movement is busily claiming the lives of people every day, where the news is often propaganda, and where there are a great many people who would rather substitute ideology or dogma for fact. Welcome to the USA, circa 2021. It’s a show.
Today I’d like to make a case for knowledge. That is to say, I want to actually sit down and explain why it’s a good idea to know things — factual things — rather than just blunder about believing whatever seems to be convenient at the time. As I’ve said at other times in this series, I’m kind of shocked that this type of article still needs a home in this day and age, but here we go anyway.
Let us assume the following points:
- We are alive for a brief time, after which we are dead.
- We don’t know for sure what death is like, or if there is an afterlife.
- Life is a mixture of joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure, satisfaction and need.
- Good things happening to us are preferable to bad things happening to us.
- Our quality of life is at least partially within our control.
If we take these points together, I would propose the argument that since we are only alive briefly, we don’t know if we get another go, we know that our lives have variable quality, and we know that we can control some of that quality, therefore we should work to improve the quality of our lives.
In other words, if this is all we get, and we have no proof otherwise, it makes sense to have a good quality of life because having a good quality of life is preferable to having a poor quality of life. I think that argument actually holds up pretty well even if you do believe in an afterlife (because most systems of belief do not require us to live in destitution in order to gain a nice afterlife), but putting that part of the premise in doubt really adds spice to the mix.
Now, because some of my readers are presumably people, I’m going to further assume that not everyone agrees with this argument (because some people are ascetics or masochists) or believe that the afterlife is infinitely more important than this life. But for the vast majority of people, I think this argument holds up. It certainly does for me. I much prefer to write my articles from the air-conditioned comfort of my home, with a warm mug of coffee at hand, listening to the delicate rhythms of Metallica in the background. And I work to make sure that this state of affairs continues.
Let’s add an additional argument to the game: I would argue that ignorance is not bliss, and is detrimental to our long-term quality of life.
I set up this argument as follows:
- A good quality of life is dependent on our ability to control the world around us; without some degree of control, we cannot shape our lives to reflect the quality of life we desire.
- All control starts with an understanding of some piece of the world. I can’t buy a house without some understanding of the idea of money, for example. I can’t buy a house at a good rate without at least a passing knowledge of the mortgage industry and home prices in my area. And I can’t buy a good house unless I know what makes a house good.
- Ignorance is indicative of a lack of control, and consequently represents a chaotic force in our lives. It’s not just a case of “that which we don’t know can hurt us,” it’s also a case of “that which we don’t know can direct us.” When we don’t know what we don’t know, we are at the mercy of a chaotic universe, and life will simply push us around.
- Therefore ignorance is bad, because it represents a likely source of bad things happening to us.
Let me put that into a bit more context. Ignorance is not bliss; it’s just not knowing that you’re about to get hurt. Bliss is a state of perfect happiness, and while a wise person can achieve bliss, it must be done in knowledge of that which we cannot control, not in ignorance of those things. Ignorance just sets you up for the fall.
For example, if I was sold a variable-rate mortgage in 2006 and I didn’t know anything about it other than “the bank will give me a house if I sign this piece of paper,” I’d think I was doing pretty well. I had a house, right? My family had a roof over their head, right? Life is good, right? And then along comes 2007, and suddenly I’m in a lot of trouble. Arguably I made an ignorant choice — I selected a loan option that was dependent on outside factors over which I had no control, with no backup plan if those factors went against me. This is just one example, but it highlights several of the points under discussion.
To take a more recent example, I can think of no better example of modern ignorance than the anti-vaxx movement. They simply do not understand or in some cases willfully misunderstand the science behind the issue, and they are actively costing lives every day. Being anti-vaxx is immediately, inherently detrimental to one’s quality of life, especially in the middle of a global pandemic. To observe that in real life we simply have to watch the news, and the circumstances around the casualty figures.
So far we have the following arguments: quality of life is important, and worth improving; and ignorance is bad for quality of life. To this I will add one more:
Knowledge is necessary in order to increase our quality of life.
This argument goes as follows:
- Our quality of life is important and should be improved when possible.
- Quality of life is dependent, in part, on the degree of control we can exert over events in our lives.
- Ignorance decreases the amount of control we have over events in our lives.
- Knowledge increases the control we can exert over events in our lives by enabling us to answer “why” and “how” questions. If I know why an event occurs, and how it occurs, that gives me some opportunity to potentially change the event to my liking.¹
- Therefore I should work to increase my knowledge, because more knowledge allows more control, which increases my odds of bettering my quality of life.
There are some important caveats to this argument. First, all knowledge is not equal. Specifically, the only knowledge that lets me exert control over events in my life is knowledge that is true. If I think apples fall to the ground because invisible tentacles lash out from the Earth to draw them down, as opposed to gravity, that changes the assumptions and conclusions I draw about how things fall. If I believe that sickness is caused by bodily humors rather than bacterial and viral infection, that changes how I respond to illness. Bad knowledge is often worse than ignorance, because at least you know where you stand with ignorance (chaos), but incorrect knowledge will frequently cause you to make things worse.
Second, I must have a system for determining which knowledge is correct. Otherwise I don’t have a way of systematically judging which knowledge to accept, which leaves me open to bad knowledge. Fortunately for me, such a system already exists, and it’s called the Scientific Method. So that’s sorted out. By that metric, though, I should not accept knowledge that does not conform to this system of verification, and I should take steps to verify knowledge before accepting it as fact in all cases. I should also keep a keen eye on theories or assumptions which cannot be tested by scientific means, and avoid coming to conclusions about them in the absence of proof. It is better to say “I don’t know,” than to say “I don’t have any information, but I think it works like this.”
Third, I must acknowledge at all times that my current understanding is my understanding, and could be flawed. The universe does not give a toss about my understanding. The universe does whatever it’s going to do. Therefore, if my understanding does not reflect reality, it is my job to adjust it. It is not reality’s job to adjust to me, and I should not expect it to do so. To be human is to err, and any assumption of knowledge must include the provision that the knowledge might be in error. Accordingly, I should keep any eye on circumstances or experiments which disprove things I think are true, and when necessary change my mind.
To sum up the case for knowledge, then, my complete argument is as follows:
We should increase the quality of our lives. To do that, we should acquire and curate knowledge. We should actively strive to reduce ignorance, since it is not conducive to a good quality of life. And we should acquire knowledge that is true, according to a systematic evaluation, with the assumption that from time to time we will be wrong, and the goal of increasing our understanding. To do otherwise is to actively increase our ignorance, thereby reducing our quality of life.
Is this the only argument in favor of the acquisition of knowledge? Of course not. Is it the best argument? Perhaps not that either. Is it even original? Fat chance. But it’s my argument, and it makes logical sense to me.
¹Because “why” can give me an idea of when something might occur in the future by identifying things that might cause it to happen, and “how” tells me how it works. Once I know how it works, I can identify methods of making it work differently.
