Ignorantly intelligent..damn i love that oxymoron.

Quite an interesting debate here with a high level of intellectual sparring!

I see where the op is coming from (kudos to him for starting this debate) but not only are the statements that "it is a fallacy that that no knowledge is a wasted one" and that "I don't mean that you can't use the knowledge but the question is how often" both different and divergent, the op did not say exactly what kind of fallacy he is referring to which makes the summation somewhat ambiguous and bogus.

Knowledge is different from skill, learning something is different from mastering it and we are aware that it takes application of knowledge and investment of time to acquire skills, much more than it takes to gain new knowledge.

Knowledge can be seen as a compendium of information derived from a variety of sources, at different instances and use of different senses. Knowledge is gained formally or informally, directly or indirectly, actively or passively, consciously and subconsciously. For instance, by watching a television programme on wildlife I will learn something about them, by listening to a song from an album I will learn the lyrics and some insights about the songwriter's life experiences, by joining a cooking club I will learn the smell, the taste of different dishes and maybe how to prepare them. Do you think I will use you use all this knowledge in a lifetime? Maybe or maybe not. If I do use it, will I need to use it all the time? but should I consider the knowledge therefore wasted because I have not needed to use it at all or I don't need it all the time...not at all!

New knowledge builds on the fabric and framework of older knowledge...for instance you can read because you learnt the alphabet, you can do some arithmetic because you learnt to memorise some tables (2X1=2, 2X2=4...). Scientists have discovered that we learn and recall a lot of things by association, in order words information is not just stored in distinct areas of the brain but what you learn to do today needs to be connected with something you learnt in the past for it to be useful and memorable.

We all know that there are more books in the world and more information available that we may not imbibe even in a 1,000 lifetimes so it is impossible to attempt to know everything and that is not what the argument is about. Anything we do learn reinforces or realigns with what we learnt before and makes it easier to learn other things. For instance, I read sections of a geography textbook while I was in primary school (just the introduction). While I never went ahead to do geography in secondary school or beyond, the knowledge I gained from that book and the fascination of some statements (like it takes minutes for sunlight to get to the earth and years for the lights from the star to get to us...and that when you actually see a star you are really looking back in time) have stayed with me today and increased my understanding of the vastness of the universe in which we exist and live in.

No knowledge is a waste because every knowledge creates some foundation with which we can leverage on to know something else and creates associations with others that helps us better apply what we know. What you know helps you critically appraise any new knowledge you are faced in the passage of time.

No knowledge is a waste because it is not about whether it gets used actively/deliberately or not, it is about what the knowledge does to you...creating a deep sense of confidence which will make you comfortable (in the mind...and in the body i.e what you know can make you rich in wisdom and rich in finances if you know how to apply it).

No knowledge is a waste because what you know will shape what you become either consciously or subconsciously...and what you don't know can hurt you (e.g ebola).

I submit to you that the statement that "it is a fallacy that no knowledge is a wasted one" is itself a fallacy specifically a fallacy of hasty generalisation.

It doesn't count that we can't know everything but what we do allow ourselves to know will count someday or in someway to someone, somewhere...it's only a matter of time.

ruffhandu:


I understand you perfectly bro.
The fact that you have just taught me that Forex is gambling, and the bolded, means your knowledge of it is not a waste.

Ok

if op knows how much I wish I had learnt certain things that I had on a platter of gold because I felt I wouldn't need them, you would reconstruct your grammar and modify your thought.
I believe though that if you HAVE to choose between parallel areas of knowledge at the same time, choose which you consider more relevant.

Abeg make una dey blow dis una grammar small small for ppl like me wey no go school to understand. Grammar too much. Were I keep my dictonary?

Dereformer:
@ all above me;

Too much grammar!

Don't worry, I don save this page because of all this their Gramma. when una don finish to dey speak, then una go come back pick them one after the other and analyse them... thank you

Serendipity:
Undoubtedly the saying that no knowledge is wasted appears axiomatic and arguably sacrosanct.
=
In his book ''Think Big'', (pp. 200-212) Ben Carson argues that you never can know what you will be doing fifteen years from now hence one should grab every available knowledge.
=
He cited an incident where he was before an interviewer who mentioned en passe that he had heard about a concert and he also quipped that he too had heard about it which visibly left the interviewer surprised and they then started discussing classical music..
He contends that that knowlege of classical music was instrumental in his success in that interview.
=
=
MY OPINION
Methinks that having or acquiring some knowledge is sheer and utter waste of scarce time and resources.
-----------------------------------------------
For example, I don't see how the knowledge of how to prepare a cake or sew clothes would have a significant bearing on my life if I were a lawyer. This is truer given that I may never get the time to come and be sewing clothes or making cakes for either myself or family.
Even if I would get to use them in future, wouldn't it be once in a blue moon as in Ben Carson's case.
---------------------------------------------
In high school, I was very good at the use of Pitman Shorthand. An aeon has elapsed since I left junior secondary, and I have never got to use not even a vestige of the knowledge I acquired in that subject.
=

Again, acquiring some of this otiose and apparently irrelevant knowledge may be at the expense of knowledge which would have been more apt and handy. In other words, you may be wasting time acquiring knowledge that has not even a modicum bearing on your life or knowledge you may never get to use due to your discipline.
=
At any rate, I suggest that it would be stellar to have a smattering of many things.
=
Your methodical views are welcome!

What if your child is given an assignment on how to bake cake, though you are a lawyer and your contribution will earn her more mark? The knowledge you gain now may not be useful to you but others sometimes.

Its crazy man... Counting money, and still haven't seen x,y,a,b,c as in statistics. I'm yet to see how the "Almighty Formula" applies in real life all these mathematics stuff sef. Nobody in school teaches you how to buy a house, how to apply for scholarships, and other important things. I wonder how a polynomial graph is important!!

Serendipity:

It becomes foolhardiness and unbecoming when we are unreasonably obstinate to the extent that we fail to admit the truth.
=
I stated unequivocally, that one had better acquire knowledge that there is high possibility of one using. In everything there is an opportunity cost, the opportunity cost of acquiring the knowledge of Spanish is that knowledge of Hausa language I would have acquired which will now be forfeited.
=
Now, there is a possibility that I will get to use the knowledge of Spanish, but the possibility is lesser than that of Hausa given that If would go abroad, definitely, it wouldnt be to a Spanish country. Or what's the possibility of my serving as an interpreter?
=
THE OPERATIVE WORDS HERE ARE: the possibility of using the knowledge.

==
At certain point those days, I wanted to buy a Piano and then get a trainer, but on mature reflection, it became clear, that the possibility of my using that is infinitesimal and that it would be more politic to choose something that will have bearing on my life. And I did.
=
It is better to use my time judiciously in acqisition of knowledge that use it in nugatory things.
=
Now how do you reconcile the example of Pitman Shorthand that I cited with your rejoinder?

We have a sick intellectual fuc.ker here, ala Sheldon Cooper (the big bang theory, anyone)

I want to be your friend [s]even though I don't follow with your line of reasoning based on knowledge garnering of course.[/s] You're on BBM or Whatsapp?

Oh, and btw, I'm not a graduate if it makes any sense to you.

I believe this calls for a new section, PHILOSOPHY, can't believe this thread only got 50 posts for over a year.

SaintChukz:
@ Op...i think in one full swoop you have succeeded in contrasting your own opinion in the initial post. In the opening line you opined that -no knowledge is wasted appears to you as axiomatic and as arguably sacrosanct, and in your last line statement you then went on to say that it would be stellar to have a "smattering" of many things. Now, with emphasis on the word "smattering", i'm trying hard to figure out how you would have done that if no single amount of time was put into it to gather the little knowledge you termed "smattering". Mind you the knowledge of a thing doesn't have to be acquired in full for you to term it actual knowledge. You also opined that having a particular knowledge of a thing that has no modicum or bearing on what the future tends to hold for you is sheer waste of time because you may never get to use it. I would say you were wrong there in that assertion because, how would you actually get to know what lies ahead of you when you haven't even gotten there? Or do you have a foreseer gift of telling what the future will bring? In my own candid opinion, i would rather opine that no knowledge is actually wasted until it is left unused. It has to be so because you never can tell when that little "survival skill" you garnered at one time or the other would become very handy to you at a critical point in your life, so i would rather not dismiss any knowledge no matter how irrelevant it may seem at a particular time on the premise that it is never going to be useful to me, when i know we all live in a constantly dynamic world. Finally, i think it is best to make myself feel "important" at any particular stage in life rather than feel "impotent" at a near unforeseeable stage in the future.

I respect u

SaintChukz:
@ Op...i think in one full swoop you have succeeded in contrasting your own opinion in the initial post. In the opening line you opined that -no knowledge is wasted appears to you as axiomatic and as arguably sacrosanct, and in your last line statement you then went on to say that it would be stellar to have a "smattering" of many things. Now, with emphasis on the word "smattering", i'm trying hard to figure out how you would have done that if no single amount of time was put into it to gather the little knowledge you termed "smattering". Mind you the knowledge of a thing doesn't have to be acquired in full for you to term it actual knowledge. You also opined that having a particular knowledge of a thing that has no modicum or bearing on what the future tends to hold for you is sheer waste of time because you may never get to use it. I would say you were wrong there in that assertion because, how would you actually get to know what lies ahead of you when you haven't even gotten there? Or do you have a foreseer gift of telling what the future will bring? In my own candid opinion, i would rather opine that no knowledge is actually wasted until it is left unused. It has to be so because you never can tell when that little "survival skill" you garnered at one time or the other would become very handy to you at a critical point in your life, so i would rather not dismiss any knowledge no matter how irrelevant it may seem at a particular time on the premise that it is never going to be useful to me, when i know we all live in a constantly dynamic world. Finally, i think it is best to make myself feel "important" at any particular stage in life rather than feel "impotent" at a near unforeseeable stage in the future.

i don't have anything to say rather than "WOW". You're on point

UjSizzle:
Like Sherlock Holmes would say, you only have so much space in your brain to store anything. Why stock up with irrelevant information that's got no direct relationship with what you want do with your life?
Despite being a fictional character, the dude was absolutely great at what he did and pretty much clueless about everything else.

Confirm

kolinz:

-
U dont seem to understand exactly what the op was trying to say.
It simply means that one should have direction and focus. Then determine the neccessary skills and knowlege required to get to ur destination.
Why spend valuable time simply to be known as jack of all trades and mastering non?

Thanks for your understanding.

koolhunk:
Both OP and @SaintChukz have genuine points which appears cognate but they have both failed to realise this.

Back to topic; The submission that no knowledge is lost is very valid in my accession but also bearing in mind the concept of opportunity cost. You dont have to waste your time learning things which you might not need in the nearest future - this is only true if there is the opportunity to learn something new (At the same time of the former) which you think might be more useful to you in the nearest future.

1. Take the case where there is a one day training program on how to make beads (or any other not too important training) organised in your workplace.
2. You are an engineer but you have been nominated to go for this on day program.
3. You can chose not to go and remain in the office.
4. There are no other RELEVANT training on that same day.

Given the above scenario, WHAT WILL YOU DO?

Glad you caught my drift.

thoexynne:


"Educate a fool. Annd you'll have an intelligent fool". A. Einstein


No offense @op, not that I owe you an apology

Nothing is foolhardy to reasoning than sheer arrogance, your assertion is as equally fallacious as the maxim itself, as no truth is absolute in itself. Because to all assertions there are conditions

A butterfly should not think itself a bird.

Meklex:
Some knowledge are sheer waste putting into consideration the opportunity cost involved, just in the case of our universities, where you offer some courses of zero relevance to your chosen field.
I believe so much on the concept of specialization, even our professors adopt the same concept (professor of a specific area of study)..
That's exactly the reason why the American kid knows what he wants in life and specializes on it to attain success.
Concentration breeds success.
Quote for the day: you can't be white and black, you're either white or black.

Glad you caught my drift.

Yakzo:
Op, when i decided to make the dictionary a vade mecum (patrick Obahiagbon on mind now), i never knew that words like: en passant, aeon and otiose could look ordinary. How is my effort a waste even though i didn't study English as a course. Again, is it enpasse or en passant?

Of course this is a different kettle of fish. English is damn important.
It is en passant



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/en+passant

Gynacologist:
bois lyk tat serendipity na dem d carry last fo class ohhh....i knw guyz lyk tat.....

Dude you got me with that, so funny.

cdoffx:


Now i see... you are only trying to see how well you are good enough to stand and defend a case since you said you are a lawyer. after all in law cases it is only the arguements and sound logic that win case not the exact incident. you know what is true and untrue.

well base on what i believe you are testing, if i am a jury i will say you have not presented enough sound and logical arguement to back your arguement. try harder bro

Please I am not a Lawyer, I only said ' if I were a Lawyer' subjunctive mood.

Please I am not a Lawyer, I only said ' if I were a Lawyer' subjunctive mood.

SilverHand:
Quite an interesting debate here with a high level of intellectual sparring!

I see where the op is coming from (kudos to him for starting this debate) but not only are the statements that "it is a fallacy that that no knowledge is a wasted one" and that "I don't mean that you can't use the knowledge but the question is how often" both different and divergent, the op did not say exactly what kind of fallacy he is referring to which makes the summation somewhat ambiguous and bogus.

Knowledge is different from skill, learning something is different from mastering it and we are aware that it takes application of knowledge and investment of time to acquire skills, much more than it takes to gain new knowledge.

Knowledge can be seen as a compendium of information derived from a variety of sources, at different instances and use of different senses. Knowledge is gained formally or informally, directly or indirectly, actively or passively, consciously and subconsciously. For instance, by watching a television programme on wildlife I will learn something about them, by listening to a song from an album I will learn the lyrics and some insights about the songwriter's life experiences, by joining a cooking club I will learn the smell, the taste of different dishes and maybe how to prepare them. Do you think I will use you use all this knowledge in a lifetime? Maybe or maybe not. If I do use it, will I need to use it all the time? but should I consider the knowledge therefore wasted because I have not needed to use it at all or I don't need it all the time...not at all!

New knowledge builds on the fabric and framework of older knowledge...for instance you can read because you learnt the alphabet, you can do some arithmetic because you learnt to memorise some tables (2X1=2, 2X2=4...). Scientists have discovered that we learn and recall a lot of things by association, in order words information is not just stored in distinct areas of the brain but what you learn to do today needs to be connected with something you learnt in the past for it to be useful and memorable.

We all know that there are more books in the world and more information available that we may not imbibe even in a 1,000 lifetimes so it is impossible to attempt to know everything and that is not what the argument is about. Anything we do learn reinforces or realigns with what we learnt before and makes it easier to learn other things. For instance, I read sections of a geography textbook while I was in primary school (just the introduction). While I never went ahead to do geography in secondary school or beyond, the knowledge I gained from that book and the fascination of some statements (like it takes minutes for sunlight to get to the earth and years for the lights from the star to get to us...and that when you actually see a star you are really looking back in time) have stayed with me today and increased my understanding of the vastness of the universe in which we exist and live in.

No knowledge is a waste because every knowledge creates some foundation with which we can leverage on to know something else and creates associations with others that helps us better apply what we know. What you know helps you critically appraise any new knowledge you are faced in the passage of time.

No knowledge is a waste because it is not about whether it gets used actively/deliberately or not, it is about what the knowledge does to you...creating a deep sense of confidence which will make you comfortable (in the mind...and in the body i.e what you know can make you rich in wisdom and rich in finances if you know how to apply it).

No knowledge is a waste because what you know will shape what you become either consciously or subconsciously...and what you don't know can hurt you (e.g ebola).

I submit to you that the statement that "it is a fallacy that no knowledge is a wasted one" is itself a fallacy specifically a fallacy of hasty generalisation.

It doesn't count that we can't know everything but what we do allow ourselves to know will count someday or in someway to someone, somewhere...it's only a matter of time.

Dude, law of forced efficiency and the concept of opportunity cost clinches this.

Given that there is limited time, one should concentrate on things that have bearing on one's life ----prioritization, very important.

MightySparrow:



What if your child is given an assignment on how to bake cake, though you are a lawyer and your contribution will earn her more mark? The knowledge you gain now may not be useful to you but others sometimes.

Guy you appear incurious. Look at this scenario, If I were a lawyer and had 6 months to learn something new, would you counsel that I go for say carpentry or a course on investment law given my profession. Which do you think will be more beneficial to me? The argument that I might have to fix my door using carpentry knowledge is lame giving that the rate of incidence of such fixing-of-door need is minute. This is opposed to the knowledge of investment law which is more apt and germane.

OP: i'll say u re the one who's choosen not to use the extra knowledge u've acquired. You re a lawyer, doesnt mean, u can't bake a cake for your wedding anniversary or your birthday. It's a matter of choice. I knw many things i learnt (e.g. corel draw graphic design) that are not related to my profession (civil engineering), but of which, when i add them to what i do, it makes me seem like a genius (i design my letterheads and complimentary cards myself). But I'm not. I Jst decided to use what i've learnt. I'm even considering learning to be a tailor.

Serendipity:


Guy you appear incurious. Look at this scenario, If I were a lawyer and had 6 months to learn something new, would you counsel that I go for say carpentry or a course on investment law given my profession. Which do you think will be more beneficial to me? The argument that I might have to fix my door using carpentry knowledge is lame giving that the rate of incidence of such fixing-of-door need is minute. This is opposed to the knowledge of investment law which is more apt and germane.

The knowledge in question here is not the kind of knowledge you intentionally make efforts to acquire. They re knowledge u stumble on most times by accident or circumstance. Eg, u might happen to live with an uncle or relation who's a capenter and he ask you to assist in some of his work. The little knowledge u acquire, though having nothing to do with your profession, may come in handy when u need to make an emergency capentry repair at home. Saving u time and money!

Wat I learnt frm this thread is dat I'm still no where in english language, time to be closer to my dico than eva b4..... See hw grammar jst dey send grammar message. I ve learnt!!!

SilverHand:
Quite an interesting debate here with a high level of intellectual sparring!

....

New knowledge builds on the fabric and framework of older knowledge...for instance you can read because you learnt the alphabet, you can do some arithmetic because you learnt to memorise some tables (2X1=2, 2X2=4...). Scientists have discovered that we learn and recall a lot of things by association, in order words information is not just stored in distinct areas of the brain but what you learn to do today needs to be connected with something you learnt in the past for it to be useful and memorable.

We all know that there are more books in the world and more information available that we may not imbibe even in a 1,000 lifetimes so it is impossible to attempt to know everything and that is not what the argument is about. Anything we do learn reinforces or realigns with what we learnt before and makes it easier to learn other things. For instance, I read sections of a geography textbook while I was in primary school (just the introduction). While I never went ahead to do geography in secondary school or beyond, the knowledge I gained from that book and the fascination of some statements (like it takes minutes for sunlight to get to the earth and years for the lights from the star to get to us...and that when you actually see a star you are really looking back in time) have stayed with me today and increased my understanding of the vastness of the universe in which we exist and live in.

No knowledge is a waste because every knowledge creates some foundation with which we can leverage on to know something else and creates associations with others that helps us better apply what we know. What you know helps you critically appraise any new knowledge you are faced in the passage of time.

No knowledge is a waste because it is not about whether it gets used actively/deliberately or not, it is about what the knowledge does to you...creating a deep sense of confidence which will make you comfortable (in the mind...and in the body i.e what you know can make you rich in wisdom and rich in finances if you know how to apply it).

No knowledge is a waste because what you know will shape what you become either consciously or subconsciously...and what you don't know can hurt you (e.g ebola).
....

Thanks for saying most of what I dreaded to post due to lack of time; however, I would like to bolster what you’ve said by saying a few things:

1. It was never meant to be a universal truth that “no knowledge is lost”.

2. There are different types of knowledge, namely: a priori knowledge, factual knowledge, empirical knowledge, and inferential knowledge. You do not necessarily have to actively seek some types of knowledge in order to gain it.

3. When you actively seek knowledge through education the end use of such knowledge justifies the means. The question is, why are you actively seeking knowledge? To be well-rounded? To be able to hold your own in social circles? To earn a living? Just because you want to know? Could the knowledge be incidental to something you love doing?

Here’s an anecdote: it is hard for a medical doctor or an accountant to lose me in a discussion about their relevant fields because I will most likely have an inkling about what they’re saying even though I did not study physiology or accounting.

4. Being well-rounded gives you the confidence to be part of any conversation and to be able to contribute intelligently.

5. Being knowledgeable makes you more likely to appreciate nuances you come across in your every day life and not be a binary thinker.

6. If your knowledge is one-dimensional you will most likely end up being an expert in your field but also anti-social and boring to be around (e.g. most people on the autistic spectrum that are extremely brilliant).

My position is, generally speaking, no knowledge is lost. Learn a skill and become proficient at it but also read broadly to make you well-rounded. Opportunity cost is really irrelevant to the discussion if you're already an expert in your chosen field.

SilverHand:
Quite an interesting debate here with a high level of intellectual sparring!

I see where the op is coming from (kudos to him for starting this debate) but not only are the statements that "it is a fallacy that that no knowledge is a wasted one" and that "I don't mean that you can't use the knowledge but the question is how often" both different and divergent, the op did not say exactly what kind of fallacy he is referring to which makes the summation somewhat ambiguous and bogus.

Knowledge is different from skill, learning something is different from mastering it and we are aware that it takes application of knowledge and investment of time to acquire skills, much more than it takes to gain new knowledge.

Knowledge can be seen as a compendium of information derived from a variety of sources, at different instances and use of different senses. Knowledge is gained formally or informally, directly or indirectly, actively or passively, consciously and subconsciously. For instance, by watching a television programme on wildlife I will learn something about them, by listening to a song from an album I will learn the lyrics and some insights about the songwriter's life experiences, by joining a cooking club I will learn the smell, the taste of different dishes and maybe how to prepare them. Do you think I will use you use all this knowledge in a lifetime? Maybe or maybe not. If I do use it, will I need to use it all the time? but should I consider the knowledge therefore wasted because I have not needed to use it at all or I don't need it all the time...not at all!

New knowledge builds on the fabric and framework of older knowledge...for instance you can read because you learnt the alphabet, you can do some arithmetic because you learnt to memorise some tables (2X1=2, 2X2=4...). Scientists have discovered that we learn and recall a lot of things by association, in order words information is not just stored in distinct areas of the brain but what you learn to do today needs to be connected with something you learnt in the past for it to be useful and memorable.

We all know that there are more books in the world and more information available that we may not imbibe even in a 1,000 lifetimes so it is impossible to attempt to know everything and that is not what the argument is about. Anything we do learn reinforces or realigns with what we learnt before and makes it easier to learn other things. For instance, I read sections of a geography textbook while I was in primary school (just the introduction). While I never went ahead to do geography in secondary school or beyond, the knowledge I gained from that book and the fascination of some statements (like it takes minutes for sunlight to get to the earth and years for the lights from the star to get to us...and that when you actually see a star you are really looking back in time) have stayed with me today and increased my understanding of the vastness of the universe in which we exist and live in.

No knowledge is a waste because every knowledge creates some foundation with which we can leverage on to know something else and creates associations with others that helps us better apply what we know. What you know helps you critically appraise any new knowledge you are faced in the passage of time.

No knowledge is a waste because it is not about whether it gets used actively/deliberately or not, it is about what the knowledge does to you...creating a deep sense of confidence which will make you comfortable (in the mind...and in the body i.e what you know can make you rich in wisdom and rich in finances if you know how to apply it).

No knowledge is a waste because what you know will shape what you become either consciously or subconsciously...and what you don't know can hurt you (e.g ebola).

I submit to you that the statement that "it is a fallacy that no knowledge is a wasted one" is itself a fallacy specifically a fallacy of hasty generalisation.

It doesn't count that we can't know everything but what we do allow ourselves to know will count someday or in someway to someone, somewhere...it's only a matter of time.

Thanks bro! You have just unleashed the real picture.

Serendipity:


A butterfly should not think itself a bird.

So he's not only supercilious, he's condescending too