half Knowledge is dangerous

[tret]

As i said you in past, half knowledge is dangerous.

Why?
half-knowledge is better than no-knowledge!

[ismaili103]

As i said you in past, half knowledge is dangerous.

Why?
half-knowledge is better than no-knowledge!

Is your statement is informative for this thread.

He always comes with his poor knowledge on these kind of topics and flood the thread by his foolish criticisms. As well as you.

If half knowledge is better than no knowledge, than full knowledge is even better than half one.

[tret]

If half knowledge is better than no knowledge, than full knowledge is even better than half one.

Right!

Then do the honour of explaining how half-knowledge is dangerous?
Why no-knowledge is not dangerous?
which category do you fall into? no-knowledge? half-knowledge? or full-knowledge?

[ismaili103]

If half knowledge is better than no knowledge, than full knowledge is even better than half one.

Right!

Then do the honour of explaining how half-knowledge is dangerous?
Why no-knowledge is not dangerous?
which category do you fall into? no-knowledge? half-knowledge? or full-knowledge?

As usually unrelated to the topic.

I am only talking about the specific topic. I know you and Mazhar definately have good knowledge on fatimid and central asian tradition but its the truth not on this topic. With no knowledge mazhar created 2 threads on Ginans just for criticizing it.

In some topic i have no knowledge, while in some I have half and full respectively ( ACCORDING TO ME). I am here to learn. When I have no knowledge I remain silent and didnot post any thing on it.

[tret]

As usually unrelated to the topic.

I am only talking about the specific topic. I know you and Mazhar definately have good knowledge on fatimid and central asian tradition but its the truth not on this topic. With no knowledge mazhar created 2 threads on Ginans just for criticizing it.

In some topic i have no knowledge, while in some I have half and full respectively ( ACCORDING TO ME). I am here to learn. When I have no knowledge I remain silent and didnot post any thing on it.

As usually unrelated to the topic.

I am only talking about the specific topic. I know you and Mazhar definately have good knowledge on fatimid and central asian tradition but its the truth not on this topic. With no knowledge mazhar created 2 threads on Ginans just for criticizing it.

In some topic i have no knowledge, while in some I have half and full respectively ( ACCORDING TO ME). I am here to learn. When I have no knowledge I remain silent and didnot post any thing on it.

I had explained before this saying of "half-knowledge being dangerous" and I wanted to point out that correct term to use is "half-truth" and not "half-knowledge". Because, if we apply logic, 'half-knowledge' is not dangerous -- at least not more than no-knowledge. So, I am pointing you -- and other folks here that I noticed before -- not to follow something blindly, because someone else said so!

So you agree that in some topic you have no-knowledge, in some you have half-knowledge and in some you have full-knowledge. And even those are subjective and relative. So, there's really not any certain way that one can say for sure. So knowledge or acquiring knowledge is a perpetual effort by man. It never ends. You can never say, Now I know everything and have full knowledge. That's wrong!

I am not here to challenge you -- or anyone, to test your knowledge, simply because I am in no position to do so. Everyone in here knows to a certain degree and maybe versed in some area and not in others. And I don't think it's wise to say anyone has full-knowledge. Because only God has complete knowledge, especially when it comes to religious and spirituality.

Another point i wanna clear is that most of you folks refer to "Central Asian tradition" or "khoja tradition" when talking about matters of faith. We need to separate tradition -- by tradition I mean cultural rituals -- from essence of faith. We are not talking about traditions but rather essence of faith and that must not be dependent on anyone's tradition -- not central asian nor khoja's. There are certain traditions in central asia which are specific to that region and I don't think it would be wise to impose those traditions on other Ismailis jama'at around the world. It would be hostile to other jama'ats in other parts of the world. similarly, traditions which we bring from our backgrounds and past history, must remain simply a beautiful tradition and not affect the essence of our faith. I hope you understand what I am talking about.

[kmaherali]

Why?
half-knowledge is better than no-knowledge!

MHI in his Cape Town address said:

"We live in a time when the quantity of information has exploded in
incalculable ways. Data flows in greater volumes, at higher speeds, over
greater distances to larger audiences than ever before. And yet the result
has not been greater understanding or enlightenment. In fact, it has often
been just the reverse .

One is reminded of T. S. Eliot's haunting question: "Where is the wisdom we
have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"

Only as we reach beyond mere information and superficial knowledge can the
spirit of Creative Encounter flourish"

http://www.ismaili.net/speech/s961017.html

I hope the above explains how half knowledge can be dangerous.

For more, you may want to go to:

Concept of Knowledge Revisited
http://www.ismaili.net/html/modules.php ... 97&start=0


[/b]

[tret]

Why?
half-knowledge is better than no-knowledge!

MHI in his Cape Town address said:

"We live in a time when the quantity of information has exploded in
incalculable ways. Data flows in greater volumes, at higher speeds, over
greater distances to larger audiences than ever before. And yet the result
has not been greater understanding or enlightenment. In fact, it has often
been just the reverse .

One is reminded of T. S. Eliot's haunting question: "Where is the wisdom we
have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"

Only as we reach beyond mere information and superficial knowledge can the
spirit of Creative Encounter flourish"

http://www.ismaili.net/speech/s961017.html

I hope the above explains how half knowledge can be dangerous.

For more, you may want to go to:

Concept of Knowledge Revisited
http://www.ismaili.net/html/modules.php ... 97&start=0


[/b]

kmaherali - I don't see no connection to half-knowledge here!!!

MHI mentioned the same at Brown's university recently; but that in no way related to half-knowledge!!!

I am saying: knowledge is something that man contentiously builds through life. It is an ocean and it never ends, till we die. So, there's no full-knowledge, especially about spirituality.So, if you wait for the day that your knowledge is complete, then you have a loooong journey my friend.

On the other hand, 'half-truth' is dangerous. It's very seriously dangerous. Either purposefully conveying half-truth or unknowingly. In both cases, it can have some serious consequences.

So, folks here are confusing 'half-truth' vs 'half-knowledge' being dangerous.

I am saying, why not we use god-given intellect and logic to see if something makes sense, instead of blindly following/saying simply because someone else said so.

[fayaz006]

kmaherali - I don't see no connection to half-knowledge here!!!

MHI mentioned the same at Brown's university recently; but that in no way related to half-knowledge!!!

MHI uses the word superficial knowledge which in my opinion can mean half knowledge. Knowledge without wisdom, incomplete knowledge.

I think you put it very well. In the scientific community and in the US in general, we equate the term half knowledge with superficial knowledge, ignorance and unawareness which could be quite dangerous.

[tret]

kmaherali - I don't see no connection to half-knowledge here!!!

MHI mentioned the same at Brown's university recently; but that in no way related to half-knowledge!!!

MHI uses the word superficial knowledge which in my opinion can mean half knowledge. Knowledge without wisdom, incomplete knowledge.

I think you put it very well. In the scientific community and in the US in general, we equate the term half knowledge with superficial knowledge, ignorance and unawareness which could be quite dangerous.

Let's say we agree that MHI meant by superficial knowledge as ignorance/unawareness, etc...

Now, how can that be dangerous? Let's say according to you I am ignorant and unaware, how can I impose any danger to you or to anyone? The only danger I may pose is on myself.

However, half-truth can be dangerous. If we look at fake ahadis that are floating around today, which were fabricated over decades to benefit only a group of people, but the damage is very large. i.e. having 4 wifes, marrying 8 years old, and many many other examples like that. So, at some point people used half truth about our beloved Prophet to implement their own agenda.

[fayaz006]

Let's say we agree that MHI meant by superficial knowledge as ignorance/unawareness, etc...

Now, how can that be dangerous? Let's say according to you I am ignorant and unaware, how can I impose any danger to you or to anyone? The only danger I may pose is on myself.

However, half-truth can be dangerous. If we look at fake ahadis that are floating around today, which were fabricated over decades to benefit only a group of people, but the damage is very large. i.e. having 4 wifes, marrying 8 years old, and many many other examples like that. So, at some point people used half truth about our beloved Prophet to implement their own agenda.

I can give you two examples. 2003 USA invaded Iraq. Right after the invasion the US made some pretty stupid choices. In one of the interviews the Imam mentioned that all the US had to do was study the history of the region at depth and would not have invaded or made several blunders. So a case of superficial knowledge causing probably one of the biggest blunder in US.

Another example, i have superficial knowledge about mechanics, no where near the in depth knowledge that my boss has. Long story short, i made some decisions that cost the company money. Bottom line is for us, Half Knowledge is quite costly and dangerous. For us half truths are more like lies used to manipulate.

[tret]

I can give you two examples. 2003 USA invaded Iraq. Right after the invasion the US made some pretty stupid choices. In one of the interviews the Imam mentioned that all the US had to do was study the history of the region at depth and would not have invaded or made several blunders. So a case of superficial knowledge causing probably one of the biggest blunder in US.

Another example, i have superficial knowledge about mechanics, no where near the in depth knowledge that my boss has. Long story short, i made some decisions that cost the company money. Bottom line is for us, Half Knowledge is quite costly and dangerous. For us half truths are more like lies used to manipulate.

Agreed with both examples. In the political context and specifically the example you provided, this is very true! and I recollect the interview of MHI mentioning this. Your other example of costing money to the company and to yourself also comprehensible and true. However, we are specifically talking in religious context. The example I gave you was also in the context of religion. So, the damage of an ignorant with superficial knowledge is only to him/herself not others. However, the danger of half-truth is far more destructive and can well impact others, specially when it comes from an authority!

[fayaz006]

Agreed with both examples. In the political context and specifically the example you provided, this is very true! and I recollect the interview of MHI mentioning this. Your other example of costing money to the company and to yourself also comprehensible and true. However, we are specifically talking in religious context. The example I gave you was also in the context of religion. So, the damage of an ignorant with superficial knowledge is only to him/herself not others. However, the danger of half-truth is far more destructive and can well impact others, specially when it comes from an authority!

I think we arguing about symantics. Let me give you an example of zznoor. I can make an argument that she has half knowledge about Islam. Only superficial knowlege and no idea about the diversity within the religion let alone diversity within humanity. Lets say a person like zznoor becomes the prime minister of Pakistan. Next thing you know we are declaring Ahmadis to be non muslims on our passports. A case of half knowledge leading to sever persecution of a minority.

I do have a question on the article that you posted. Our Imams have equated Imam Hasan to the Pirs. However the article takes the premise that Hazrat Hassan to be counted as one of the Imams and therefore Imam Sultan Mohmamad Shah to be the Imam before the Qaim. If that assumption is incorrect that would mean that Imam Shah Karim to be the Imam before the Qaim.

Also Imam Alā Dhikrihi's Salām declared Qiyama.

[kmaherali]

I think we arguing about symantics. Let me give you an example of zznoor. I can make an argument that she has half knowledge about Islam. Only superficial knowlege and no idea about the diversity within the religion let alone diversity within humanity. Lets say a person like zznoor becomes the prime minister of Pakistan. Next thing you know we are declaring Ahmadis to be non muslims on our passports. A case of half knowledge leading to sever persecution of a minority.

I agree. it is just about semantics, there is no difference between superficial knowledge and half truth. Another example of superficial religious knowledge as being dangerous is the ideology of the ISIS and it's murderous impact in the world.

[kmaherali]

Starving for Wisdom

“We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom.”

That epigram from E.O. Wilson captures the dilemma of our era. Yet the solution of some folks is to disdain wisdom.

“Is it a vital interest of the state to have more anthropologists?” Rick Scott, the Florida governor, once asked. A leader of a prominent Internet company once told me that the firm regards admission to Harvard as a useful heuristic of talent, but a college education itself as useless.

Parents and students themselves are acting on these principles, retreating from the humanities. Among college graduates in 1971, there were about two business majors for each English major. Now there are seven times as many. (I was a political science major; if I were doing it over, I’d be an economics major with a foot in the humanities.)

So, to answer the skeptics, here are my three reasons the humanities enrich our souls and sometimes even our pocketbooks as well.

First, liberal arts equip students with communications and interpersonal skills that are valuable and genuinely rewarded in the labor force, especially when accompanied by technical abilities.

“A broad liberal arts education is a key pathway to success in the 21st-century economy,” says Lawrence Katz, a labor economist at Harvard. Katz says that the economic return to pure technical skills has flattened, and the highest return now goes to those who combine soft skills — excellence at communicating and working with people — with technical skills.

“So I think a humanities major who also did a lot of computer science, economics, psychology, or other sciences can be quite valuable and have great career flexibility,” Katz said. “But you need both, in my view, to maximize your potential. And an economics major or computer science major or biology or engineering or physics major who takes serious courses in the humanities and history also will be a much more valuable scientist, financial professional, economist, or entrepreneur.”

My second reason: We need people conversant with the humanities to help reach wise public policy decisions, even about the sciences. Technology companies must constantly weigh ethical decisions: Where should Facebook set its privacy defaults, and should it tolerate glimpses of nudity? Should Twitter close accounts that seem sympathetic to terrorists? How should Google handle sex and violence, or defamatory articles?

In the policy realm, one of the most important decisions we humans will have to make is whether to allow germline gene modification. This might eliminate certain diseases, ease suffering, make our offspring smarter and more beautiful. But it would also change our species. It would enable the wealthy to concoct superchildren. It’s exhilarating and terrifying.

To weigh these issues, regulators should be informed by first-rate science, but also by first-rate humanism. After all, Homer addressed similar issues three millenniums ago.

In “The Odyssey,” the beautiful nymph Calypso offers immortality to Odysseus if he will stay on her island. After a fling with her, Odysseus ultimately rejects the offer because he misses his wife, Penelope. He turns down godlike immortality to embrace suffering and death that are essential to the human condition.

Likewise, when the President’s Council on Bioethics issued its report in 2002, “Human Cloning and Human Dignity,” it cited scientific journals but also Ernest Hemingway’s “The Old Man and the Sea.” Even science depends upon the humanities to shape judgments about ethics, limits and values.

Third, wherever our careers lie, much of our happiness depends upon our interactions with those around us, and there’s some evidence that literature nurtures a richer emotional intelligence.

Science magazine published five studies indicating that research subjects who read literary fiction did better at assessing the feelings of a person in a photo than those who read nonfiction or popular fiction. Literature seems to offer lessons in human nature that help us decode the world around us and be better friends.
Continue reading the main story1Comment
Literature also builds bridges of understanding. Toni Morrison has helped all America understand African-American life. Jhumpa Lahiri illuminated immigrant contradictions. Khaled Hosseini opened windows on Afghanistan.

In short, it makes eminent sense to study coding and statistics today, but also history and literature.

John Adams had it right when he wrote to his wife, Abigail, in 1780: “I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History and Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/opini ... pe=article

[nuseri]

Ya Ali Madad:

I would add to it that 2/3 knowledge is less dangerous than half knowledge.
A simple question.
does one has to tear/peel the skin of the fruit to know what inside and later taste it with tongue to know it's flavor n essence ?
or just the observation of than skinned fruit and reading 1000 pages on it
will get one the taste in one's tongue?

[nuseri]

Ya Ali Madad:

I would add to it that 2/3 knowledge is less dangerous than half knowledge.
A simple question.
does one has to tear/peel the skin of the fruit to know what inside and later taste it with tongue to know it's flavor n essence ?
or just the observation of than skinned fruit and reading 1000 pages on it
will get one the taste in one's tongue?

[kmaherali]

Ya Ali Madad:

I would add to it that 2/3 knowledge is less dangerous than half knowledge.
A simple question.
does one has to tear/peel the skin of the fruit to know what inside and later taste it with tongue to know it's flavor n essence ?
or just the observation of than skinned fruit and reading 1000 pages on it
will get one the taste in one's tongue?

Admin, please explain what the post means. Nuseri is too advanced for me. Thanks