About Philosophical Plays

The Author/Editor

Copyright/Permissions

All Plays/Issues

> 

Latest Play

FAQ

News

DOWNLOAD a free PDF.

ORDER a printed copy.

REVIEW copyright & permissions.

< PREVIOUS (Scene VII) | NOTES | CITATION | NEXT (Scene IX) >

SCENE VIII. Important and
Unimportant Knowledge

1 CHRISTIANUS. I am dead serious. But let me rephrase myself, so that I don’t unnecessarily upset your so easily offended mind; for without a relaxed and cooperative mind you will not be in a position to understand very much.

2 KATHERINE. OK.

3 CHRISTIANUS. Now, do we agree, tentatively speaking, that knowledge is something that may be worth having?

4 KATHERINE. Yes.

5 CHRISTIANUS. So if one doesn’t already have knowledge, it may be worthwhile to search for it?

6 KATHERINE. Surely.

7 CHRISTIANUS. And is it true that many people indeed are searching for it, and have been searching for it?

8 KATHERINE. Yes.

9 CHRISTIANUS. And do we also agree that the definition of knowledge is not firmly settled, and that many philosophers have defined it in various ways?

10 KATHERINE. Well, I can’t really say — you know the philosophers better than I do. But I actually do remember the Daubert case in the 1990s where neither the Supreme Court nor the scientists could present an accurate definition of what scientific expert knowledge really amounted to. [33]

11 CHRISTIANUS. Yes, I heard about that case. So, loosely speaking, we may say that some people not only search for knowledge, but also search for definitions of what knowledge really is, and how it should be obtained?

12 KATHERINE. Certainly.

13 CHRISTIANUS. And perhaps we also agree that an individual man or woman cannot know everything there is to know about the universe or about himself and his body, at least not in an ordinary sense of the word, and at least not in the ordinary human condition?

14 KATHERINE. Certainly.

15 CHRISTIANUS. And he also cannot personally experience every possible situation, location, or person on this planet?

16 KATHERINE. No.

17 CHRISTIANUS. So he cannot possibly know everything there is to know about this planet, either from his own personal experience or from other people’s experiences?

18 KATHERINE. No.

19 CHRISTIANUS. So then he must intelligently select which personal experiences he wants to have, and which testimonies he wants to listen to, right?

20 KATHERINE. How do you mean?

21 CHRISTIANUS. Let’s say that you only have a few days off, and that you want to acquire some typical vacational knowledge on some sunny island somewhere. Must you then not choose between, say, either going to Hawaii, or to the Canary Islands? [34]

22 KATHERINE. Well, yes. If I only have a few days at my disposal, there’s only time to go to one of those destinations.

23 CHRISTIANUS. Exactly. Or let’s say that you have a few years to restart a new career, and that you need some suitable vocational prepping for getting a new job. Must you then not choose between, say, either going to medical school or to business school?

24 KATHERINE. Yes.

25 CHRISTIANUS. So then we must carefully choose what type of experiences and what type of knowledge we want to have?

26 KATHERINE. Yes.

27 CHRISTIANUS. And we agree, I guess, that the kind of knowledge that makes a painter a painter is not necessarily the same as that which makes a biologist a biologist?

28 KATHERINE. Definitely.

29 CHRISTIANUS. So what is considered important knowledge for a biologist may not be important knowledge for a painter?

30 KATHERINE. Sure.

31 CHRISTIANUS. And, conversely, what is considered important knowledge for a painter may not be important knowledge for the biologist?

32 KATHERINE. Right.

33 CHRISTIANUS. In other words, what is important knowledge for one person may be unimportant knowledge for another?

34 KATHERINE. Yes, it may.

35 CHRISTIANUS. So if your primary goal is, let’s say, to become a practicing physician, then you must, in regards to your own life, regard all knowledge that pertains to a physician’s education, and to the process of actually ending up being hired as a physician, as the most important knowledge. Everything else is, for you, less important. In other words, the most important knowledge for you, in such a case, would be that knowledge that can ‘actualize’ your dreams of ending up as a practicing physician.

36 KATHERINE. Yes.

37 CHRISTIANUS. But if your primary goal is, for instance, to find your soul-mate, and you perceive your future job as relatively unimportant, then whatever knowledge that leads you to the man of your dreams must be the most important knowledge for you.

38 KATHERINE. Yes.

39 CHRISTIANUS. And this must go on until you have reached your initial goal; or, if you realize at some point that your initial goal was inadequate in some way, until you have reached some new goal that you have selected.

40 KATHERINE. Yes.

41 CHRISTIANUS. So ultimately you are the judge: you decide how important you should make each ‘piece’ of experience, and each ‘piece’ of knowledge.

42 KATHERINE. But it almost sounds too good to be true!

43 CHRISTIANUS. Perhaps. But sometimes things almost are too good to be true. More pizza, mademoiselle?

44 KATHERINE. Yes, please. It was so good!

< PREVIOUS (Scene VII) | TOP | CITATION | NEXT (Scene IX) >

Notes (SCENE VIII)

[33] VIII:10, the Daubert case: The U. S. Supreme Court explicitly addressed the adjective ‘scientific’ and said that it ‘implies a grounding in the methods and procedures of science’ (509 U.S. 579, p. 590); but it didn’t specify to any greater extent what those methods and procedures of science amounts to, or what ‘science’ is. And in terms of the definition of ‘knowledge’ the Supreme Court said: ‘Of course, it would be unreasonable to conclude that the subject of scientific testimony must be “known” to a certainty; arguably, there are no certainties in science’ (509 U.S. 579, p. 590). In addition, two interesting briefs were used in the process of this case, neither of which clarifies the matter very much. First, Amici Curiae 9 (by Nicolaas Bloembergen et al.) states that ‘Indeed, scientists do not assert that they know what is immutably “true”—they are committed to searching for new, temporary, theories to explain, as best they can, phenomena’ (509 U.S. 579, p. 590). Second, Amici Curiae 7–8 (by the American Association for the Advancement of Science) states: ‘Science is not an encyclopedic body of knowledge about the universe. Instead, it represents a process for proposing and refining theoretical explanations about the world that are subject to further testing and refinement’ (509 U.S. 579, p. 590; emphasis in original).

509 U.S. 579 (1993) ‘Daubert et ux., individually and as guardians ad litem for Daubert, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. No. 92-102. Argued March 30, 1993—Decided June 28, 1993.’

[34] VIII:21, vacational: This adjective is not listed in all English dictionaries, and it may or may not be a concoction by Christianus. In any case, ‘vacational’ is listed in Roget (1962, p. 471), together with other synonymous adjectives: ‘holiday, ferial, festal; sabbatic(al)’. It may also be important to note that one meaning associated with the word ‘vacation’ is ‘weeks during which universities and law-courts stop work’ (Hornby and Parnwell 1962, p. 478).

A. S. HORNBY and E. C. PARNWELL (1962), Oxford English-Reader’s Dictionary. Reprinted with corrections. Stockholm: Svenska Bokförlaget/Norsteds, and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

PETER MARK ROGET (1962), Roget’s International Thesaurus. Third Edition. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.

< PREVIOUS (Scene VII) | TOP | NOTES | NEXT (Scene IX) >

HOW TO CITE: Bo C. Klintberg (2008), ‘Important and Unimportant Knowledge’ in Katherine’s Questionable Quest for Love and Happiness. Online edition of Philosophical Plays, 1 Jan. 2008. Retrieved [today’s date] from http://philosophicalplays.googlepages.com/pgKQQv1sc08.htm.

Latest Play | All Plays/Issues | The Author/Editor
About PP | Print Edition | Online Edition | Philosophical Dialogues?
News | Copyright/Permissions | FAQ

All published material in Philosophical Plays, both in the print edition
(ISSN 1654-6296) and in the online edition (ISSN 1654-6318), is
Copyright © 2007-2008 by Bo C. Klintberg. All rights reserved.
No part of these publications may be reproduced, or re-
published, or stored in a retrieval system, without
prior permission in writing from Bo C. Klintberg.

(click the W3C logos to revalidate
this page's code quality at w3.org)

Last updated: Wednesday, 27 August 2008, 22:18:17 GMT
Assembled by PPOBuild, rev. 2.022