In his book "The Internet of Us," Michael Patrick Lynch argues that understanding
is an essential aspect of human knowledge and intelligence, despite the ready
accessibility of "digital knowledge" through search engines and other online sources. He
maintains that understanding goes beyond simply knowing facts and information, and
involves a deeper comprehension and connection to the world around us. In this paper I
will argue in favor of Lynch, using the example of taking Philosophy 340 as a learning
experience that improved my understanding and then compare it to the understanding I
would have of philosophy of AI if I did not take the class but rather just read the books.
One learning experience that greatly improved my understanding was taking this
philosophy course. As you know, in this course we studied a range of views on AI,
through different novels, readings, and media. Through our discussions and
assignments, I was able to gain a deeper understanding of the world, the mind, and how
Artificial Intelligence is changing society. In contrast, simply having access to
information without truly understanding it can lead to shallow thinking and a lack of
critical analysis. This can result in the spread of misinformation and a lack of progress in
solving complex problems. In “Weapons of Math Destruction”, O’Neil writes “Our own
values and desires influence our choices, from the data we choose to collect to the
questions we ask.”1 This directly follows the effects of actual understanding (as defined
by Lynch) rather than just simply google knowing. For example, this person might use a
search engine to look up the definition of recidivism, and then simply memorize the
definition without truly understanding the concept. In this case, the person would have
access to the same information as I did, but their understanding would be superficial
1
O'Neil, C. (2017). Weapons of math destruction. Penguin Books.
Chicago. O'Neil, Cathy. 2017. Weapons of Math Destruction. Harlow, England: Penguin Books
and limited. In class, when we discussed course concepts in discussion and lecture, my
learning developed into a deeper level of comprehension and connection to the
material. In addition to a deeper level of comprehension, I was able to discuss views on
course material with other peers as well as the professor, who has had years of
experience and also discussed course material with tons of other professionals in the
field. This deeper level of understanding allows me to apply the knowledge to other
situations and contexts, and to think more critically and creatively about the world
around me.
In "The Internet of Us," Lynch writes, "Understanding is the ability to see
connections, to put things in context, to make judgments about what is true and what is
false, and to use our knowledge to engage with the world in a meaningful way."2 I
believe that this quote perfectly sums up the value of understanding. It allows us to
make sense of the vast amount of information available to us, and to use that
knowledge to make informed decisions and contribute to society in a meaningful way.
Furthermore, my learning experience involved engaging with the material through
discussions and assignments, which allowed me to gain a richer and more nuanced
understanding of the concepts. In contrast, the hypothetical case involving
"Google-knowing" does not involve any kind of engagement or interaction with the
material, and therefore the person's understanding remains static and unchanging.
Overall, the differences between my actual learning experience and the hypothetical
case provide strong reasons to think that understanding is important. By engaging with
the material in a deeper and more meaningful way, I was able to gain a richer and more
2
O'Neil, C. (2017). Weapons of math destruction. Penguin Books.
Chicago. O'Neil, Cathy. 2017. Weapons of Math Destruction. Harlow, England: Penguin Books
nuanced understanding of the concepts, and to develop critical thinking skills that have
helped me in other areas of my life. In contrast, the hypothetical case involving
"Google-knowing" does not involve any kind of engagement or critical thinking, and
therefore the person's understanding remains superficial and limited.
In conclusion, Michael Patrick Lynch is right to emphasize the importance of
understanding, despite the ready accessibility of "digital knowledge" through search
engines and other online sources. Understanding involves a deeper level of
comprehension and connection to the topic, rather than simply “google-knowing”. I
argued in favor of Lynch, using the example of taking Philosophy 340 as a learning
experience that improved my understanding and then compare it to the understanding I
would have of philosophy of AI if I did not take the class but rather just read the books.