Knowledge

What do we mean by knowledge? Is it just a collection of facts? Or is it just an awareness of some ideas? I feel that a more correct description of knowledge could be that it is the absence of ignorance. Knowledge reigns where ignorance ceases to exist. Knowledge is not just born out of nothing; all the knowledge possessed by mankind today is a result of accumulation over ages; accumulation of experience, facts, theories, ideas, beliefs and all that we regard today as knowledge.

What exactly again is ignorance? A quantitative way of describing it would be to say that it is the failure to understand something in its actuality; in the way it actually exists. When do we say that we understand something as it is? Well, one could say that we do so when there is a common agreement that it is this way; when we have no contradictions to it. For example, 2+2=4 is an axiomatic statement in mathematics; we believe that it is this way, as we have been told so, and we don’t seem to find any established idea contradicting this. Thus, it seems as if our knowledge is based commonly on our agreement on certain facts and ideas.

Agreement upon something universally is not an easy thing. When a new idea or fact is presented, we do not accept it without reasoning. There are counter arguments and theories. This is the way it has always been to a large extent. Most of western scientific knowledge was founded when a few ambitious men challenged the statements of the Church, which the laity had till then accepted as the supreme truth, unthinkable of being challenged. Had it not been for the daring of these courageous few, the world would have been drastically different from the way it is today. Why, there are always those who disagree upon any new idea upon its introduction.

Disagreements don’t imply an end in themselves; they pave the way for further enquiry into the topic and lead to a deeper understanding of the same. If all of us choose to agree upon something, there would be hardly any need for further study into the intrigue of the idea under consideration. Better put, we may not be exaggerating in saying that disagreements lead to more concrete agreements.

But is disagreement always justified? Is it necessary that there should always be a section of mankind opposed to common agreement upon an issue? Rather, is knowledge founded solely on the basis of disagreements alone? Consider this – We reassure ourselves of our knowledge by disproving those who oppose it. What if all of us agree upon something, without anyone questioning it? Would we ever bother to test the authenticity of our belief? Even if it be this way, what about the generations who follow our own? Will they blindly accept whatever is laid in front of them? Certainly not, as it just makes a mockery of knowledge. The example of the church’s beliefs and the enquiry of scientists mentioned earlier fits aptly here.

It thus seems that for a certain knowledge to pass on to generations and to survive through the ages, it has to be questioned time and again, and it should come out shining each time. Such enquiry based upon disagreements would certainly strengthen it. I certainly believe that most of our knowledge is due to those who disagreed rather than those who agreed. Because, if it weren’t so, we would have no right to differentiate between what we call our knowledge, and what we call blind faith.