Skepticism Drives Progress

Skepticism of developing knowledge institutions, while frustrating for those seeking immediate change, ensures overall improvement in the system. We are continually working towards superior knowledge systems. However, every knowledge institution is flawed and will be until there are perfect humans.

            The transitions between the oral, written, print, and digital knowledge institutions are marked by periods of intense scrutiny and skepticism (there is a blurry line between folk knowledge and the rest of these, and it will be set aside for this argument). When people first started writing knowledge down or arguing in written form, prominent scholars objected on the grounds that people would lose their ability to reason for themselves, preferring instead the debate and argumentation method of learning and instruction. As the advent of the printing press brought about sweeping changes, many were concerned with how much useless and inaccurate material could be printed along with a multitude of problems concerning pirating and copyrights. Parallels can be easily seen between that transition, and our current movement into the digital era. Concern over the legitimacy of the wiki model is only one of the countless issues being raised.

            It is this wiki model that illustrates how skepticism ensures progress. As I brought up in class last Thursday, the un-proven, or non-credentialed nature of the wiki format automatically gives any potential researcher a certain level of skepticism regarding accuracy of information. This drives intelligent researchers (so, not middle school students) to check multiple sources or do primary research of their own. They can then take anything they learn, and submit that knowledge to the benefit of the public in the wiki model. Similar to Madison’s concept of “competing factions”, knowledge will be checked and rechecked, competing against itself, never reaching a status that makes it beyond further investigation.

I have seen a similar pattern of progression emerge in the transitions between knowledge systems. My final salon grouping discussed how the Greeks were concerned that their rhetorical methods would be lost to the new written system (from Walter Ong’s Orality and Literacy). As a result, these methods of argumentation were adopted as techniques by the written system, improving it immensely.

Advocates of the written system were skeptical of the impersonal nature of printing (Jared Wilden argues for certain aspects of writing being superior to printing in this intriguing post.), as well as the sheer scope of knowledge that could be made accessible to the public, while others saw problems in pirating and copyrights. These legitimate concerns led to a credentialing system that attempted to ensure that only the most accurate information was completely trusted. Also develped to ease concerns were author’s notes (and other techniques to add a personable feel such as prologues and “from the author” type sections), copyright laws, and improved author-publisher relations.

            We are moving into the digital age, where technology makes collaboration and the wiki model of knowledge feasible and effective. I have discussed how skepticism works within the model to improve accuracy and advance understanding. Additionally, this very concept will be met by skepticism, which will actually enhance its eventual effectiveness.

The digital knowledge institution will not be perfect just as its predecessor have not been perfect. But, if it follows the path that previous institutions have taken, it will combine various elements of the past along with the new and exciting possibilities of its medium to form something highly beneficial and revolutionary. Progress will continue to be driven by healthy skepticism. It will be interesting to watch this transition unfold, likely in my lifetime.