What do you think of the saying "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing?

A lot of knowledge can be a dangerous thing as well. It just depends on what you know.
Ever heard of the saying, “what you don’t know won’t hurt you?”

If you’re ambitious and/or passionate about something, it is your responsibility to learn as much as you can about it so you can apply that knowledge in a way to reach your goals.
You can’t be afraid that it might blow up in your face. Taking risks is important, but knowing what you’re doing is important as well.

To me, it’s a high Oligarchy saying to burn books.

The masses mustn’t know of typed print, lest they gain literacy.

In other words, if you’re on top, it’s from exploitation. When the people you’re screwing over learn that you’re screwing them over, it’s dangerous for you. We need this ‘knowledge’ very badly in these times of ass fucking Oligarchy.

Dangerous to whom – that’s what matters…knowledge is always a good thing, imo.

Ok so no one take this the wrong way but the first thing that popped into my mind was ”...republicans watching Fox”.

I am bi-partisan so don’t shoot me for having a somewhat funny thought pop into my head, you attackers you.

The people who said that didn’t want people to know too much because if they did their own position would be in jeopardy.

I thought nothing of it as I inserted the bobby pin into the electrical outlet…alittle extra knowledge certainly would’ve helped instead of a half-assed warning! ;)

Ok but in all seriousness…partial knowledge is a huge blunder only because people seem to become easily satisfied with only knowing half of the story because perhaps…it backs up the biases or limited perceptions they already had.

It is similar to how a lawyer will use the truth and facts to win a case. He knows his client is guilty. The client knows he is guilty. But somehow it becomes a very strategic chess match indeed to use the truth to conceal deception.

It makes me think of medical school. As a second-year student, we learn about pathophysiology and all the bad things that can happen to the human body. After each illness, students often think, “Wow, maybe I have that!” Later, as they learn more, they realize that a few symptoms don’t mean you have a disease. For instance, someone with a stomachache may think they have gastric cancer after they learn about it, but later will realize that simple gastroenteritis is a more likely diagnosis. Common things occur commonly, as the saying goes :-)

A little knowledge really can be dangerous sometimes!

Dr Dredd I agree entirely. I was about to say that it is relative and situationally-sensitive, and then make a reference to how some information is naturally concealed from us, for example when and how we will die, if our marriages will last, if our children will outlive us. Some information is better left to speculation…but I do not necessarily think that it is orchestrated that way out of destiny.

When trying to make a decision on a concept external from ourselves we should probably thoroughly research it, but mostly an open mind will always be a more educated one, whether deliberately or not.

“To become unteachable is to welcome death…as ones purpose in life has become null…” or something dramatic like that.

The expression (from a verse by Alexander Pope) is correctly quoted as “A little learning is a dangerous thing”:

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain
And drinking largely sobers us again.

It means that we learn a little bit about something and all of a sudden we think we know something; it’s as if we were drunk on it. But when we go deeper, we find how much more there is to know, and that kind of straightens us out. Now we realize we’re not such experts.

So i was thinking…what if there are..in general, 3 types of people who might be attracted to this post.

1) the type that subconsciously would use information only to back up their own opinions and is less interested in accumulating knowledge that might help them understand someone elses.

2) the type of people who are seeking the extra, the hidden, the tricks of the trade and are open to learning more…and hope the spring never runs dry…

3) and then those that perhaps (ok this is a total shot in the dark) think that we are destined to know only what we know, and what we know has been given to us simply because we were prepared to learn it, and are fatalistically placed here to give the pieces of the puzzle to others.

I’m sure there are other pieces but it’s late and im blabbing, and kinda want to know what everyone else thinks theoretically, vs emotionally.

We see it all the time here in Flutherland; we have to answer questions based on very little knowledge of the situation. I think it can lead to problems if choices and decisions are made on inadequate information. But at the same time, there’s no way of knowing everything, so all we really have to go on is a little knowledge.

I prefer to work alone but man so much can be accomplished by people with all varying opinions, even radical ones, who are willing to try to work an equation together.

That’s what I hope to do here on the Fluff or Fluth or whatever…the hard part is when you come across the people that are so threatened by change that all they want to do is hurl their pieces of information at you and then close their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears and scream “LAAAAAAALALALALALNAHHHHHNANANANANpfttttt”

@Jeruba‘s explanation summed up my initial reaction to the phrase. It’s about overestimating how much you know, and using that knowledge improperly.

Knowing part, but not part, of a process can be dangerous. Knowing some of the story but not the whole thing can be dangerous, especially if you think that you know the whole thing.

I just think it means to know your limits. I have done some pretty stupid things when I thought I knew what I was doing.

@Jeruba , @shadling21 : For many years I have had reservations about that passage from Alexander Pope. Albert Einstein’s take on it has merit: “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot.” remember Enron? Lehmann Brothers? it is interesting that one or two corporations that suffered in the recent market failure made the same mistakes in 1929 In this age a “little learning” is absolutely essential if one is to function at even a minimal level. It may be “dangerous”, but ignorance is unforgivable.

@bea2345 : love u.

@bea2345 Good point. Making a mistake based off a small amount of knowledge seems more like a blunder. If you know all the facts and still hurt people, then you’ve made a purely immoral decision (and not just a dumb one). In both cases, danger.

It is the premise of the argument that has “ignorance is bliss” as its conclusion.

i like that dr dred. the cynical ones were exciting too

@bea2345, and explaining it isn’t necessarily the same thing as endorsing it.

@ratboy, again, let’s get the quote right before we mount a case against it : ”Where ignorance is bliss, ‘tis folly to be wise.” (Thomas Gray)—in other words, IF you’re better off not knowing something, then having the knowledge would be foolish. It is not a glorification of ignorance.

I think you should read “dangerous” as it is, but not “catastrophic” – Many things are dangerous, but kept in control or used wisely, respecting that trait, they are expremely beneficial

Let’s take the knowledge of how to read a biblical text such as Genesis. If basic literacy skills are the only knowledge people have and they’re unable to understand science or the concept of a myth, this becomes very dangerous. You end up with millions of religious fanatics declaring war on science. When scientific progress is slowed down even people can die, for example children in dire need of new cancer therapies.

Another example would be a little knowledge about diabetes without knowing the difference between type 1 and 2. Giving advice might be dangerous, like more exercise will improve your diabetes (which is only true for non-insulin-dependent type 2).

Many medical questions on Fluther have got this potential. People really need the advice from a doctor as well, because in some cases a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

@mattbrowne excellent examples

@mattbrowne
great, and more great. thx

I liked Matt’s answer, but @Jeruba pretty much said what I would’ve anyway.
Jeruba…
* sigh *

@Zen_Again You’re right! What an intellect!

@Jeruba, you chose the portion of the poem you wished to quote—I am entitled to do the same. Some fragments and misquotations (“not all that glistens is gold”) have strayed from their original homes and become free floating memes. Meaning and significance evolve constantly, and trying to pretend otherwise is to hazard that very danger to which the OP alluded.

Jeez, it’s fun to pontificate!

Disclaimer: my replies are for entertainment only.

@ratboy, my interpretation is based on an understanding of the entire poem, explicated further here.

However, you are correct that many partial quotations and downright misquotations take on a life of their own. To acknowledge them is realistic; to embrace them when you know better is to concede the field to blissful ignorance.

@Jeruba, I don’t know better—that’s the secret of my happiness’

@Jeruba – true, explanation is not an endorsement; but sometimes, when reading Alexander Pope, I get the feeling that something is said because, as we say here, “it songing good” [it sounds good]. That quotation speaks of a society where real learning was the province of moneyed classes. Universal literacy, which we think is entirely possible, was an unknown concept then. Production of food, consumables of every kind, depended on the presence of a reasonably docile lower class, that did not aspire to read essays. Pope himself was deprived of the opportunities for education available: he was the son of a linen merchant, but as a Catholic, could not attend university. It would be interesting to research the writing of the Essay on Criticism; was Pope thinking of his own deficiencies even as he reflected the thinking of the ruling classes?

@Yetanotheruser I am just smart enough to listen to smarter people than I.

It’s a true statement.

It seems to point to the tendency of some people to learn a bit of something and proceed to “run off half-cocked”. The results can range anywhere between “minor inconvenience” to “major catastrophe”.

I work with a couple of gentleman who specialize in doing just enough to get by. They know enough of their job to continue getting paid, but not enough to avoid

1. repetitive actions on the same task.
2. unnecesary actions
3. delayed claimant request investigations
4. delayed payments
5. lost work requests
6. increased work load for everyone else

lazy or inherent quality?

I think the word that applies is “incompetent”.