I'm suddenly stricken with an internal debate regarding Information / Knowledge.
The basic quandary is thus: what is the point of information if you do nothing with it?
The possible scenarios I have argued to myself are:
- The point is that if you have the hypothetical information then when a situation comes up where it can be used it will be. This is a sort of 'wait and see approach'
- A secondary argument is that maybe it is unnecessary to be proactive, but that people, either because of insecurity or an attempt to provide due diligence share new information whenever they learn it with variable results.
-The other main branch then would be that no information is useful until it has been acted upon.
Maybe the question should be posed as Is the 'value' of information derived from it's initial creation or from it's resultant effects?
The answer stinks of a scenario where opposing viewpoints could select equally valid scenarios.
Someone would probably get shot.