THE PROBLEM OF ANCHORING AND KNOWLEDGE NEVER ENDS —“”A little knowledge is a d

THE PROBLEM OF ANCHORING AND KNOWLEDGE NEVER ENDS

—“”A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”? I don’t know about that. I have found many “experts” today are elitist. I run into the “how dare you question my position? What is your scholarship/training/etc.” more often than not. “Who are you to impugn my scholarship?” Then again, maybe I represent the quote with my own hubris?”— John Stephens

Well you know, you aren’t wrong – that’s just saying: “there are limits of knowledge anchoring and insufficiency at the bottom, and limits of knowledge anchoring and insufficiency at the top” – which is empirically true the more variation in general rules. We are anchored by our knowledge and its limits. For example, the set of general rules in physics, and chemistry are not heavily debated, in some part because they are contextually invariant. The set of general rules in biology and economics are heavily debated because niches demonstrate adaptivity : extraordinary variation. Such that while some general rules are discovered, the combinatorial consequences of those general rules are extremely difficult to pin down. Economics in particular. I assume when we get to sentience (artificial intelligence)that the limits to cognition will be measurable, and we will learn about the human mind through those measurements.

I think that what I do, and what others do, is to save time and effort by throwing nonsense back in your face, simply so that you don’t have to deal with helping someone through a long journey from their assumptions to sufficient knowledge to question them. I mean. We’re all human.

I think moreover, that – at least, since having converted full time to philosophy – my observation is that many men know their craft but not *why* their craft yields truthful propositions *relative to other crafts*. In other words, *they just don’t know.* And they don’t want to be ‘outed’.