Personally, I think there is no end to knowledge. Therefore, when realizing this embarrassment, the only thing human beings should do is to absorb as much new knowledge as possible so as not to lag behind the pace of our world.
But the author demonstrates it completely from another angle, and see the following.
Does recognizing the limitations of our knowledge and understanding help us acquire new facts and information, as the speaker said? Pay attention to the beginning of this classic rhetorical question, which is the most striking. Although our daily experience may make this assertion credible, further thinking will find that it is fundamentally inconsistent with our western views on how to acquire knowledge. Nevertheless, although a compromise method is put forward in principle, which shows that the author is critical thinking, this is very important and the highlight of the score. A careful and thoughtful definition of knowledge helps to reconcile the two.
Let's remember some good words and sentences: provide evidence (sufficient evidence) for this assertion to prove the correctness of this view; Further reflection reveals that it is fundamentally inconsistent with …: However, a careful and thoughtful definition of knowledge can play a role in reconciling the two.
On the one hand, the speaker's assertion conforms to the daily experience of professionals. For example, the "book" knowledge acquired by medical, legal and business students, no matter how extensive, is of little use unless these students also learn to accept the uncertainties and risks inherent in professional practice and the business world.
Any successful doctor, lawyer or entrepreneur will undoubtedly agree that the new precedents and challenges in their field force them to admit the limitations of their knowledge, and learning to adapt to these limitations is as important to their professional success as the knowledge itself.
In the first paragraph of the rebuttal, the author illustrates with examples that the limitation of knowledge does not necessarily mean that people from all walks of life must learn other knowledge. On the contrary, it is necessary for doctors, lawyers or entrepreneurs to realize the limitations of self-knowledge and find ways to adapt and reconcile this limitation.
In addition, the extra knowledge we gain by collecting more information tends to decrease-sometimes to the point where marginal gains become marginal losses. For example, consider the collection of financial investment information. No amount of knowledge can eliminate the inherent uncertainties and risks in financial investment. In addition, information overload will lead to confusion, which in turn will weaken a person's ability to absorb information and effectively apply it. Therefore, by recognizing the limitations of their knowledge and taking these limitations into account when making decisions, investment consultants can serve their clients more effectively.
The author further refutes the original view through the harmfulness of redundant information in financial investment industry.
On the other hand, the speaker's assertion seems to be contradictory, because how can we know the limits of our knowledge unless we thoroughly test these limits through detailed empirical observation, that is, by obtaining facts and information. For example, it is tempting to admit that we can never understand the fundamental forces that govern all matter in the universe. However, due to the increasingly accurate and extensive fact-finding efforts of scientists, we may now be within an amazing distance of understanding the key laws of all material behaviors. In other words, the speaker's assertion defies the scientific method, whose basic principle is that we humans can only really know what we observe. Therefore, Francis Bacon, who first proposed this method, may assert that the speaker is simply incorrect.
To tell the truth, I think in this passage, the author played a sophistry trick: first, he pointed out the contradiction of the original point of view, and then he came to his own view-epistemology is far more important than obtaining new facts and information, that is, "first understand the limitations of knowledge and cognition, and then absorb new knowledge."
How do we reconcile our daily experience with the basic assumptions of scientific methods? Perhaps the answer lies in distinguishing two types of knowledge-one is only the collection of observations (that is, facts and information), and the other is more profound, including the understanding of the principles and truth behind these observations. At this deeper level, "knowledge" equals "understanding": how do we explain, understand and discover the meaning of the information we collect through observation.
The author puts forward his own solution to the problem raised in the previous paragraph, that is, he realizes that "knowledge" can be divided into two types: simply observing the information obtained; Extract the "understanding" after self-digestion. But I think there is still room to play here. I don't think there is enough time. Let's put our pens away quickly. There is no good explanation.
In the final analysis, evaluating the speaker's ideas requires us to define "knowledge", which in turn requires us to solve complex epistemological problems, which are best left to philosophers and theologians. However, perhaps this is the speaker's point of view: we can never really understand ourselves or the world. By recognizing this limitation, we can set ourselves free to accomplish things that no amount of information can achieve.
The last sentence played the sentence-making skills of complex sentences and wanted to make ets laugh. But I don't think the summary is good enough to get to the point. In fact, you don't have to play word games to tell a straight story, because if others don't know what you are talking about, it is equivalent to "usurping the role of the host". Personally, I think the author's writing is a bit unintelligible.