This simple graph shows knowledge, divided according to size of dot, size of circle and different colors. Look at the magnitude of the unknown unknowns vs the sum total of human knowledge since the beginning of recorded history.



The purpose of this thread is to discuss the following,

1. What are the factors that stop an individual (since childhood) or grouping of individuals to resist new information. Why some people learn faster while others stagnate..?

2. What are the factors that increases the rate of learning and discovery, so the orange circle can expand faster across the blue unknown areas.

3. Lastly, what cultural forces enable some countries to produce great breakthroughs in every field... while other countries had yet to produce even 1 Nobel Prize winner...?

Wow.. I wonder who the other big dot is, besides Einstein.

On topic:
1.
In the past one main factor would be the AVAILABILITY of information, or the ease of access to it. But we have the Internet now. So the availability factor has been replaced by the RELIABILITY factor. And with information sometimes being unreliable people are reluctant to accept the information, until it has been proven to be facts.

Another factor would probably be the NEED TO KNOW. A large percentage of our current population tend to just live life as it is. We don't see the need to improve in terms of knowledge. (though we know we need a degree or such to succeed in life, we tend study for the sake of getting the degree instead of studying to increase our knowledge).

Religion is also a factor to some, but I'll not go any further with that.
Similar to religion, getting used to past versions of information is also a reason people tend to resist new information. Eg. If a person told you he was from the future, chances are you wouldn't believe him. In the same sense, people also resist new information when the new information cannot be proven(similar to the point about reliability). Eg. the psychic realm - just an example -

2.
The answer to that is quite simple, and I vaguely quote my primary school science teacher : "If you don't know something, ask."
Well, obviously to expand the orange circle you don't just stop at asking, you probe further into the question and seek out the answer. The problem is that most people are reluctant to ask questions, that is probably what separates ourselves from geniuses like Einstein and Newton.

3.
I don't quite get why TS used the Nobel Prize as a standard. To me I think one factor would have to be the way some countries are run.
Countries like America, Russia, Japan have long since overcome, social boundaries that restrict their pursuit of knowledge. Race, Religion, and Rights? While some countries are still so caught up with racial, and religious disputes.

This post has been edited by Mesosmagnet: Jan 16 2010, 12:03 PM

What's your source for the graphic?

1. Environment factors, what the country, family demands are. Depends on how much idle time they have, more idle time, more time to think about stuff i guess. Some ppl are fast learners but that too depend on the person's interests.

2. The rate of learning and discovery can be improved if more emphasis were to be put into the science fields. Eg, more rewards for scientists who discover something.

3. Depends on the country's level of education n perhaps LUCK of having a genius being born into the country and how they mold him.

topic about gnosiology eh, rather interesting.

1)i think it boils down to this, the motivation to get information. let's see, this would be at the top of maslow's pyramid of needs. from one side, if the basic needs are not satisfied, one will not go seek for this new information.
from another side, one would think, what is the purpose of obtaining this knowledge? its it useful? hence the function or the purpose of the knowledge, and the attitude of the individual and society towards to knowledge.
2) i think that would be religion, ethics, lack of funding, lack of tools that extend our sensory field. if we can't sense them we can't know them.
also our society is currently more biased towards specialisation rather than generalisation, in generalisation, one have the knowledge of various field and could associate relationship between different fields, thus discovery of a new knowledge.
3) time and value put into RnD. and a bit of luck and intelligence to interpret the result of luck

diagram inaccurate. einstein may be a legend in physics but he's a total noob in arts.

so is this diagram measuring knowledge in physics? or total knowledge?

and i believe the total sum of human knowledge is way bigger than what it's supposed to be

I drew it using paint.

It's just a rough illustration, and your last line proves something very important... think about the previous hundreds of years, or even the past hundred years.

Countless times, scientific progress was retarded by erroneous beliefs, which means the potential exists in the environment just waiting to be tapped but because we deny or refuse to investigate further.. the potential remains dormant.

Examples:

Belief that the earth is flat ---> Result: fear to venture further out to sea
Belief that atoms are the smallest element ---> never knowing about nuclear bombs/power before 1940s
Dark Ages ---> CENTURIES and CENTURIES where science stagnated because of a universal belief that it's a useless secular pursuit

Guys, can you imagine a different scenario where the pursuit of science, etc. did not encounter such long lasting road blocks in humanity's long history, how much further would we have progressed?

Why is this important at all? Just look at different countries over the past hundred years and see how some became colonialists & form the G8... while others can't help but go from one mess to another, then became failed states. China, for all it's hype right now, has practically went through almost a thousand years of decline due to cultural forces.

-- Edit --

I accidentally found this Cultural Map Of The World today,



Anyone care to offer a critique?

This post has been edited by Polaris: Jan 18 2010, 08:14 AM

Actually ur title and concept is quite interesting to debate, however where is ur pic source? i mean how can we believe that the pic content is reliable to believe with?

And what do u mean by what is unknown in this world? What type of things is that?
Do u draw it that way bcoz of believing human dont have such advance technology or method to find out the many truth in this world?
If u cant find reliable supporting fact to support the diagram u draw is truth i cant think that the diagram is draw according to fact

According to ur question regarding human learning,
this is rather meaningless to talk about how fast or when can we absorb the total knowledge available,
unless u able to find out how many 'knowledges' are there in total in this world
and then calculate how many percent is our progress
Otherwise, many points u give here does not really explain the progress of human learning