In a post in my blook on Conversational Leadership, I explore the notion that, as individuals, we know very little compared to what we think we know. A significant portion of what we consider knowledge is actually just beliefs that are based on trusting the statements of others.
Using examples like the motion of the Earth around the sun and human-caused climate change, I show how most of us accept facts like these without ever verifying them for ourselves. We outsource our knowledge to teachers, scientists, books, and other authorities.
While we may logically think through some of what we are told, we lack the time, resources, and expertise to honestly look at the primary evidence behind most of our beliefs. Our individual knowledge is more an illusion or delusion than hard-earned understanding.
I discuss research showing a surprising number of Americans think the sun orbits the Earth, revealing that many simply trust their senses over scientific authority. With climate change, most of us believe or disbelieve based on faith in certain institutions, not real comprehension.
Knowledge is mainly communal, based on tribal affiliations, yet we retain an illusion that we know more than we do. We are ignorant of the shallow nature of our knowledge.
You can read my full post here. Let me know your thoughts.
Tweet: Do We Really Know What We Think We Know?
Knowledge Letter: Issue: 281 (Subscribe)
Tags: knowledge delusion (11)
RSS: Blog Feed
Photo Credits: Midjourney (Public Domain)
These topics are intricate, so I encourage the use of specific and straightforward language for clarity. For the context of this post, let’s define “knowledge” as information accessible to our senses and cognition; “fact” as a state of reality independent of thinking (i.e., opinions, knowledge, measurements, etc.); and “belief” as a conscious choice to treat knowledge as fact.
Since many of us place excessive emphasis on thinking throughout our lives, we often find ourselves confused about reality. Knowledge doesn’t equate to fact. However, due to our conditioning to oppose religion (faith, belief) with science (knowledge), we impulsively make this connection. As outlined at the outset, neither of these qualifies as facts; they are constructs of our thought processes. An idea is never a fact.
If we are concerned about facts, it’s imperative to examine the innate nature of reality, which is not a product of our thinking. Therefore, it remains untouched by perspectives, opinions, and viewpoints. Indeed, knowledge is communal. We can only access a singular human consciousness with our brains. Our so-called unique individual experiences get translated into the language and framework of collective human cognition, stripping them of their distinctiveness. In doing so, we renounce our access to facts.
Concluding that unverified knowledge is illusory is insufficient, as knowledge is rooted in agreements, assumptions and conformity, not in facts. This distinction becomes especially stark when comparing technological methods (where past patterns are more or less predictable in the future) to the human psyche. The latter, when liberated from the fragmented and limited nature of memory (brain), defies temporality and patterns.
I’m uncertain if this resonates, but the core argument is that transcending illusion isn’t merely a rhetorical journey from belief to self-verified knowledge. It requires a more profound grasp of the structure and mechanisms of thought, time, and choiceless awareness free of any authoritative influence.
Thank you for your comments Juha-Matti.
It certainly does resonate.
As I often do with material I wish to analyze more deeply, I have copied your text into my Evernote database and highlighted your key points in various colors to enable me to think about it in greater depth and add my own annotation.
I like your opening statement about using “specific and straightforward language for clarity”. I always try to do this in my blook and am wondering whether, I have failed to do this sufficiently in my post. I plan to review this carefully.
I particularly like your definition of “belief” as a conscious choice to treat knowledge as fact.
I also agree with you when you say “the core argument is that transcending illusion isn’t merely a rhetorical journey from belief to self-verified knowledge. It requires a more profound grasp of the structure and mechanisms of thought, time, and choiceless awareness free of any authoritative influence.”
Thanks David