Danielle Rein made me laugh and was so right when she pointed out that we “organize everything from store shelves to our silverware” and along those same lines, Alex King very appropriately reminds us that “organizing information is a big part of libraries”. For years, organization – or filtering on the way in – was our niche. As Weinberger points out with both story and examples, entire businesses count on a collective need (and habit) to bring “order to chaos”. I could go on and on with even more economic and cultural examples of commercial folks (California Closets, Delicious, Franklin Planners, etc.) that rely on our propensity to shake out our coins and battle “abundance” with their products.
The economic realities of this “filtering” state of mind reminds us that while we perceive that we have “freedom of information and data”, (Sarah Brown ), it “just ain’t so!” What we need to carefully consider is that our filters “cost” us in a variety of ways. Our digital, cultural, socioeconomic, gender, age, personality types, educational and many other filters can, as Jeanne Kooima points out, “put a strangle-hold on the information we put into our libraries” and “weaken our ability to provide the best opportunities” for our patrons (Cassie Nielsen) which is a steep price for consumers to pay. To ensure consumers maintain control of their own learning (Lisa Paquette), and to ensure they have the access and ability to create their own contexts (Deb Kois), we need to throw off, or at the very least, reduce our gatekeeper role, (Sara Baguyos) and not overstep some boundaries (Amy Corey) that have been part of our professional practice for years, decades, even centuries!
Our libraries’ penchant to “capture” information is not inherently a bad thing and our 13 digit classification schematics were developed to help folks, not hinder them. Our original tools were developed with “access” in mind and Weinberger is sometimes guilty of comparing “apples to oranges” when he bashes systems that were developed to actually close the gap between the “haves and have nots” which years ago was defined by one’s access to information and ability to educate themselves. As Scott Dombeck points out, “Criticizing Dewey for his nineteenth century ideas is like faulting the Wright Brothers for not using an auto-pilot during their flights at Kittyhawk”. Meggan Lusczak is also right when she says it is “impossible to have a perfect classification system” and we would be wrong to forget that our tools do indeed, for many folks, “increase the value of abundance” (Jennifer Pace).
I am a part of that population/group that Tim Storer says “wants it all, right now and demand more” and designing library services and tools (which do filter by processes of access, prioritization, and design) that give patrons all the choices they want whenever they want it is tricky. Librarians should balance this thinking with a reminder that, as Charlene Wells said, “Many people want exactly what they ask for and if you throw them a heap of options, they could become annoyed with all the possibilities.” Can we reduce our filtering and design tools that help “patrons become better facilitators of knowledge themselves” (Callie Kallsen) and still make sure patrons don’t miss vital pieces of information that would change their understanding of a topic (Jenifer Malec)? Can we battle our personal (librarians are human) filters and respond without judgment to requests from adults who might want children’s biography or a young person’s forays into adult literature (Sarah Warneke)?
I believe we can. I also believe filtering-on-the-way-in is a bad thing only when the filters are unrecognized, hidden, self-serving and exclusive – acknowledging filters is acknowledging one’s self. Like Marysa Vaughn, I think user-friendly systems are indeed possible. I want my information to be filtered sometimes as I don’t care to know about different kinds of lettuce in detail – I just want some basic information to make my salads pretty. I need my information to be filtered sometimes in medical emergencies. Does that make me a linear or lazy human being? I think not! While I can “get information out of sources” (Kaitlin Haflett), and am able to incorporate my own filters when seeking information (Elizabeth Perez), I appreciate recent developments in our tools and services that provide access in more ways so people can use it (Jennifer Flegle) and that recognize that information doesn’t have to be tied to a single “place” (Ashley Hamernick).
I’ve worked on Intellectual Freedom committees and with other groups all my life to battle filters and any process of tool that restricts access and will continue to do so with passion and integrity. This book prompted me to revisit the ‘why” of my pursuits and support my belief that people should make as many of their own choices as they can. I’m glad you enjoyed the reading and we’ll see what Laura England has to say!
Now I want you to respond to this prompt (just click the comment button as before): “Weinberger (p. 203) says that “Understanding, not knowledge, is what we’re aiming at in most conversations.” My questions for you are – What is the difference between knowledge and understanding and how does/should a world in which “everything is miscellaneous” change its definitions of both “knowledge” and thus “understanding”?
I’ll look forward to your responses!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
I think of knowledge as the personal holdings of data and information each person accumulates throughout their life; whether they are facts or experiences. Understanding goes beyond knowledge in that you must gather and rifle through this body of “knowledge” then synthesize it with other facts or experiences. In a miscellaneous world where leaves are scattered in messy piles, the idea of a “human encyclopedia” is antiquated. The amount of data or knowledge you can generate on demand will not determine your value in the miscellaneous world. What will matter is do you have the knowledge to know where to look among the piles of leaves and know that your understanding is only limited by the rakes or tools used to find the information and meaning you seek. I often find the further I delve into a particular debate, the less I “know”. “From [conversation] comes understanding that can be true and useful even though we will never all understand our world in exactly the same way” (p. 204). I get annoyed when my computer tries to think for me. A computer has a lot of “knowledge”, but little understanding. It cannot search for understanding as humans collectively will do in the third order world.
Understanding in the miscellaneous world will be from multiple perspectives and lead to new knowledge. A medical student might read a blog on stem cell research and new facts will be given to support government funding. Or perhaps the knowledge on the site will further galvanize that independent research groups should lead studies. The third order beckons us to collaborate on websites such as Wikipedia or ArXiv to better understand a topic. Authors who post a paper on ArXiv to solicit further discussion have taken an admirable step. Gaining understanding will no longer be a one way street. The author is no longer claiming their knowledge of a subject is authoritative or absolute. “In the world after the Enlightenment, the cultural task was to build knowledge. In the miscellaneous world, the task is to build meaning, even though we can’t yet know what we’ll do with this new domain” (p. 222). I look forward to sharing thoughts and “thinking out loud” in the miscellaneous world (p. 230). Knowledge will be left to computers and understanding will be collaboratively found in the pool of knowledge the third order offers.
Basically, I equate knowledge with raw data. Having knowledge of something doesn’t necessarily mean you understand what it means. Having knowledge can be as simple as possessing a bunch of collected information. Filtering that information can lead to understanding of a subject. For example, I might purchase 5 books on physics and browse or read them all. One could say that I now have knowledge of physics. However, just because I read some books doesn’t mean I understand one iota of physics. I might be familiar with some areas of physics, but it doesn’t mean I understand the meaning of physics. In a world where “everything is miscellaneous”, Weinberger points out “The tree of knowledge, the tree of species, the breakdown of the human body into major biological subsystems, the division of consciousness into reason and emotion….all are ways of understanding, not ways of looking up information” (p. 71). In the digital age, we have so much information at our disposal. Having that information available to us is a great resource, but it’s not just the knowledge we collect. It’s how we use it to find understanding that gives it value. Today’s world needs to change its focus on knowledge seekers to that of seekers of truth. Meaning is truth. Without getting too philosophical, I assume that everyone at one time or struggles with the question of “the meaning of life”. As an amateur buff, my wife sometimes jokes with me that I should go on the game show Jeopardy and play to win some money since I regularly do well with many of the questions while watching the show from home. However, I joke back and tell her that I feel more like Cliff Clavin from the show “Cheers” who knows too much useless trivia, but not the actual meaning of most of my knowledge. We must change our definition of knowledge to keep up with the modern world. One of the standard definitions of knowledge is to see things. With the easy access of the internet, people from all over the world and walks of life can now “see” things that used to be difficult for them to perceive Knowledge in the future should be defined as seeing the common, but also the hidden and rare miscellaneous items that can lead to better meaning. The only caveat to this new definition of knowledge is how it’s going to be organized in the future. All bets are off when it comes to organizing knowledge. There will always have to be some type of control mechanisms, but the changing world dictates that the less in place is the new classification system. The definition of understanding should also change and become stricter. We now live in a social world which brings us together through e-mail, blogs, social networks, and localized groups. Weinberger (p. 131) states that “It is the wisdom of groups, employing social expertise, by which the connections among people help guide what the group learns and knows”. Future generations will need to use this concept to gain meaning from the enormous piles of miscellaneous data available to everyone. Instead of a single person making a decision on the understanding or meaning of an item, whole groups will scrutinize that person’s decision and give their opinion alongside it. This group effort should minimize closed mind thinking and narrow-mindedness in the third order. This third order invites collaboration of many individuals to find knowledge and then bring understanding to it.
Knowledge is about factual information based on learning and experience. We all know that 2+2=4. This is a fact. Whereas we don’t all know that California Tacos and More has the best chicken tacos ever. That is because this is my understanding of their tacos. Not everyone will agree with this understanding, because it is my own personal interpretation of it.
Due to the miscellaneous-ness of our world, “some knowledge used to be true, and some isn’t true yet. If knowledge is king, the royal bloodline isn’t as pure as we once thought”(Weinberger p.218). Even our current knowledge, which we take to be a solid foundation for our understanding of the world, is changing rapidly with the onslaught of new knowledge that is brought forth every day.
We need understanding in order to make sense of all of this knowledge, and we can do that by thinking out loud in our conversations with each other. As Weinberger says, “Making sense of what we know is the broader task, a task for understanding within the infrastructure of meaning”(p. 222). Knowledge calls for order, whereas understanding allows for the limitless miscellaneous of our world. It gives meaning to the knowledge, and allows us to participate in “the broader task” and converse with one another to increase our collective understanding.
To answer the question of what is the difference between knowledge and understanding, I guess my short answer would be that knowledge is the facts that are known about something and understanding is how you interpret and give meaning to those facts. After reading Chapter 10 in Weinberger’s Everything is Miscellaneous (2007), you get a much better idea of the differences between knowledge and understanding and how they have evolved and changed with the advent of the digital, or miscellaneous, age. In comparing Britannica and Wikipedia, Weinberger shows us that knowledge is limited by space, in Britannica’s case, because Britannica is a paper source; whereas “at Wikipedia, topics assume their natural size” (p. 207) because “Wikipedia is a prime example of information sprawl, the natural topology of the miscellaneous” (p. 207). Wikipedia is a great example of how knowledge is being commoditized as Weinberger calls it. This “commoditization of knowledge frees us to understand” (p. 215), and “Understanding is metaknowledge” (p. 215).
To get to the heart of the changing definitions for knowledge and understanding in this miscellaneous world of ours, you just need to look at some of the web businesses. Examples abound such as Zillow, Propsmart, Google and Flickr. Weinberger calls these metabusinesses, because they “add value to information” (p.227). Google Maps is a prime example of a metabusiness that is integrating information from other businesses and making that information available to everyone. Knowledge will always be important, but it will play a much different role, and its “new place will be in an ever-present mesh of social meaning” (p. 222). The more important task now is “making sense of what we know” (p. 222) which is “a task for understanding within the infrastructure of meaning” (p. 222).
The miscellaneous digital world is causing us to make changes very rapidly and, “freed of paper, we will continue our long march of knowledge” (p. 229).
Weinberger states that, “Knowing is something done by individuals. It is something that happens inside your brain.” (p. 144). The example Weinberger used to show knowledge is the tests that students take each year that measures the knowledge they have obtained. I think this is a great way to explain what knowledge is. It is concrete and something that can be equally known and measured by the masses. For instance, everyone knows that water is wet. That is common knowledge, but that the water is cold is understood by few. Understanding has different measures for different people. We each have our own definition of cold because our understanding relates to what we have experienced. Weinberger appears to agree, “…even though we will never all understand our world in exactly the same way.” (p. 204). Both knowledge and understanding have their pros and cons. Knowledge deals with facts and information that have been agreed upon. Understanding is a personal interpretation of information. As Weinberger says, “What is a weakness in knowledge is a strength of understanding.” (p. 204) The way people in the twenty-first century work towards understanding and knowledge is leading to a new definition to what is truly known and what is understood. As consumers of information in a digital world, people are now required to decide what information they are receiving is knowledge or just understood to be true by the person posting the information. As professionals in the information industry we help lead people to knowledge but they must lead themselves to understanding and interpret the facts for themselves.
Knowledge and understanding are different in that what I know is completely different from what I understand. I know that there is a war in Iraq; however I cannot understand what it is like to be a part of that war. I have not served in the military, do not live in Iraq, or have a loved one that serves or lives in Iraq. Therefore, my knowledge of the war is very different from my understanding of it, however because of technology; I have access to videos, blogs, papers, diaries, etc… that can increase my understanding of the war in a way that wasn’t possible in the era before the internet. Not only do I have access to this information, but it is immediate access. This is a prime example of how the world in which “everything is miscellaneous” has highlighted the difference between what we know and what we understand. The digital order has changed the way we obtain knowledge and has increased our capabilities of truly understanding the knowledge and information we find. As the way we obtain information and data changes, so does what we know and understand. Now, not only can I read about something to gain knowledge about the subject, but with the advent of the digital order and all the different ways there are to obtain information, I can also gain an understanding of a topic that wasn’t as readily available before. Not only can I read what others have learned, but I can also share what I have learned with others, thus increasing my understanding of the knowledge I have obtained. As Weinberger says, “As people communicate online, that conversation becomes part of a lively, significant, public digital knowledge-rather than chatting for one moment with a small group of friends and colleagues, every person potentially has access to a global audience. Taken together, that conversation also creates a mode of knowing we’ve never had before.” (p. 146)
Knowledge is what we know. Understanding is our ability to relate to a situation. We, as library students, are gaining the knowledge we will need to serve our patrons and communities in libraries. When we graduate, we will, in theory, be able to successfully manage our own libraries. However, until we get on the job experience, we won't understand what we have learned. If we don't experience first hand the actual managing of staff or cataloging of resources, all we have learned are a bunch of useless theories.
Weinberger says (p. 203, 204) that “Traditionally, difference has been a sign that knowledge hasn't been reached: There can be only one knowledge because the world is one way and not another.” This viewpoint assumes that there is some kind of knowledge floating around out there and once we find everything will be coming up roses and there won't be any more differences or misunderstandings. But this viewpoint overlooks the fact that, at risk of sounding cliched, “everything is miscellaneous.” The world is so diverse that we will never be able to organize it all into one, neat, little system. As Weinberger says (p. 198) “The task of knowing is no longer to see the simple. It is to see the complex.”
In our world today, we need information specialists who are not only knowledgeable, but also understand how to sort and use the knowledge they possess.
I interpret knowledge to be what you know. These are facts or opinions about subjects and such that you hold onto in that database we call a brain. Understanding is the deeper meaning behind your knowledge, it might be why you interpret your opinions and knowledge a certain way. Its the basis behind your knowledge and is influenced by personal experiences. The knowledge might be the same but the understanding is unique to the individual, "in those conversations we hear multiple understandings of the world, for conversation thrives on difference" (p. 203). Every individual has a different understanding. What I read about history, I might understand better because I like history. However, I might not understand a discussion about science because this I do not find interesting. In the simplest terms Knowledge is the facts and understanding is how the individual interprets the facts. For the miscellanious world, we are living in a time where knowledge is everywhere (i.e. internet) but however understanding is harder to come by. This is because it is hard to find the real true knowledge when the internet gives you so many options. An individual today must search harder and has more options available to form a true understanding of what their knowledge is. Knowledge today is here and easy to find, "the task is to build meaning" (p. 222)
Knowledge comes form what the philosophers did and do. They sit in that room and think.(203) This deep thought and thorough understanding of something is what knowledge is. There are people who study in one area for years and years. They become very knowledgeable about the subject and can explain it to others. This is where understanding comes in. as librarians; we cannot have a deep knowledge of every subject in out libraries. We can read up on different areas and find data. The data we collect gives us a better understanding. If librarians gather an understanding about what is on out selves or in out data bases, it allows us to help out patrons out more. If we are just knowledgeable about a few subjects, the help that we can give is more limited.
There are definitions that I had originally linked with “knowledge” and “understanding”. Knowledge to me was just facts or a familiarity with something, where as understanding went beyond knowledge, where you know the facts, but you have come to conclusions on your own with those facts to create a more concrete set of thoughts about a topic. Weinberger makes some good points about both though. One being on understanding, he states that “conversation…is always about what’s interesting enough to justify the time and wind. From it comes understanding that can be true and useful even though we will never all understand our world in exactly the same way” (p. 204). This makes me think that to understand something; we have to have an interest in it. Though I believe this is mostly true, there are many things I understand but have no interest in, and things I am interested in, but will never understand. The second part of this statement, I believe is completely true. Everyone has different experiences, interests, beliefs, which will lead them on a different path of understanding. Weinberger talks quite a bit about Wikipedia in Chapter 10, and I think that it a good example for the second half of that statement by him. Ten people could to go a Wikipedia page about Charles Manson, but with where our interests, morals, and past experiences take us, we could learn and understand Charles Manson in completely different way. I may look more into the religion aspect of his life, where someone may be more interested in his victims or his prison life. All will lead us to different understandings of him.
Weinberger says that “…we’ve assumed knowledge is an accurate representation of reality, and the real world cannot be self-contradictory” (p.101). I think this speaks directly to the miscellaneous-ness that Weinberger is addressing. With everything having multiple understandings and nothing fitting into neat little packages like we are trained it is supposed to, we used to just assume that the only source we could receive information from (like the newspaper, or TV news) was accurate and true. We need the miscellaneous to help us see the other options. So we can see past just the surface of information and dig to the roots of where it might be coming from and see others perspectives which may change how we see the world.
I know that my car has an engine, transmission, and other stuff that makes it work. In knowing this I have knowledge about my car. Understanding what these things do is a completely different story. I don’t understand how my car runs but I know that it does. Poetry is also a good example. I can read it, quote it, and name the author, but I couldn’t tell you what the poem was about because it takes a special person to understand poetry. Having knowledge is useless if a person can’t understand what they know. People on Jeopardy have tons of useless facts in their brains, that’s why they are on Jeopardy and not out saving the world. “…we’ve thought that something is either knowledge or it’s not” (p. 218). There are so many in-betweens with knowledge and information. Some knowledge, like the kind found on Jeopardy, is useless and other forms of knowledge are interesting and life-changing. Knowledge and understanding are two different concepts but you can’t have one without the other.
In a world where “everything is miscellaneous” the definition of knowledge needs to be broken down more. “…in the miscellaneous world, knowledge comes in gradations and varieties” (p. 218). Weinberger talks about how knowledge used to be static, like an ultimatum almost, it either is knowledge or it isn’t. In the world of miscellaneousness there are all types of knowledge, even knowledge that doesn’t exist yet. Because of this the old definition does not fit at all. The digital world has expanded peoples’ knowledge and has also expanded the use of the term knowledge.
To me I think that the difference between knowledge and understanding is like the difference between data and information. You nee data to have information and likewise, you need knowledge to have understanding. You can't have the latter without the former, but you can have the former without the latter. Everyone has the ability to have knowledge about a particular subject or idea, but not everyone may be able to achieve or gain an understanding of it.
Knowledge, whether we want to admit it or not, is not stable. It's constantly changing, being updated, made obsolete, etc. Because of that, understanding of that knowledge must also change, must adapt, to integrate the new or different knowledge. Even though it knowledge is constantly changing, it is universal. A particular piece of knowledge isn't going to change from one location to another. The understanding of that piece of knowledge however, can and probably should change/be different. We must accept that knowledge can and could easily change and because of that, be willing and ready to come to a new understanding of that knowledge.
Weinberger states that "It's not what you know, and it's not even how you know. It's how much knowledge you give away" (p. 230). Librarians should doing their best to gain as much knowledge about the topics on their shelves as possible so that they can pass on that knowledge to the patrons, and thus allowing the patrons to come to their own understanding. Yes, it is perfectly fine and acceptable for librarians to have an understanding of topics in their shelves, but with that also comes the responsibility of making sure that they don't press their understanding onto their patrons instead of allow them to come to their own understanding.
To sum it all up, we must realize that knowledge is universal and understanding is personal and unique. We all have the potential to know about something, but what we make of it is what makes stand apart from others.
Knowledge is a lot like the scientific method. There are the ideas, the observations, experiences/experiments, data, and conclusions. I believe knowledge is the act of the method which holds valuable insight and thus leads to a conclusion of that knowledge. However, understanding is achieved once that conclusion is found and decided on. It’s the grasping of how things are connected, the methods used to come to a conclusion. Understanding is also an appreciation of knowledge and letting it make sense without throwing bias is sometimes a hard task.
Perhaps in a world where “everything is miscellaneous” we do need to change our definition of the two words to fit into the perception of everyone. One may look at understanding as being capable, while another may look at it as a constant thing to strive for. “In conversation we think out loud together, trying to understand” (p 203). An entire group of people conversing about the same subject matter may all feel they understand the root of what is being said, however, every one of them could easily understand the matter in an utterly different light. Because of this, knowledge is held within everyone, but variations in the understanding of the knowledge can be stored much differently. Perhaps, understanding should be defined with the words: perception or perceive in the dictionary. Knowledge is often connected with words such as facts and truths. The catch there is though, just like the scientific method, we can prove and prove again using the method until it becomes what we call “fact” but to some they may perceive what others believe to be “the whole truth and nothing but the truth” as simply an understanding of a subject and a generalization, but not a honest form of knowledge.
When I was debating the difference between knowledge and understanding I immediately thought of my son, Aaron, who is an “A” student in 5th grade. He is a wealth of knowledge. He can spout forth a great deal of miscellaneous information, but is not yet able to analyze most of it well. I believe Aaron’s grades are so high because he is being given so much metadata, and he is decidedly guided in processing that information. Some subjects he clearly “understands” what he is being taught, but others he is only obtaining the “knowledge” required to pass.
Weinberger states on (p.218) that “…we’ve thought something either is knowledge or it’s not. But in the miscellaneous world, knowledge comes in gradations and varieties.” He discusses in his book that different levels of acceptance of information depend on where someone finds it. My knowledge of politics is minimal, but my ability to post that knowledge on a web site for anyone to find means that the reader must analyze what credibility I might have on the subject. Finding political information on a well known and well respected site allows the reader to accept what they see as more reliable. With the World Wide Web, knowledge is more accessible than ever. It is this over abundance of information pushes people to see it through different glasses. Each person will have their own “biased” process to use while evaluating the knowledge. Even the interpretations of the new knowledge will be miscellaneous. The definition of knowledge grows as the web is built. Each new link may expand knowledge, but may never help one to understand what is being said.
Understanding is changed because of the different varieties of knowledge that we may receive. As stated in the previous paragraph, people must try to analyze the information they receive about a given topic in an effort to understand more about that topic. It was much easier to understand things when we felt “our passivity was an inevitable part of learning” (p.143). Now that we must play an active role in finding and analyzing information it is both difficult and easy. With our ability to “swing through the vines” (p. 208), our understanding will likely differ from other people. The third order does allow for people to reach the same final destination independent of the vines they reach for though. The discussions, tags, comments, and reviews (to name a few) help add value to a topic and potentially lead readers to the same conclusions. If not, they will continue to be discussion until a “Neutral Point of View” (p.137) is reached, or the subject loses its importance. With the advent of the WWW, understanding must be stretched into a much broader term.
Knowledge or Cheating
In the November, 2009 issue of American Libraries, author David Weinberger says, “Take away a physicist’s whiteboard, and she can’t do her work. She can’t think. So thinking is an external process, and if you change the external tool with which we think, then you also change the way that we think.” We should ask the question of that statement “Does it really?”Is social knowledge something new and if so, what are the implications for how we learn, think, and know? In his work Everything is miscellaneous Weinberger states “But knowledge is not our only project or our single highest calling. Making sense of what we know is the broader task, a task for understanding within the infrastructure of meaning.”(p. 222) What is knowledge, how do we gain it, what does it mean, and how do we use it? These questions have been debated since the era of Socrates and Plato. In fact an entire branch of philosophy is devoted to the study of knowledge: Epistemology. There is not general agreement as to the nature of knowledge; in fact some epistemologists argue that the written word itself is false knowledge
Weinberger believes that we can gain new knowledge and insights through social learning, aided by artificial intelligence. In Miscellaneous he only uses the term artificial intelligence once (p. 194), but clearly his proposal for an ontological order where algorithms draw inference from our search queries, and build on the queries of others, is nothing short of artificial intelligence (AI). Many information scientists think we are only a few discoveries away from AI, others call Weinberger’s ideas “metacrap”. If true, could we benefit from this way of learning? This debate reminds me of what author Maryanne Wolf relates in her 2007 book Proust and the Squid: the Story and Science of the Reading Brain. In chapter 3 Wolf tells how Socrates worried about what would be lost to humans in the transition from oral to written culture. He felt that reading was intellectual cheating. But reading transformed the way we think, and it literally causes physiological changes to our brains. Is Weinberger proposing that we cheat again? It will only be cheating if we allow the algorithms to draw our inferences for us. Furthermore knowledge is more than an external process. As unscientific as it sounds there are factors other than data that define what we know and how we know it. In fact, some philosophers say that experience, feeling, intuition, hunches, all play a part in what we call knowledge. Understanding does not dwell in our mind alone, but in our bodies as well. All of us learn and process information differently. This is the point that Wolf makes in Proust. This is the possibility available through the digital age. Choice. In the halls of the Library of Congress are a series of murals by painter Robert Reid. Reid depicts the figures of “Wisdom”, “Understanding”, “Knowledge”, and “Philosophy” standing together. Across from them stand “Taste”, “Sight”, “Smell”, “Hearing”, and “Touch”. The artist implies that truth is not merely information, but how we feel about ourselves in relation to that information.
Knowledge is the facts and information that we gain through our learning and our experiences. Understanding is reached when we have accumulated those facts and after combining them with our experiences are able to apply them to real world situations. The world in which everything is miscellaneous can alter those definitions. Weinberger states that "knowledge is at most one click away from everything else that is not knowledge" (p. 201). This unfortunate side effect of the miscellaneous world has a great impact upon knowledge. While in an ideal world, people would check their sources and know where they are getting their information from, in this age people want their information fast and simple. "Simple arguments, simple ideas, simple language" (p. 209), as Weinberger puts it. The rise of the world wide web and its ever growing ability to reach the masses has allowed people to pick out others who share their viewpoint, causing people to merely hear "more and louder echoes of their own voices" (p. 201). This can create a false sense of understanding. Understanding is reached through confrontation. It is hard to have a true understanding if we are not discussing the differences that other people bring to the table through their experiences and knowledge.
The difference between knowledge and understanding is simple—knowledge is our accumulation of random facts and tidbits of information while understanding is taking those accumulated facts and thinking them through or analyzing them for the bigger picture. I can say I know Shakespeare because I know when he died, read a few of his plays, can recite lines, and regurgitate facts but that does not mean that I understand the more complex aspects of Shakespeare such as the themes of his plays or the relationships between themes and characters. Knowledge is superficial in that it is only surface deep while understanding is more profound in that it delves below the surface for the connections that are not immediately obvious.
In a world in which everything is miscellaneous, the definition of knowledge changes slightly because knowledge is anywhere, everywhere, and easily assessable to anyone willing to go out and look for it. Instead of being restricted to print, knowledge is now all over the web and anyone can contribute, not just professionals. Weinberg wrote that “the commoditization of knowledge frees us to understand…[and] we understand something when we see how the pieces fit together. Understanding is metaknowledge” (Weinberger, 2007, p. 215). Since knowledge is everywhere, we as consumers are able to garner knowledge from multiple venues, thereby piecing together the bigger picture more easily than we could before (with print resources only). This piecing together in turn allows us to understand things more effectively by helping us to make connections. We’re able to take the vast amount of random facts and build from them, using the web to get a better and deeper understanding of topics. Weinberger also writes that, “in the miscellanized world, every idea is discussed, so no idea remains simple for long” (Weinberger, 2007, p. 213). This means that knowledge moves beyond the superficial and towards complexity, making the random facts we know more usable. Being able to access information anywhere and everywhere allows for increased collaboration an expanded knowledge base which allows for everyone to be a more informed citizen.
To me, knowledge is just a piece of information that has been processed by the brain and stored on a shelf in the corner. We can get by with doing next to nothing with the knowledge we possess. We must fully understand the meaning and implications of that knowledge in order to do anything significant with it. For example, I am a musician and I have quite a few friends who are musicians as well. They all know a lot about music and different works or styles of music. However, some don’t fully understand the science behind it or what exactly it is that they are listening to or playing. They are not able to appreciate the minute little details because they simply don’t understand the music, though they could tell you various random facts about it.
In this miscellaneous world, our “task is to build meaning” (p. 222). We need to build an understanding of all the little bits of information and knowledge we have accumulated over the years and, essentially, throughout time. However, “[m]aking sense of what we know is the broader task” at hand (p. 222). Because “no idea remains simple for long,” it is difficult for every individual to gain an adequate understanding in the ever-changing world (p. 213). Nevertheless, simply taking that knowledge that’s been sitting away in storage and talking about it openly with others can open whole new worlds of thoughts and ideas.
To me knowledge is something you can be aware of but not completely comprehend what it is all about. Someone can have knowledge on a topic or subject but may not have all the facts and information that is necessary to understand that topic or issue fully. For example, many people are aware of what steroids are and why people take them but many of us do not understand how steroids work inside the human body to get the results they do on the outside. Understanding material however, means a person fully comprehends the subject or issue but is also fully capable of putting their understanding into practice.
By being able to access information anytime and anywhere through the internet, media, and newspaper all of these resources can relay the information to their audience however they wish; so we may assume we fully understand a topic being discussed in the media but in reality we may not have all the facts and information given to us. The ability to access all of these resources and digital resources available on the web gives us many different viewpoints of knowledge and understanding that can be shared with anyone. As librarians it is not only our responsibility to be knowledgeable but also to fully understand material so that we may better serve our patrons.
Since there is so much information and knowledge out there, it is easy to just take other people's word for it and not try to think about it and understand it for themselves. Weinberger says that understanding "can be true and useful even though we will never all understand our world in exactly the same way"(p. 204). That's basically what he means by everything is miscellaneous, even if we don't find and use our information in the same way, we can still find our own understanding in it. When we have a conversation with someone else, we don't want to just learn something, and then forget what it means, we want a way to apply it to our own lives and use it in our own way. If we all understood everying the same, we could cease to move forward because everyone would have the same ideas.
I believe that they are very similar in meaning...but Knowledge is something that is gained, and is subjective, while Understanding is something that requires knowledge and is objective.
Post a Comment