Knowledge and ignorance are usually considered to be two sides of the same coin. And only one of these sides is valued.
Interpersonal, social, and economic systems do not explicitly prize ignorance whereas knowledge is sought after, applauded, and rewarded.
The approach to the concept of ignorance is somewhat different in different societies, disciplines, traditions, and religions. Zen Buddhism, for instance, considers that asserting that one has true knowledge is an indication one is further from “the truth” than ever; a genuine admission of lack of knowledge is therefore “truer.” In the Buddhist tradition “ignorance” is not just lack of general knowledge of a domain, it is a specific false awareness of self [1]. It is manifested by a lack of knowledge of the Four Noble Truths starting with a lack of understanding of dukkha—usually interpreted as the suffering, discontent, or dissatisfaction (or ignorance) associated with simply being human.
In this model, realization of ignorance is the necessary initial step in the pursuit of knowledge. Given that it provides this jumping off point to enlightenment (in the Buddhist tradition), it would seem that ignorance is very valuable—provided one has knowledge of it.
In a more secular sense, ignorance can be considered to be a green field in which things can grow, a space that knowledge can fill. Without such a space, where would the knowledge go? Why would someone pursue it? Taking the view that ignorance is an open space rather than a lack of something, leads us to view it more favorably. Indeed, things which graphically show us that we do not know what we thought we knew or need to know are highly valuable. This is the basis for software testing, in fact.
As we have seen, repeatedly, any consideration of “knowledge” as an artifact inevitably leads us into a Russell Paradox [2] where certain assertions cannot be proven or disproven (by classical linear logic). But the presence of logic traps is often a solid signpost to the presence of ignorance and a direction of growth. As physicist and Nobel Laureate Niels Bohr once remarked: “How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.” [3]
Because the presence of a paradox indicates a point where “normal” logic breaks down it is usually an excellent indicator of ignorance and therefore a good point to start mining for knowledge.
Personally and hopefully without, ahem, exhibiting too much hubris, I consider myself something of an expert in ignorance.
To which end I offer the next section; it is about ignorance...
FOOTNOTES
[1] Which is, of course, one of the Dunning and Kruger's findings.
[2] In 1901 British mathematician Bertrand Russell noted that, under certain conditions, any set of objects, statements, theorems (or anything come to that) can generate logical contradictions, such as the earlier mentioned “Cretans are always liars” statement. Knowledge falls into this category of conditions.
[3] This was in reference to the Principle of Complementarity where, in the field of quantum mechanics, particles may exhibit mutually exclusive properties at the same time. Bohr recognized the importance of the presence of (Russell) paradox in identifying ignorance and hence the opportunity to learn.