Information v. Knowledge: And Why You Should Care

We live in an age where information is force-fed to us at every turn. We hear, read, and see information from colleagues, commercials, books, magazines, the internet, family, friends, newspapers, TV shows, movies, plays, and most importantly, through experiences in our own lives. Information is all around us; we all become unintentional conduits of the passage of information by habitually regurgitating to those around us the information that has found its way to our ears or eyes. Why does any of this matter? Because our species has a conditioned response to most forms of information: we believe what we're told.

Why is this a problem and why should you care? Because misinformation can affect change, and not in a positive way. Misinformation can lead people to believe they are making the right decisions because they "know" the facts, when really, their knowledge could be very limited on the subject they are making a decision on.

One definition of Knowledge - as one information source indicates -- is "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation."

When we are given information and conditionally accept them as "facts" we in turn instinctively believe we are building our knowledge base about a particular subject. The more information we receive, and the more credible the delivery, the more knowledgeable we assume to be on that subject. Until at some point we are confronted with truths or facts that leave us flummoxed. How can this [Fact A] be true when I KNOW that [Info B] has been said so repetitively that it MUST be true?

What made me write about this topic now? One event that made me think of the difference in knowledge versus information was the recent Casey Anthony trial. Another event was a more personal experience that I will choose to not blog about here, but is important to mention because I will say something on personal experiences shortly. And finally, I recently was able to see the HBO documentary Hot Coffee (Dir. Saladoff, 2011). For anyone who has HBO or has the means to watch this documentary, I strongly encourage you to do so. These three events combined with other experiences I've had made me wonder if people really understand the difference between information and knowledge, and understand the repercussions of believing the two to be interchangeable.

First, I'll talk briefly about Casey Anthony's case which started my mind spinning on this topic once the verdict was announced. I, like many of my peers, was quite surprised at the 'not guilty' verdict. But more surprising for me was hearing that the jury took only eleven hours to deliberate and did not request to review any of the evidence. Do I 'know' this for a fact? Of course not. And even if these two facts were true, they could be taken out of context. I do agree with one of my friends that said only the people on that jury will really know how they came to the verdict they did. But without making any claims of knowing what happened in that courtroom, I'll ask a few questions that I believe will explain why this case belongs in this blog:

1. Was the jury given the legal definition of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'?
2. Was the jury given the legal definition of 'circumstantial evidence'?
3. Was anyone on the jury aware of the number of cases that relied solely on circumstantial evidence and resulted in convictions?
4. Did any of the jurors watch CSI or one of the other TV crime dramas on a regular basis?
5. If any of the jurors did watch these shows, did they set an evidentiary standard for this case based on what they 'learned' about evidence from these shows?
6. Were the jurors prejudiced against the expert witnesses because they didn't appear as well spoken and/or charismatic as their TV counterparts?

There are a great number of possibilities as to "what happened" with the verdict. It is quite possible that misinformation about everything from evidence collection to understanding motive could have prejudiced the jury in such a way that they were incapable of making any other decision. It is also possible that the negative connotation of 'circumstantial evidence' could have played a major role in her acquittal. Or perhaps, none of this is true and after reviewing all of the evidence presented to them, the jury felt there was just not enough to convict. It's not a perfect system. But being judged by a panel of your peers is still the most fair system available -- at least, this is what I've been told.

Personal experiences play an important role in shaping our knowledge base. Our convictions in what we 'know' are greatly influenced by first hand accounts. We could have fifty different people tell us the sky was green. We might even believe it after so many people claimed to have witnessed the same thing. But our convictions become much stronger at knowing the sky is green once we see it for ourselves. Experience based knowledge is great, except in the cases where our experiences were the exception to the rule. Convincing someone that what they 'know' is false after they've experienced that particular thing for themselves is very hard to do. For example, someone might believe that planes are the most unsafe and unreliable forms of travel. Perhaps that person has had some unpleasant experiences in a plane to make them feel that way. There are examples of how your personal experiences can affect the way you believe to be knowledgeable about a subject everywhere in every day life.

One of the more unfortunate consequences of misinformation results in change that negatively impacts lives. I'll use one example from the movie Hot Coffee, as it is the more famous of examples and one most people will be familiar with. The McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit. What do you KNOW about this case? Do you believe it was a frivolous lawsuit and our civil system was in such a state that badly needed reform? Do you believe that this case opened the door for more ridiculous lawsuits after she 'won' her case? Do you believe that when people sue companies, doctors, hospitals, etc., that it is really the taxpayer that pays for it? What would you say if you heard some additional facts specifically for the McDonald's case, such as:

1. Contrary to popular belief, the elderly woman was NOT driving her car.
2. The woman's grandson went through the drive-thru to get his grandma a cup of coffee and breakfast for the both of them. He pulled into a parking spot to get "situated".
3. The car was NOT moving when the burn happened.
4. The elderly woman put the coffee cup between her legs to steady it as she poured her cream into the coffee. During this process, the coffee spilled into her lap, more specifically, along her inner thighs - a sensitive region.
5. The elderly woman (this is someone's Grandma) had to have multiple surgeries -- her burns were so severe that she had to have skin graphs done and for a time, her family and doctors were not completely sure she would make it through.
6. Her family asked McDonald's if they would help pay for the surgeries and asked them to please check the temperature setting on their coffee pot, because they were quite sure it was malfunctioning.
7. Eventually, when McDonald's did not offer to pay, lawyers were called. Through discovery, and in McDonald's own records, the woman's lawyers found that the fast-food place had received over 700 complaints of people being burned by their coffee -- and these were just the people that reported the incidents.
8. The jury awarded the woman damages to cover the cost of her medical expenses and then awarded over a million dollars in punitive damages to encourage change as McDonald's stated they had no plans on turning down the temp of the scalding beverage. The woman and McDonald's eventually settled out of court.

With just those 8 points of information -- how knowledgeable do you still feel about the case?

I bring this up because during my severely short stint in law school, I had a class on Torts (this type of law), and my Professor used this case as an example of a frivolous lawsuit. She presented the case to the class the same way the media did: A woman (driving) went through the drive-thru, ordered a cup of coffee, put it between her legs, and drove off -- and got burned in the process. She sued McDonald's for millions and won. This case was used as a perfect example of why we (the USA) needed tort reform. Interesting that a Professor in law school paints a much different picture than the documentary that researched the case and provided footage of interviews with the woman's family, lawyers on the case, and jurors. Not to mention the photographs of the burns (I really can't explain just how gruesome these burns were) and the photos of the skin graphs. Who do you believe? A Professor of Law or a documentary filmmaker?

I use this example last because I mentioned earlier about credibility. A Professor of Law would seem to have a lock on her credibility. A perfect example of how easily people can be misled to see what others want them to see.

Because of the outrage people felt about 'frivolous' lawsuits, several states have implemented capping on civil suits. A jury can award punitive damages to a company to affect change and not even know that the cap exists. They can award a $2 million dollar punitive damage decision and the company may only have to pay $500K because of a state mandated cap - a sum that a company large enough will gladly pay and carry on business as usual.

There is no solution other than to be skeptical and hope to pass that skepticism on to future generations. To teach our kids to be skeptical and not discourage debate and curiosity. To teach them that questions are good and that questioning authority is not always bad, if done so respectfully.