If two people have equal knowledge of something, does it matter where that knowledge was obtained?

For your simple example, it doesn’t matter from whence the knowledge came. However, if I am hiring you for a job and need some general sense that you have the thinking skills I need, I may require a specific college degree, certificate, etc., to offer proof of a knowledge or skill set.

Agreed with @Kayak8. For something simple, it doesn’t matter. But in a job situation, it might.
For example, maybe your grandpa taught you to use a drill press, but you’ve never had any formal training. You know how to use it just as well as the other guy, who was trained and apprenticed by a certified carpenter. I’d be more apt to hire the other guy to operate my drill press.

@Seelix Am rightly impressed with your answer. Just curious, and I mean nothing by this but just a curiosity—why drill press? Was that the first thing to pop into your mind? Drill press was the last thing I’d expect in an answer here. Not critisizing or saying anything bad about it, of course, just surprised, and rather impressed in an amusing way (in a good way) at that example. Will give you an A+ for greatest example in an answer given today.

@12Oaks – It really was the first thing to pop into my mind. I have no idea where it came from – it’s Sunday and a sleep-in day, so I’ll use the fact that I haven’t been up for very long as an excuse. :)

If you learn in an institutional setting, say a university, you are more likely to get the background and interconnections of a subject as well as just the facts.

@marinelife I beg to differ. Maybe it’s because I know too many people with book-learning that only remember the facts well enough for good test scores and have no real understanding of the underlying principles. By the same token, many students are not interested in math or science as they don’t see how it applies to them in their lives; the exception being if they are taught by somebody who makes the material more relatable like James Kakaklios does by teaching physics through the lens of comic-book superheroes.

Then again, I was always curious anyways. For instance, I knew that using a “cheater bar” on a wrench made it easier to turn a nut, but I wanted to know why, so I got interested in how torque works. Or my interest in bikes leading me to learn about gear ratios, or my hobby of R/C cars leading me to learn all sorts of stuff (electronics, battery technology, car suspension, gearing….)

Very little of that stuff was learned in school, and I didn’t really learn much about my job (CNC machinist) until I left school and got some real-word experience, quite a bit of which is either beyond or directly counter to what I learned in the classroom.

Accordingly, I value real-world experience more than academic learning, especially after finding many of my book-smart colleagues have no clue how to apply what they know the way a more street-smart person does. Don’t get me wrong, formal education has it’s uses, but it’s more of a complementary thing than a stand-alone panacea.

If both people agree with my assessment that 2+2=4 then I may consider that as an indication of their knowledge in other problem areas. If they have gone to “arithmetic tables college” then I would be inclined to think they fairly complete coverage in that area. I would expect there would be a good chance they’ve learned 12×12 for example; always a good skill to have.

If they learned it by helping build houses, then I would think that they might have other related information, such as how to hold a nail so they don’t hit their thumb.

Depending on what I want them to do, either way of learning might seem better because of the indication of my inference about their related knowledge.

However, I would expect the person who studied arithmetic in college to be more at home with having something new thrown at them and cheerfully learning how to do it. So I’d shoot the other one. Wait, what was the question?

First, let’s distinguish the reliability, amount, correctness of knowledge, and similarity between what people know.

In your example, they both know the same peice of information, that 2+2=4. One person cannot tell me a fact that the other couldn’t. They would both only know the fact that 2+2=4 (in real life, people would know more than this, but that is not the question).

Both people know the same amount of information. They both know 1 fact, the fact that 2+2=4

Both people have the same correctness of knowledge. Either the fact that 2+2=4 is correct, and they are both right, or it isn’t, and they are both wrong.

What’s left is the reliability of the knowledge. The person who learned it from the university can claim that they are more reliable as a source of the information “2+2=4.” They can give a more convincing argument by saying that they learned it from the Dean of Math. The other person would say that they learned it by seeing some guy count money, which is less reliable, because what if the person didn’t know how to count.

@6rant6 You aren’t really answering the question. If someone builds houses, they are more likely to know more about construction. If someone learned it from school, they are more likely to know about other, more complex math. You are correct by saying that. However, the question is asking about when people have equal knowledge of something. They would both know the exact same facts about the exact same thing. The question is asking that if this is the case, does the source of the information matter.

How a thing is learned is of no consequence…because the understanding of a thing resides within and not without…and in that all are equal.. since all possesses that Understanding.

And this understanding was always present and that one did not need a teacher in order to have it.

@PhiNotPi I don’t think the question in all its abstract glory is sensible. __Or even grammatical. ”...are we both have equal knowledge.“__

I was trying to surmise a possible context in which this question would have applicability. Sorry if i didn’t spell that out for you.

@6rant6 Sorry for the grammar. Kind of changed how it was gonna be asked. Started with are we both equally knowledgeable on the subject but got detoured along the way. The premise still stands.

@6rant6 I agree that the qeustion does not have much practical value. No two people would know the same thing, and the source would influence what else they know.

That last sentence wasn’t sarcastic, was it?

If two people came to apply for a job where I was hiring an accountant, and one of them could show me that she had knowledge of arithmetic and higher math from long hours spent pursuing an accounting degree in a well-known and accredited college, and the other knew his math from long hours spent at the track, guess which one I’d hire?

The one with bigger breasts, obviously, but the college degree would help to justify that decision.

@WasCy: Great! I get the job.

I think that it doesn’t matter where you get the knowledge itself from, but it does matter what else you pick up with it , , , going to a high end uni, for example, may encourage you to speak formally or not to shout, but a regular uni usually wouldn’t do that.
The environment of where you learn or obtain knowledge from is just as important as the knowledge, as it has an effect on you, furthermore effecting how you will use that knowledge later on in your life . . .

@WasCy With all due respect, and I mean that, you are taking it to the next level. You went from 2+2=4 with hiring an accountant. I’m just speaking of equal knowledge and the source from which it was learned, not what it is you plan to do with that knowledge or how much more you may have learned since a basic.

Let’s change this. Suppose there are two guys who know how to change oil in a car. One learned from, say, instructions that come with a filter and oil. Another went to the best auto repair school there is. Is one, then, able to change oil better than the next, considering that they both do it correctly? Obviously the schooled one may do better at rebuilding an engine or changing a starter or the like. But if you compare both of the ability only to changing of the oil, one taught by a master mechanic and the other from directions that come in a box, would one oil change on a 2001 Ford Explorer be any better than another another on a 2001 Ford Explorer because of how changing the oil was learned?

I really don’t know. I read a lot. A lot of fiction and a lot of non-fiction. I thought I was doing some good learning on my own. If my independent study isn’t giving me the knowledge of somebody else who read the same book in a classroom environment then I may as well quit trying to educate myself for the knowledge obtained isn’t valid. Well, the bright side is it’ll give me more time for reading mystery books.

I think it depends on what setting the information is used for. If you are talking amongst friends, the source probably does not matter all that much as long as the information is correct. Most people’s answer were geared toward employment; in such a setting, the source would matter more.

Knowledge is not just about facts (in which case it usually doesn’t matter as long as the sources are reliable). Let’s take Apollo 13:

Facts? Stuff available on board. Medical data. Etc.

Knowledge? How can we get the astronauts back safely?

I think @mattbrowne‘s answer came closest to what I’ve been thinking about this question. The word I was looking for was ‘synthesis’. Sometimes you need to know a lot of things in order to synthesize that knowledge to a new purpose.

Someone with a good general ‘education’ in a field, such as mechanical engineering, to continue with the example he started, will have a wealth of ideas already in his head on how to resolve various engineering problems. A well-trained mechanic will also have a lot of experience on how to work with various materials on hand. Someone who only learned to change the oil on his car by reading the box that the oil filter came in… will know how to do that. (To a degree: the box doesn’t tell you how to remove the filter when you don’t have a wrench for the purpose and can’t turn it by hand – one answer is to stick a screwdriver through its diameter and use that to lever it out.)

‘Book’ or rote learning doesn’t teach the things you need to know to make the next steps beyond what you already know.

@WasCy For those of us who have had to cut up a swim fin to make a new thermostat gasket in order to make it home, I must concur; it takes more diverse knowledge than a book offers to get the job done when reality gets a little strange. Book-smarts cannot handle the unexpected the way a diverse background in practical knowledge can.

@jerv Yeah, I know that deal. Have this old Ford van, must have over a million miles on that thing by now. I must have replaced every piece on that thing at least twice by now, and made the custom fit gasket many times over.

But, yeah, thought I was wasting time doing all that reading and trying to become smart on my own. Besides, it seems to be pointless for there is nothing to apply that knowledge to. Oh, well. Got this Monk book from the library. I didn’t even know there were original stories in book for based on the series. I did like those books on quantum physics, and found them quite interesting, though I really didn’t buy it. No biggie. I like mysteries and egular books better anyway, so now more time could be spent on that instead of pipe fitting a dream.

Thanks for the input on this subject. Seems I was proven wrong, as usual.

@WasCy – Yes, and this is the reason which makes turning the so-called implicit (tacit) knowledge into explicit knowledge that can be written down so difficult. Knowledge management approaches have been struggling with this for decades.

@mattbrowne And yet a college degree means more than actual knowledge. Granted,a diploma or other certification is easier to judge (you either have one or you don’t), but often that piece of paper only means that you paid tuition; whether one has the knowledge is an entirely separate issue, and often an unrelated one.

@jerv – Yes, a college degree is also about metaknowledge and learning how to learn.

@mattbrowne Is it possible to learn how to learn without college or even a formal high school education? My reading that book about the building of the first continental railroad didn’t count, I guess. I read that at like age forty or so.

@12Oaks – It’s possible, but a lot harder, I think. What also matters is observing other students and exchanging experiences. And many professors are good mentors too.

@mattbrowne I must be an oddball as usual since I never learned well in most classroom environments, but pick stuff up by exposure in the real world without even trying. Outside of the classroom, I soak stuff up like a sponge; inside one, my brain is inert.
Different people learn differently I guess :/

@jerv – Yes, absolutely. Would you agree that for the majority of people the autodidact’s approach is more difficult?

I’ve never met a professor, or at least not one who openly admitted being One.

@mattbrowne A person who is born stone deaf cannot really talk about music, and I cannot really answer that question for about the same reason. To this day, I still cannot comprehend how the average person doesn’t have the basics of many skills I have at an almost intuitive level. Hell, I was in my late teens before I even realized I was above-average!
It may be harder for others to learn, but I don’t know for sure; I don’t know how “average“people learn.