A lack of understanding can create ineffectual contribution.
More knowledge, always means more informed.
But how can you be adequately informed if you don’t have all the foundational knowledge?
How can you have a worthwhile opinion if you haven’t read all the pivotal texts?
Then again, the definition of foundational is often built around someone’s perception of what constitutes a fruitful approach…
So expecting it from others creates bias toward agreement.
Common foundations
homogenise outcomes
In established domains this inertia prevents derailment.
This inverted influence, is fundamental to further progress.
We can’t reassess from fundamentals every time.
But if prior knowledge seeds current conclusions, and conclusions define expected knowledge, the truth is defined by an echo chamber.
The truth is defined in an echo chamber?