From “Collective Intelligence: Creating a Prosperous World at Peace” (600+ page .pdf) comes this passage by Robert Steele in his essay “Creating a Smart Nation:”
Published knowledge is old knowledge: The art of intelligence in the 21st Century will be less concerned with integrating old knowledge and more concerned with using published knowledge as a path to exactly the right source or sources that can create new knowledege tailored to a new situation, in real time.”
While this is in the context of national security and intelligence, I think it’s applicable to the ways in which we think about networked learning, which is why we need to publish what we know and share it widely.
I’m not sure I’m reading this quote the way you are.
But by “using published knowledge as a path to exactly the right source or sources that can create new knowledege,” what’s to prevent us from re-integrating old knowledge?
Does access to source material necessarily mean we will see things anew?
(you caught me again before my morning coffee…)
Don’t we re-integrate old knowledge all the time. That’s why we start learning by activating background knowledge on which to build the new knowldge (building schema). The old knowledge hasn’t gone away until unless it is outdated or disproven. We just have unprecedented access to more knowledge than we have ever had before. The challenge is sorting and finding exactly what we need when we need it. Then we process and remix it so it is usable for us. Then is it new.
While desiring to honor the intent of the quote’s author, I suggest it ignores a number of important characteristics of learning:
1. Connecting to prior learning is an important strategy for interpreting new, and perhaps conflicting information. For this reason I do not see the use (and value) of “old” knowledge coming to an end.
2. Much “new” knowledge requires testing or validation. “New” does not equal valid or accurate.
3. Solving new problems does not mean the problem itself is new. More often it is the context of the problem which is new, and which can benefit from “old” principles.
4. It may be argued that all knowledge is old as soon as it is discovered. Further, how will the discovery be made known if it is not published?
To the author’s credit he places a strong emphasis on the role of information literacy and critical thinking. Finding rich and/or relevant resources, synthesizing the information from various channels, and creatively and effectively applying it to solve problems certainly needs greater emphasis at all levels of education.
Maybe I’m misreading this, but my take was that the emphasis is on using published information as a means to connect to someone or someones to solve new problems and create new knowledge. I read it as people with whom we can collaborate or participate to extend what is already known. Doesn’t discount old knowledge but frames it in a different light, not as answer but as vehicle to a better answer. Probably doesn’t make sense either.
I think what this quote is telling me is that the process of creating knowledge in the 21st Century will be more socially and temporally dynamic. Perhaps more a collective of facts, ideas and skills than a collection. McLuhan’s “change of scale or pace or pattern” in “The medium is the message”.
I love the internet, but come on, let’s not dismiss all old media. I could make an argument that published knowledge is knowledge that some one though about before letting it out into the world.