The value of knowledge is unquestioned. Being “knowledgeable” is a quality much admired in people, in companies, in communities, everywhere. Using examinations and tests, society evaluates and grades people on how much knowledge they have. Companies interview and give people jobs and then reward them based largely on what they know about what they have been directed to do. Small children who suddenly demonstrate skills or knowledge cause their parents’ hearts to swell with pride, to lavish complements upon them, and to brag to other parents about how much Johnny or Jenny know.
This is all good.
In general, having more knowledge will make you more successful more often than having less knowledge. But having knowledge is not the same as possessing critical thinking skills. Indeed, there is evidence that “too much” knowledge might work against effective critical thinking [1].
When we learn, when we acquire knowledge that will have some permanence, we build up knowledge “structures” in our brain [2] These knowledge structures provide the basis for understanding any subsequent knowledge that may present itself. Herein lies the rub: what if the ‘subsequent knowledge’ conflicts with the existing knowledge?
When someone is confronted with information that is not exactly congruent to their existing patterns and tries to integrate the new knowledge, several things may happen. How this new knowledge is integrated is the subject of the following pages.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The psychologist Edward De Bono noted this when he said: "Many highly intelligent people are poor thinkers." Smart people usually have acquired a great deal of effective knowledge and can (and do) usually vigorously and articulately defend it against alternative viewpoints and even contradictory data. This may set up a barrier to alternative viewpoints and thought processes. As long as the knowledge conforms to the existing knowledge base things are good, but when these alternative viewpoints and data contradict the knowledge basis, problems can occur.
[2] Though these “structures” are probably not static—they are not retained by the programming of fixed “pathways” between synapses in the brain. It is more likely that the learning is retained dynamically in circulating patterns of thought. See the Moving and Static Thinking section for more on this.