Who Knows What We Know?

Efforts to define “common knowledge” sometimes fall short

Common sense. General knowledge. We throw these terms around, and claim that no one seems to possess them anymore. They become catch alls, big bottomless buckets for everything that every individual thinks every other individual should know. They are “givens.” They’re inherent, supposedly, or at least concepts so rudimentary, we should have them imprinted into our thick skulls, by now.

But, as I think we all know by now, common sense and general knowledge don’t belong in a written scholarly debate. So maybe this is what we mean by “book smarts?” Knowledge that you can refer back to, in print somewhere, not just some ancient decree. Common sense and general knowledge, if these concepts really exist at all, don’t take us very far in arguments or in life, and the vast majority of the time, they won’t keep us from having to defend our references or save us from citation.

There are some exceptions, of course. Let’s see where some academic sources stand on common and general knowledge, and how they come to define and determine these concepts. So get your waders on, again.

According to the Purdue Writing Lab, the following instances are, under certain circumstances, considered “common knowledge” by some but not all sources:

·         current and historical events, famous people, geographic areas, etc.

·         nonfactual material such as folklore and common sayings

·         common knowledge can be determined at the level of a small group (like a class) or a based on subject matter

Are you feeling any more confident about your grasp of common knowledge? Because I’m not.

Common Knowledge Decision Factors

1.)    Quantity: Some say that a fact found in 3 separate sources can safely be deemed common knowledge. Purdue errs on the safe side, not making that call until the statement is made in at least 5 “independent” references.

2.)    Ubiquity: writers may find themselves skipping attribution when they are not carefully considering the knowledge base of their target audience. For example, a science student may not think to cite a fact that is a foundational or elementary concept in his or her field, but if the audience extends to that other blended motley crew, the “general public,” the knowledge is no longer prevalent and understood.

3.)    General Reference: Facts that are assumed to be available to the widest audience through “dictionaries, encyclopedias, almanacs and gazetteers,” according to Purdue, do not usually need citation. Specialized references, like medical dictionaries, do.

It’s interesting to note that different academic institutions have different perspectives on common knowledge. MIT defines common knowledge as

“information that the average, educated reader would accept as reliable without having to look it up,” like “information that most people know, such as that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit…”

Princeton makes an especially compelling comment about common knowledge in the digital age:

The new era of electronic media and the Internet has made this issue even more complex and uncertain. The depersonalized nature of electronic information can devalue the sense of intellectual ownership: the information seems to belong to nobody and to everybody. The protocols for borrowing, reusing, and modifying information on the Web are less well-defined than they are in more traditional scholarly research and far less diligently observed. Indeed, much of the ethic of the Internet, which emerged from the computer culture of collaborative work and shareware, is in tension with the values and practices of traditional scholarship, especially in the humanities and social sciences. With the Web’s countless sites offering text and images for the taking, and with commercial sites offering free educational versions of their software, the lines between public and private ownership of intellectual property have become blurry.

 

All sources agree on one thing – when in doubt cite, cite, cite.