I loved listening to Rory Stewart’s podcast series on the long history of ignorance. It’s a wonderfully thought-provoking and counter-intuitive premise for an intellectual exploration and Stewart delivers it well. In the series he makes the argument for how we should embrace ignorance as a fundamental aspect of human existence, and why exploring what we don’t know is as important as acquiring knowledge. These two aspects, he says, are inseparable. Our understanding of the world is more often inherently incomplete, and it is this incompleteness that drives curiosity and discovery. Acknowledging the limitations of our knowledge can can foster humility, open-mindedness and curiosity, and it can lead to deeper insights and more meaningful learning experiences.
Writing about the value of ignorance after the recent focus on all-knowing AI agents perhaps seems like something of a handbrake turn, but I fully buy into the reasoning that appreciating the boundaries of our understanding supports progress. I made a bunch of scribbles whilst listening to the podcast which I’ve collated here into four essential lessons about the value of ignorance.
Ignorance is the engine of knowledge
In our relentless pursuit of knowledge we often regard ignorance as a deficiency to be addressed. Yet, as Rory describes it, ignorance is not merely the absence of knowledge, it is its shadow companion. The deeper we understand any complex subject, the more aware we become of how much we do not know. This is a paradox that is key to intellectual humility, and something that the best scientists and thinkers through history have all recognised.
The Renaissance thrived on questioning the ‘certainties’ of medieval thought, valuing observation, creativity, and ancient wisdom over dogma. The revival of classical learning, humanist philosophy, and empirical inquiry fostered curiosity about the natural world (Galileo’s astronomy, Vesalius’s anatomy) and individualism in art and literature (Da Vinci’s realism, Machiavelli’s politics). The scientific method itself is a structured embrace of ignorance, built on the idea that we must assume we don’t fully understand the world and constantly test our beliefs. Newton, Einstein, Faraday, Curie were all driven by what they didn’t know. A deep curiosity. It wasn’t accumulated knowledge that led to breakthroughs, it was an observation they couldn’t explain, or the awareness that something wasn’t quite right.
Ignorance as a source of creativity
Rory also talks about how knowing too much can be as dangerous as knowing too little. Experts, steeped in conventional wisdom, often fail to see possibilities that outsiders, or even naïve thinkers, can. They can fall into a trap where deep knowledge in one area creates tunnel vision. The ‘Einstellung effect’ describes a cognitive bias where past knowledge prevents new problem-solving approaches.
Innovation often comes from those who are ignorant of the established rules, or who bring a beginner’s mind (or what Zen Buddhists would call Shoshin) and a desire for exploration. I wrote about my favourite example of Shoshin here.
Einstein was actually a very good example of not being weighed down by the contemporary Newtonian worldview which saw space and time as absolute and gravity as a force acting instantaneously across distances. Unconstrained by these principles, Einstein’s radical reconceptualisation posited that time and space are interwoven and relative to the observer’s motion and redefined gravity not as a force but as the curvature of spacetime by mass and energy. It’s hard to over-estimate the mental leap that this conceptual paradigm shift would have taken.
The knowledge confidence trap
Of course the flip of this intellectual humility is how knowledge itself can become dangerous when it fosters overconfidence, and where certainty blinds us to nuance and alternative perspectives. We see this all the time in politics and business. The 2008 financial crisis, for example, had a lot to do with an excess of confidence in a flawed economic model, one that ignored systemic risks. True wisdom requires not just accumulating knowledge, but recognising when that knowledge is fragile, incomplete, or misleading. Stewart says that leaders who embrace their own ignorance make better decisions because they remain open to doubt, consultation, and adaptation. Great decision-makers don’t just ask, What do I know?—they ask, What am I blind to?
Sitting with uncertainty
If the best leaders are not those who claim to know everything but rather those who understand the limits of their knowledge, then this requires them to be comfortable with uncertainty and with different perspectives. Abraham Lincoln deliberately surrounded himself with people who disagreed with him, recognising that his own ignorance was a liability unless counterbalanced by opposing viewpoints.
JFK learned the lesson about the dangers of a lack of opposing viewpoints during the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1962. When he studied how this unfolded, Yale psychologist Irving Janis was intrigued to learn how a roomful of intelligent Kennedy advisors could make such a poor decision. His conclusions about how a desire for group consensus and cohesion can dominate at the expense of people’s willingness to disagree or to challenge that consensus were the origins of the term ‘groupthink’.
Just a year later top government officials were debating how to respond to the Soviet Union trying to position nuclear tipped missiles a mere ninety miles from the Florida coast in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy showed that he had learned the earlier lesson about groupthink. He deliberately assembled a group of experts with a diverse set of opinions, invited other outside experts into the room to be questioned, and divided the larger group into smaller sub-groups tasked with coming up with proposed solutions which could then be discussed. He even absented himself from these sub-group discussions to allow free-flowing discourse.
We should remember that many of the most fundamental questions facing the human race (why are we here, what it means to be human, what is consciousness) remain unanswered. Imagine if we knew everything. There would be no need for philosophy, no search for meaning, no curiosity. In many ways, understanding what we don’t know gives meaning to life.
Even with the huge potential of AI, the belief that we can ever attain complete knowledge is an illusion. What we call ‘progress’ is simply the refinement of our ignorance. We will do well to retain this intellectual humility as this new machine/human world emerges.
A version of this post appeared on my weekly Substack of AI and digital trends, and transformation insights. To join our community of over ten thousand subscribers you can sign up to that here.
To get posts like this delivered straight to your inbox, drop your email into the box below
Photo by Michael Dziedzic on Unsplash
Leave a Reply