{"id":2959,"date":"2021-02-13T17:57:58","date_gmt":"2021-02-13T17:57:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.memecon.info\/?p=2959"},"modified":"2021-02-13T17:57:58","modified_gmt":"2021-02-13T17:57:58","slug":"what-we-can-know","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.memecon.info\/?p=2959","title":{"rendered":"What we can know"},"content":{"rendered":"

What we can know was already a concern of Socrates according to Plato \u201cI know that I do not know (actually: I know as a non-knower – \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ce\u03c2, o\u00eeda ouk eid\u014ds<\/em>)? Heinrich von Pierer also had his view on his company\u2019s knowledge: If Siemens knew what Siemens knows. Despite all attention, it is overlooked that knowledge only becomes tangible indirectly through appropriate media (paper, electronic media, and channels). It is not an exchange of knowledge that takes place but copying of data. The sender does not let go of its knowledge but instead offers distorted formulations through filters (see Meta model of language<\/a>). It is the receiver who interprets the data. The continuous evolution of our knowledge reinforces the distortions. What is true today may be false tomorrow. In 2017, Kellyanne Conway drew attention in the right direction by talking about alternative facts. Niklas Luhmann described that information, communication, and understanding are contingent occurrences in the last century, i.e., a statement is neither necessary nor impossible and can be one way or another. What can we still know today with this insight?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Suppose we disregard for a moment the sender\u2019s intentions and look at the content, the knowledge. In that case, there remain a few questions that must be clarified in advance to be able to criticize each other: What is knowing? How is it different from not knowing? The following points provide food for thought.<\/p>\n