Sincrético

I’ve been researching for the past weeks whether knowledge is able to grow within social contexts. Throughout the literature that I came across, there is a stark distinction between scientific and non-scientific knowledge. Philosophers of science such as Popper don’t even consider the product of the “episteme” to be knowledge at all, and it has mainly to do with the question of truth. That’s a difficult and controversial topic, but for the purpose of my research I assume that any form of knowledge, scientific or not, must be assumed to bear, at least in social contexts, a shared agreement as to what it is to be “true”. I will no longer differentiate scientific and non-scientific knowledge, and will call it just knowledge.

So, assuming that knowledge to be called as such must be true, is it possible to maintain, and to measure, that it can grow, even if it can’t be fully objectified? Let’s consider for example culture, which I consider to be a subset of knowledge. Almost everything we do is somehow strongly influenced by culture, our surroundings, our previous knowledge of objects and concepts, in other words, our “operational” knowledge, which shapes our actions and tastes. As I am writing this, I am drawing concepts from past memories, working within a set of rules of communication (the blogosphere) and expecting a certain  way understanding from the part of eventual readers, a shared culture if you will. The very text you are reading is a product of combination of external and internal knowledge and that has gone to a certain cognitive work-through, grounded on mental and cultural processes. Some readers might use some of the ideas found on this text, combine with others and with their own and create other texts, contributing to an chain of narratives that will eventually demarcate the boundaries of one specific subculture.

The growth of this knowledge is almost impossible to objectify. Therefore we must resort to other means such as the understanding of the communication technology with which this knowledge is produced and communicated to attempt to quantify it. Since the internet is inherently “measurable”, with log files, backlinks, trackbacks as well as with other data about the dissemination of information being largely available, at least potentially, we have means to understand this growth. One way is to look at the social structure in which this knowledge exists and try to understand the dynamics and informational flows of this environment. Another is to look at how content is transformed through time, that is, how progress and eventual setbacks happen along the communicative way of knowledge. One thing is tantamount to the growth of knowledge as much as it is a platitude: knowledge only grows when its communicated.

When concepts are put into words, in order to be understood they must be phrased within common language and be meaningful to the participants involved in the communication activity. This is what Habermas calls universal pragmatics, in which he sets forth a set of “validity claims” in order for communication to be productive. So when words, sounds and images are out there, we’re inevitably — as long as we are meaningful — contributing to the growth of knowledge as long as there is at least one receiver of the message. What this receiver ultimately does with message will only contribute to the social aggregate of knowledge as long as its also subsequently communicated.

Naturally, this must be quantified in some manner. Alvin Goldman, a philosopher studying social epistemology, calls these gains in knowledge Veritistic Gains or simply “v-gains”. In order to achieve a higher v-gain, participants with low knowledge must communicate or interact with participants that have a higher knowledge of a specific topic. The highest v-gain possible is when a inquiry is “fully” answered and one moves from a state of non-belief (no knowledge) to full belief (high knowledge). Here we coming back to question of truth again, but as aforementioned I regard knowledge as being true with a certain agreed context (relativism can be discussed later) and moving from no knowledge to high knowledge is no small feat, and it largely relies on communication.