|
|
||
To Alter Or To AbolishChapter 4Limited KnowledgeWritten by Darrell Anderson. In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them. Frédéric Bastiat, What is Seen and What is Not Seen Thoughtful observation demonstrates that the universe is not more complex than anyone knows, but is more complex than anyone can know. There is no absolute knowledge and all information is imperfect.[1] Figuratively, human knowledge of the universe with respect to all that is knowable probably is comparable to less than a drop of water in all the oceans. Collectively, the total of combined human knowledge would scarcely raise that water level. Similarly, the amount of existing accumulative knowledge far surpasses what any individual could hope to understand or master.[2] Additionally, predicting the future is difficult and humans always are without complete knowledge. Thus the universe is indeed bigger than any one individual can know. Although people are continually learning about the world and universe, and continually discovering and contributing to the total knowledge of humanity, everyone must make decisions each day based upon limited knowledge. Even “knowledgeable” people or “subject matter experts” are individuals who possess a limited expertise in a particular subject. Everybody is ignorant, just in different subjects.[3] All humans are creatures of limited knowledge. As the amount of knowledge increases so too does each individual’s ignorance. Nothing about the universe can be known with complete certainty.[4] That does not mean the universe is unknowable or that humans cannot act, only that perfect knowledge and perfect certainty are impossible. Humans are aware that they one day will die,[5] and only a comfortable degree of certainty is possible to guide human actions, but not perfect certainty. Seeking and knowing facts is insufficient. Obtaining new knowledge can modify existing facts. Humans also face the challenge of distinguishing between fact and fiction, or fact and opinion. Or more specifically, between what they know and what they think they know. Or between what they think they know and what other people think they know. One end of this spectrum is pure knowledge, the other end is pure myth.[6] Humans are involved in a continuous process of authenticating what they believe or think they know.[7] Authentication serves to provide some degree of certainty.[8] Ideas or theories that are falsified or proven wrong require a new or amended hypothesis and authentication. Such a process is sometimes called trial and error.[9] In addition to every individual’s limited knowledge about the universe, the principle of scarcity teaches that resources and human resourcefulness are limited. Human resourcefulness is limited, not because of limited imaginations, but because knowledge and time are limited. Scarcity is not limited to just physical resources. Humans are not omniscient or omnipotent. Thus, humans contribute to their own perception of scarcity. Some physical resources might appear unlimited or, at least, available in such abundance that the principle of scarcity seems meaningless. The scarcity principle applies to such resources because after human labor and knowledge transforms that resource into a new resource, that new resource itself becomes a limited resource. For example, air is an abundant resource, but air compressed in a bottle is a limited resource. The challenge of scarcity is not restricted to multiple resources, but also affects sole resources. Consider the often-comical example of “it’s my ball and we play by my rules.” Alternately, consider your neighbor constructing a building and that new building blocks your aesthetic view beyond the house. Although other balls exist, and other materials exist to build other buildings, at those moments there is only one ball or one building affecting the situation. The principle of scarcity has been influenced by the principle of relevancy.[10] These limitations of both interpreted knowledge and resources affect humans each day. The realm of human choice and preferences is where uncertainty becomes noticeable.[11] Do you watch a movie or build a set of shelves? If you pursue your happiness by watching the movie, you do not benefit from the shelves. If you pursue your happiness by building shelves, you provide for long-term needs but miss an opportunity to satisfy immediate desires (recreation). Such a decision affirms that time is a limited resource and that humans act in a sequential manner. Do you use the last of the milk for a satisfying drink or save the milk for cooking a meal? Do you run to the store for more milk or wait until tomorrow? This decision reveals the limits of material resources in everyday living. Limited knowledge greatly affects the use of limited resources. Making complex intelligent decisions requires knowledge, of which there never seems to be enough. Sometimes individuals benefit from the knowledge of other people, but obtaining that knowledge can be costly. When ill do you agree to specific medical treatment? Not only must you expend resources to obtain the treatment (your time and money), but you might also desire to hear the opinions of other qualified people before rendering a final decision. On and on the decision-making process goes. In every decision individuals confront the principle of scarcity and the limitations of subjective interpreted knowledge. Humans continually adjust their plans and actions based upon their limited knowledge and any new knowledge they might obtain. As creatures of limited knowledge humans often desire additional knowledge, but eventually they reach a point of diminishing returns. Because of the unreplenishable resource of time, inevitably people realize that possessing complete knowledge is impossible.[12] That is, humans reach a point where a decision is unlikely to change even with additional knowledge, or the perceived benefits of that decision will change while pursuing additional knowledge. Therefore, there are personal costs involved in everyday decision-making.[13] Despite limited personal knowledge or additional shared knowledge, individuals must ultimately make decisions. They continually decide how to use resources and, in each decision, they must weigh the perceived risks versus the perceived benefits they believe they might receive. Pursuing happiness and promoting mutual survival is a never-ending balancing act. Because the universe is indeed more complex than anybody can know, humans seek ways to improve upon the limits of their knowledge. Limited knowledge means that some acts might result in unintended consequences. Often there are spillover effects where the actions of one or more individuals affect other people. Rarely do actions affect only directly participating parties. That every human is a creature of limited knowledge means there are limits to human actions if they hope to live together peaceably. Personal ignorance increases as the amount of knowledge increases, as well as specialization in skills. There probably exists no solution to the dilemma. Thus, more control and rules are not a reasonable response. Simple principles and knowable boundaries must prevail. Finis. Next: Chapter 5 — All Against All Endnotes [1] Bronowski, The Ascent of Man, p. 353. [2] Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p. 66. [3] Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, p. 3. [4] Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, p. 9; Hoppe, “On Certainty and Uncertainty,” p. 51. [5] Fromm, The Sane Society, p. 25. [6] Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, p. 5. [7] Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, pp. 4–6. [8] Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, pp. 118–119. [9] Hoppe, “On Certainty and Uncertainty,” p. 59. [10] Barnett, The Structure of Liberty, p. 38. [11] Hoppe, “On Certainty and Uncertainty,” p. 55. [12] Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, p. 9. [13] Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, p. 13. |
||