Essay 32 Why Knowledge is Not Neutral

Essay 32
WHY KNOWLEDGE IS NOT “NEUTRAL”

December 16, 2000

Last week in Sunday school class, there was a thought expressed that “knowledge is neutral”. Subsequently Ken Johnson and Ed Wilcox each commented to me that they did not believe the thought to be true. I agreed. During the week I have reflected upon this from time to time, and conclude the following.

Neutral "things" tend to be judged to be in the middle. Mathematicians usually assign that spot a "zero". I'll adopt this as a useful technique, and assign knowledge a zero. Now, let us plot ignorance on the same scale. OOPS! At first thought, one wishes to assign it a zero also. This seems to put ignorance on an equal footing with knowledge. Since this does not sit very well, it would seem to be preferable to assign values to the two that SUM to zero. Ergo, knowledge has a positive value.

But surely this is too easy.

Perhaps the comment is intended to rest upon the application of knowledge. The argument could be that it is only the application that can be assigned value, plus or minus, and since knowledge can be used for both good and evil, therefore it is "neutral".

Can ignorance be used for both good and evil? To state the matter in this way causes an eyebrow to rise. We seem to be inherently uncomfortable with the words "can ignorance be used" for that seems to endow ignorance with a quality that its very definition would appear to exclude.

No, we had best bring this discussion down to the real world.

Let us consider the possibility that a person's legs are not of the same length. I must add that I am amused by the thought that a fault is always assigned to one leg--the shorter! When that person walks, he must do so by averaging leg length in some manner or other. They will average to a length "N".

Is "N" neutral? Certainly not! Even without the knowledge that one leg is shorter, he limps. But with the knowledge, he can put a riser on the correct shoe. And the knowledge appears to me to have considerable value, even before the knowledge is applied. For it explains bad backs! I of course can speak with some authority on this subject, since I was having all kinds of back problems before I discovered the discrepancies in my leg lengths.

Remember these sayings?: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". (Even a little is not neutral!) "Knowledge, however small, can offset ignorance, however vast". (Knowledge has weight, a "zero" doesn't); "he is all-knowing!" (If knowing is neutral, can all-knowing be bad?)

I am going to avoid such sayings as "never argue with an idiot" but I know that fits in here somewhere.

It seems clear. Knowledge has weight and value, independent of its application. And the reason is also easy--knowledge rests in truth.