The Difference and Value of Knowledge as Distinct From Mere Applied Information
The discussion that has been ongoing for decades articulating the concept of knowledge and the information disseminated in learning institutions is not a concluded issue. Although most of the people accept that there is a distinction between the two, a majority do not agree upon the different questions that make the concepts different. While the schools come into creation with the aim of acquiring knowledge, it is an obvious fact that the latter does not influence the learner directly. Instead, it is dependent upon the information impacted into the individual to make sense of the knowledge gained. In my view, information is a very different realization because its effect on people is dissimilar and its value lies in the abilities of the receiver for it to become significant and classified as knowledge. Concisely, I can denote from my argument that knowledge is the practical application of information. This paper, therefore, discusses the disparity between the values of the two with the aim of asserting that knowledge is supreme to the common information received.
In my reflection, information denotes to broad or comprehensive data articulated or shown by numbers, sounds, images, words, and more. The fact is, particular instances elaborate this data while some do not. For example, an observed result or outcome of experimentation indicates unelaborated data, while the explanation of that experiment is an elaborated data. Briefly, the unelaborated finding best defines info, and the elaborated or discussed data highlights the essence of knowledge. Critical analysis will provide that different individuals will not apply the observation of that practice the same way (O’Hara 83). The reason is the interpretation of the result or observation will be deviating based on the personal knowledge gained from the experiment. One person may have the ability to interpret the outcome yet another person may not. It, therefore, means that without knowledge, the mere info obtained cannot be useful or impactful in both the learning and the working environments. Knowledge rivets and fastens personal experience; on the other hand, info is a shared concept that can just avail to anybody anywhere without leaving traces of an impactful experience. While people can transport, share and store information without many challenges or difficulties, the same cannot be conclusive about knowledge (Aristotle on… 33)
It is very imperative to note that information is freely accessible to anyone in all places around the globe. With the current society established in internet technology, it means that apart from going to school there is another free route to access information. The same way a person in the United States will reach and search the web for a particular subject is the way another individual in Sri Lanka for instance, will access the very information. However, the way it applies in the practical world is what makes the entirety of the difference to knowledge. It is agreeable that the specific information obtained from this web source will not cause the same impact on the two persons, the US citizen, and the Sri Lanka man. For example, if it was information about performing surgery, I doubt with the firm conviction that the performance of the duo will produce a similar outcome. Conclusively, once the information converts into knowledge, then it becomes useful to the applicant; that means, the worth of info totally attaches to the level of knowledge in an individual.
Ideally, the value of something often determine its worth; that is why knowledge is utmost to information because it is not free. Since info refers to raw data and merely listed facts, its accessibility is easy for people all over the world, and it depends on the interested persons to make use of their knowledge in interpretation. As illustrated priory, Google and other search engines will be at all times provide information free. Besides, many nations worldwide have embraced the idea of free education in public schools, and that means the number of people who access information has significantly increased to date. To be specific, knowledge is something else completely, and it is the gain of combining that free info with experience and analysis. The actions and practice towards particular info are the distillation products of knowledge, which cost people time and money to achieve real analysis. Converting information into useful ideas is elaborate and calls for maximum attention and vast experience. Without a proper understanding of a concept or a subject, it would be insignificant to claim that one is knowledgeable. It is the capacity or inability of an individual to make info useful that determines their value and level of knowledge. As in the previous discussion on the experimentation, a third party might get the results freely and have info on it, but for him to obtain the facts and familiarity about it, he must pay for it through the person who conducted the practical.
It is an accepted opinion that knowledge is the concise assortment of info that makes it useful and impactful in all setups. Logically, knowledge is the verifying process that will ascertain explicit patterns in a particular set of information. For instance, memorizing information about something establishes that a person has knowledge of it. Knowledge makes information useful and applicable, although, it does not provide for incorporation such as further knowledge would deduce. A good example is that of schooling kids who have memorized the multiplication table and it would be easier for them to integrate the information in memory in solving complicated multiplication sums. If they memorized a pattern of addressing simpler multiples, then that pattern would guide them in finding solutions to complex mathematical problems in the same area. Assuredly, the information on the tables becomes impactful once the kids find its practical application in further problems (Dreyfus 43)
In the past years, theorists in various organizations used to refer both info and knowledge as ‘information’. They did not understand the essence of separating the two ideas because to them it meant all the same. Their notion continued for decades until the need for knowledge management erupted, and their opinion started shifting towards encompassing both concepts like ‘knowledge’. Conversely, that would mean acquiring information alone is not equivalent to being knowledgeable about it. In the contemporary management of organizational issues, the concepts are innately divergent, and in my opinion, they can no longer be defined as similar. The process of decision-making in the workplace again can illustrate the mutual exclusivity of the concepts. Since organizational matters are weighty and require comprehensive analysis before execution happens, it means to experience and knowledge are necessary for this case. Mere information cannot provide direction to substantial issues; it can only offer a hint to further investigation or study, which ultimately produces a better understanding to matter in question.
As well, the workplace environment provides an equal opportunity to access information for all workers on the same level. Nevertheless, the info distributed by management will not receive similar interpretation, analysis, and application by employees in most circumstances except where orientation about the info plays a part. If that happens, it means knowledge concerning the precise issue varies with respective staffs in the management; therefore, there is a need for constant training and awareness creation. Such opportunities for influencing knowledge will encourage and develop the workforce to have an analogous absorption of information disseminated by the office. As such, the decision-making will always be uniform and sound enough for proper implementation of strategies and vision. Additionally, the relevance of knowledge appears again when comparing the performance of workers in an organization. Considering that all employees on the same level went to school and acquired information about their work, yet, they cannot perform equally and produce a uniform outcome. It, therefore, means information given to them is just a mere tool, and it requires personal knowledge to bring it into usefulness (Dreyfus 53).
On the losing end, experience and knowledge are the key drivers in making crucial decisions (White 67). Ideally, it means just having information about a particular issue is not enough reason to decide. Considering the interpretation of a map, the knowledge of a person integrates the info provided, and that leads to decision making. What’s more, it is genuinely acceptable as demonstrated in the discussions that knowledge is entirely different from mere information, and it is the most valuable item in the entirety of the two concepts. The school education might give us the information necessary for our intellectual development, but with limited experience or knowledge, it would be challenging to make good use of that info. As such, knowledge is the pillar to effective decision-making and sound interpretation of results. In my summary, I would assert that information and knowledge are entirely different conceptions that work together for the successful implementation of ideas.
Aristotle on Knowledge. Pasadena, Calif: INTELECOM, 1998. Internet resource.
Dreyfus Tommy. Transformation of Knowledge Through Classroom Interaction. London: Routledge, 2009. Print.
O’Hara, Fred. Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management: 4th International Joint Conference, Ic3k 2012, Barcelona, Spain, October 4-7, 2012, Revised Selected Papers. , 2013. Internet resource.
Tang, Jie, Mingcai Hong, Duo L. Zhang, and Juanzi L. Li. “Information Extraction.” (2008). Print.
White, D A, and Y M. Sutton. “‘knowledge Management’.” (2002). Print.