The Copernican Theory of Knowledge: From “Broad and Shallow” to “Diverse and Sharp”
When researching or studying, there are expressions like looking into something “broadly and shallowly” or gaining knowledge “narrowly and deeply.”
Whenever such a topic arose, I always felt there was a gap between my image of it and others’.
Today, I had a realization regarding this. In this article, I’ll compile that insight.
The Image of Digging with a Shovel
When we talk about investigating something “broadly and shallowly” or “narrowly and deeply,” we liken knowledge to a flat ground.
Since there are various genres of knowledge, there’s an image of breadth, which reminds us of flat ground.
The amount or depth of knowledge can be likened to digging holes in that ground with a shovel.
The general understanding is that if you try to dig over a wide area with the same effort, it becomes hard to dig deep. Conversely, if you dig too deep, it becomes localized.
This is where I sense a dissonance.
Reflecting upon this dissonance, I realized there were two main differences in my perception.
The Image of a Drill
To address my unease, I first thought we need to change our imagery of how we dig.
When digging the ground, if you use a shovel, the hole broadens as it deepens. This would correlate with the idea that reading many books in the same genre or remembering everything in a reference book contributes to deep knowledge.
This is the first gap with my image.
For those initially digging into a genre, using a shovel might be necessary to uncover the interconnected knowledge and root-like essence in it.
However, for those who prioritize deep knowledge over volume and have guidance from those who’ve dug before, using a precise drilling machine to target the core knowledge is possible.
To grasp the core knowledge deep within, you don’t need to dig up the vast surroundings as the first person did. With a targeted and sharp approach, you can reach the depths with less effort.
However, it requires genuine effort. Merely observing others digging and feeling as if you’ve dug won’t get you the actual depth of understanding.
Moreover, a good drilling machine and expertise in drilling are crucial. If there’s a tough bedrock on the way to the core knowledge, you need the capability to break through or the wisdom to skillfully circumvent it.
The Image of a Planet
Next, I thought we need to change our spatial image of knowledge. The common spatial image is that of a flat ground. Here lies the second gap with my image.
My spatial perception of knowledge is not flat but rather planetary. Instead of the geocentric idea that the ground is flat, it might be called the Copernican Theory of Knowledge. In my view, knowledge is spherical.
As you delve deeper into knowledge, there might be a connection to another system of knowledge or a discovery of universal principles. Ultimately, you might reach fields like precise mathematics, foundational philosophy, or arts that touch the heartstrings. A spherical image, rather than a flat one, better captures this concept.
Strategy for Deepening Knowledge
When envisioned as planetary drilling, deepening one’s understanding of knowledge isn’t about increasing the amount of detailed information but about grasping the abstract essence at its core. This might also be seen as the pursuit of quality knowledge.
Of course, there are areas of knowledge where understanding details enables deeper insights. Some may start by scooping out these areas, others may want to expand their detailed knowledge, and yet others might be exploring deeper layers. There’s significant value in pursuing vast knowledge.
However, this isn’t the only way to gain deeper insights. The essence of deeply dug knowledge can be understood without the effort of excavating tons of earth. And the strategy of digging deep into various fields to gain high-quality knowledge holds significant meaning in the acquisition of knowledge.
This, in a way, is not a “narrow but deep” or “wide but shallow” strategy, but a “diverse yet sharp” approach.
This strategy of knowledge acquisition is valuable in two main areas:
Interdisciplinary Research
The first is in the realm of interdisciplinary research.
Interdisciplinary research involves studies spanning multiple fields. In traditional, non-interdisciplinary research, scholars delve deeply into a narrow field. Instead of re-digging what’s already been explored, they drill into uncharted areas, requiring effort not just in depth but also breadth.
In contrast, interdisciplinary research explores undiscovered knowledge that lies between different fields. If you understand the distinct bodies of knowledge, then you can create links or delve diagonally to make connections. If knowledge is visualized as a sphere, then drilling directly down might still lead to intersections.
For this interdisciplinary research, it’s important to have a deep understanding of the core concepts from various fields, making the “diverse yet sharp” strategy efficient.
Problem Solving
The second is in formulating solutions in the field of problem solving.
Here, problem-solving isn’t about answering test questions but about addressing unresolved real-world issues. In the past, many unresolved problems existed simply because no one had tackled them yet.
However, in today’s world where many possess advanced knowledge and are motivated to solve any issues, be it in governance, business, or personal life, most straightforward problems have already been resolved. What remains are complex challenges.
These modern problems don’t necessarily require sophisticated intellect but often need solutions that consider multi-faceted effects. It’s about the intricacies specific to our modern society.
To address these issues, one needs a multi-angled approach and comprehensive solutions. It often involves proposing a solution and then iteratively gathering feedback. Those with a wide array of knowledge can often present comprehensive solutions.
Thus, possessing “diverse yet sharp” knowledge is crucial.
In Conclusion
By visualizing knowledge as drilling machines and spherical ground, I’ve been able to articulate my understanding of the nature of knowledge acquisition. This clarified some inherent inconsistencies.
I’m a software engineer, specifically an architect responsible for designing the basic structures or architectures of systems and software. To design good architecture, it’s said that understanding a broad range of technical knowledge is more important than detailed expertise in specific parts.
However, in the ever-evolving world of software and systems, merely grasping the surface of diverse knowledge or trying to master every detail is impractical.
Instead, truly understanding the deep essence of technology is vital. Specific knowledge can be delegated to fellow engineers or sourced online. But the foundational knowledge? One must possess it.
That’s why I believe that a “diverse yet sharp” approach to knowledge acquisition is crucial.
Not just for engineers, but as the importance of interdisciplinary research and formulating solutions to complex societal issues grow, I hope this perspective serves as a valuable reference for the future.
