One brick at a time contributing to the DKIW pyramid fundation

Knowledge Dogma

Authors: Oberron , Rezpe , Rezpe & Oberron , sebas ,

We are lacking an healthy ground for research for novel solutions

On one side, we have created a research environment where radical ideas can not flourish. On the other hand, we have been sold the idea that adult people can not cope with uncertainty and need simple and already proven solutions. This contrast is creating an environment where: - novel solutions are not being communicated nor developed - people are losing trust with experts - people are losing time with existing solutions.

In a time where we are dealing with new types of crisis, this is becoming a problem.

There are obscure knowledge pockets and it is difficult to get information on those. For example, we know the ingredients of tooth paste or soap but we do not know why we chose those ingredients. Sometimes they were chosen for cost reasons but they are unhealthy for a certain part of the population. Or they were chosen based on solid research foundations. However, consumers lack that kind of visibility: research is either privately owned (not shared) or hidden for obvious reasons (unethical grounds). The consequence of this is that people are simply rejecting the use of those products with for example all natural products.

The format of science communication is the PAPER: a static document with a limited amount of figures and pictures. This contrasts with the latest formats of communication distribution based on Internet: - Information instantly available - Easy to update and change - Interactive - Linked and Searchable - Different Media formats: Infographics, Video, Sounds, ...

We also say that universities have become like the church: we have a dogma imposed this time not by God but by experts who are regarded as experts by their peers. They run entire research facilities and their word decides the publicability of an idea. They can reject ideas if it contradicts previous ideas published by them. This means that some ideas can not be challenged, only extended: even if this can reach a knowledge dead end. For example, the copenhagen interpretation [1] has laid the foundations of the current physics and chemistry theory but its view are becoming outdated and other novel approaches need to be developed.

There's also a view in the consumer area that is hindering the development of novel ideas: the aproach to them (Hypothesis-Expermentation-Insight and Knowledge) is complex and therefore people will not "get" it. This is a simplistic view on people and does not seem to be validated, just a belief. Adult people should be able to understand and accepts this way of working, specially for novel types of crisis.

It is true (and) proven that people show herd behaviour that are detrimental to the group. For example, people get crowded in exits in case of emergencies [2], but as the referenced paper implies, solutions can be built to prevent those from happening. Therefore there must be ways to communicate and handle complex information to inform citizens.

We say politics and managers are sometimes all talk and no action, as they are unable to cope with the current crisis, but we can say that they were not trained for this new novel situations that require a different attitude. The true problem is not solving the crisis or complaining, but teaching ourselves and others how to cope with them.

[1] [2]