Do you have any unexpected knowledge?
Check this document. It says that all your knowledge is expected.
images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 … pected.pdf
I don’t know what it is exactly meant here by expected, but it does not look so new, nor groundbreaking.
Aristotle’s Metaphysics is about that. Kant’s Critique of pure reason too is about that.
Maybe they are not as accessible as your pdf, but they are a bit more challenging, and rewarding too.
The question is rather about the nature of that “expectation”.
I really do not see what is the contribution of those 26 pages repeating over and over the same thing.
Unless I missed something… Did I?
This, to me, shows that knowledge is derived. Not necessarily expected. When I was an infant, I doubt I expected to know anything. I think I observed and mimicked until I understood what I was doing. That information was derived from what I experienced.
Categorization, as such, really points more toward what you expect you can know about a thing.
//I really do not see what is the contribution of those 26 pages repeating over and over the same thing.// I too got confused… that is the reason I asked the question - DO WE HAVE ANY UNEXPECTED KNOWLEDGE?
Well, maybe I am not the best person for YES/NO answers…
First of all, I insist that referring “expectation” to knowledge is not the best approach to the issue. However, from what I got from the 26-page pdf, I guess they have a point. Aristotle defined a set of categories, which are more or less subsumed by the scheme in your file, and maintained that all predicates about some object can only fall into one of those. Kant endorsed this view and maintained that categories are part of the self (a priori), people cannot build concept of objects differently. So if by expected, it is meant that all predication about some object refers to those categories, the theory is serious enough. Is that true? Are those categories “complete”? Possibly. It is apparent that it’d take some work to confute that.
My objection is this: the application of categories to objects is a way to narrow application of cognitive process.
Don’t we generally see a bigger picture of which these objects are only part? If it is so, and I believe that the context determines the single object and even all objects and their relations, then I guess that there is room for surprises.
So, my guess is: Yes (possibly) if you look at single objects, No if you consider broader contexts. And as contexts are what matters most, this issue is not so relevant.
If it is true that we have no unexpected knowledge that is unexpected knowledge so it is not true.
The unexpected knowledge shall remain undefined forever, even if it exists.
I found the knowledge based on the results of the double slit experiments to be unexpected. I would not have guessed the results would be what they were. In fact I would have said they would not be like that. I believe most scientists had the same reaction.
Every experiment is planed with an expectation.
Then, we make a comparison between the expectation and the observation.
It is the expectation which lets us to design experiments.
Not necessarily an expectation of the results and certainly, in many cases, expectation that the results will be something other than they turn out to be. Knowledge is based in science on those results, so often this knowledge is unexpected, since the results were unexpected. If the point you are making is that one expects knowledge of some kind and so if the specific knowledge was not expected, this is not the issue, this is also confused. Because sometimes we learn things without planning to. I certainly have.
Can you design an experiment without any expectation?
Is it possible to design an experiment without any expectation?
One cannot “design” without expectation. The whole point to designing is to create a predicted, and thus expected, result.
As far as "unexpected knowledge, as others have pointed out, it depends on what you really mean by “expected”. I have recently learned a few things that surprised me. I expected to one day know of the subject matter, but I certainly didn’t expect what I discovered.
So what is the difference between “unexpected knowledge” and “surprise”?
You can have experimented without having realized it. I have seen both dogs and cats do this and gain unexpected knowledge.
I am not really sure what you are getting at. To me the adjective ‘unexpected’ in this case modifying the noun ‘knowledge’ makes for a set of things known that one would not have expected were true. Is that what you mean by unexpected knowledge? If not, please define what that phrase means to you. If so, well, sure, we can have unexpected knowledge. I have already given examples.
If you mean can one gain knowledge where one did not expect to gain any knowledge at all of any kind, sure.
One can learn things like running through a dense pine forest can get you poked in the eye, when you, a 6 year old, were just following impulses and had no idea you were about to learn anything. Suddenly, added to your young body of knowledge is a useful bit of information.
Is [new = unexpected]? 
If you weren’t expecting anything new, then yeah, I would say so.
Just moments ago, I gained very unexpected knowledge of how to cause faster than light travel which until now I was certain would never be possible.
I will attempt to explain this in a different way to help you understand.
You have 2 rooms. One of these rooms has a windowless door, no windows and no way to see inside. The other room has a door with windows, regular windows, and a window wall so you can clearly see inside.
Expected knowledge is represented as the room with the windows, because without opening the door, you can describe what the room looks like, whats inside the room and what kind of materials are inside the room.
Unexpected knowledge is represented as the room without windows, because the only way to figure out whats inside the room is by opening the door, however once you open the door the contents of the room are definable so it then becomes expected knowledge.
Expected knowledge is anything that can be defined by the seven categories. Unexpected knowledge is anything that cannot be defined in the present or the future. Once something can be defined it becomes expected knowledge.
Doesn’t that make the whole discussion a bit pointless?
Sometimes. The results of the double slit experiments were unexpected, hence the knowledge based on these experiences.
You are using the words expected and unexpected in unusual ways. In fact there is no reason for an adjective. What you are calling unexpected knowledge is unknown or unknowable. It has nothing to do with expectations. Absolutely nothing to do with them.
If it cannot be defined…
then it cannot be knowledge. So the entire term unexpected knowledge refers to nothing and makes no sense as you define it.
Unexpected knowledge should mean either results/truths that were not expected and then became part of knowledge.
Or knowledge where no results or truths were expected to be found.
I have given examples of each of these.
What is the use of expected knolwedge?