Secondly, I think an argument can be made that an over-abundance of information can actually make knowing certain things more obscure. If there's just one piece of information about something, it's pretty easy to pass that information around. But if there are whole books about it, dissemination can become difficult, and soon only certain people will know all of the bits of information. So I don't think that having more information available necessarily means that it will all be known by more people. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I think the argument that knowledge somehow impedes imagination is deeply flawed. I think it is quite similar to arguments that occur about literary theory 'ruining' one's ability to pursue 'authentic' interpretations of a work. Conversely, I think that having access to others' interpretations can help you shape your own (not to get into the highly problematic notion of an 'authentic' interpretation). Similarly, think that just because you know about how something works does not prevent you from imagining it. In fact, when you learn about how something works, you do imagine it. Think about learning about optics in your high school physics class. As you looked at ray diagrams, weren't you imagining rays of light going through glass and onto dots of paper? Or electrons moving from and to protons in pith ball demonstrations? Now, perhaps the things you are imagining are different from what you would have imagined if someone asked you point-blank, "How do you think pith balls work?", but there imagination is still very much front and centre here. You've just made your imaginings more informed than they otherwise would have been.
Agreed. I think I was particularly disturbed by this as it seems so pervasive in media that too often includes the NYT. Not only are opinions often considered as noteworthy as facts, but here we have the argument that sounds like knowledge is an affront to our humanity. Knowledge is human. It is the very product of our grey matter. It is the product of that which separates us from everything else we know of. Where is the self-respect? Why do we have to say that art is art and science is science? Why do we have to separate knowledge and passion? That cuts us in two. It denies who we are. As I said below, I think this essay is motivated in part by nostalgia. -I hope that's the extent of it. I'd hate to think that this could be a justification for an intellectual retreat. That's probably not being fair. But, c'mon Mr. Kreider... really now.
Really? I can't empathize with that. Every answer raises more questions. Mr. Kreider makes an interesting point about information before the internet, but I don't think the internet has killed mystery, and definitely not obscurity. This essay seems a bit of a nostalgic reflex to me. He needn't worry about kids. I'm sure if he asked some, they'd overwhelm him with obscure stuff he had never heard about. The quote: "Learning how to transform mere ignorance into mystery, simple not knowing into wonder, is a useful skill". bothers me a bit. We have plenty of ignorance. We are swimming in our own ignorance. I know nothing compared to what could be known. IMHO ignorance is not 'mere' or endangered. -It's most of what we've got.
I agree that every answer raises more questions and the "blah, blah blah" -REALLY bothered me but I am nostalgic for the days when my grandfather would reach for the dictionary/encyclopedias that he kept at arms reach to find out clues to the questions that came up at supper. Now, one of us just pulls out a smartphone. Having to piece together information was part of the pleasure. You are right, ignorance is not endangered but perhaps "wonder" is?