by Nigel Percy

Created on: July 15, 2009

This statement is a question in the form of Aristotelian logic, otherwise known as a syllogism. Syllogisms follow the same basic outline. First, there is a a general statement ('Knowledge is power'), then a specific statement ('Power corrupts') and finally a conclusion based on the preceding statements ('Knowledge corrupts').

The syllogism's argument is based on requiring agreement that the first and second statements are not only true but that they are equivalent. If that is the case, then the conclusion must be unmistakable and irrefutable.

The problem with this argument is that there are unspoken assumptions which have to be made in order to reach agreement in the conclusion. The most obvious of these are:

1) Knowledge and power are the same
2) Knowledge corrupts
3) Power corrupts
4) Corruption is the same thing, no matter how expressed or experienced.
5) No-one can avoid corruption

The key equivalence here is that knowledge and power are the same. If they are, then the next step is to prove that both are corrupt. If either is found to be false, then the argument fails.

If knowledge truly is power, then in what does that power reside? Is it in the the acquisition of the knowledge or in the use of it? If it is in the acquisition, then, obviously, the most knowledgeable person in the world is the most powerful. That is not true, otherwise, amongst other things, leaders of nations could easily be found via tests of knowledge.

Therefore the power must reside in the use of knowledge. Knowledge is defined in various ways by various authorities. Merriam-Webster offers seven different definitions of knowledge, depending on usage. No single, universally agreed definition exists. By this fact alone the entire original argument fails, for, if nothing can be agreed upon as defining knowledge, how can it then be ascribed specific attributes, qualities or effects?

Nevertheless, given the generalist nature of the argument, it is possible to sketch an outline of what might be thought of as knowledge and then draw some conclusions. However, it must be remembered that the specific argument has already been shown to be null and void.

Knowledge will mean different things to different people. It is, in some ways, a definition of the ways in which we interact with the world. Thus, we can 'know something about something', we can 'know something to be true or false' and we can 'know mathematics' as in having all the details about the subject. (One of the earliest definitions of knowledge

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>