1. None of us is as smart as all of us (Eric Schmidt).

Discuss the extent to which

you agree with this claim with reference to personal and shared knowledge.
The notion that the many outweigh the few is a conception that withholds the test of time.
The logic behind the statement is almost irrefutable. Whether it be the need, the effort or the
intelligence of the many, it will always be greater than that of the few, ceteris paribus[1]. The
reinforcement of this timeless creed is echoed in the words of Google CEO Eric Schmidt during
his keynote for the 112th commencement of Carnegie Mellon University's 2009 graduating class
when he exclaimed "None of us is as smart as all of us". Codependence is integral in order to
achieve a general consensus, is the message being warranted however further dissection is
required in order to explore the meaning behind Schmidts words. Smart in the context of the
phrase by my personal definition, connotes to the authority of knowledge (justified truths)
something holds and therefore, in terms of knowledge, the quote translates to the notion that the
validity of a concept is determined through shared knowledge rather than personal knowledge.
Personal knowledge, in this case, as the beliefs of the individual or the few through personal
experiences whereas shared knowledge as the collective beliefs of the many. The reliability of
shared knowledge lies in the systematic nature of the belief and the fact that it is a belief that it is
a product of more than one individual. In retrospect there is no denying the legitimacy of the
premise. Students are taught the same-shared knowledge and the continual teachings of shared
knowledge or concepts through future generations will only reinforce its validity.
However another interpretation of the quote bears a contradicting stance. Though
collectively a group possesses more knowledge, the individuals idea or notion exists in a realm
in which limitations exist due to the group. There are confines certain individuals do not have to
adhere to when thriving on a personal belief. Consequently personal knowledge is able to
venture onto the abstract and the absurd resulting in notions that would have never been
conceived by the many. What is often forgotten is the fact that all shared knowledge is
introduced by a personal belief, therefore personal knowledge is sometimes valid whereas the
shared knowledge is invalid. After all without Pythagoras and Parmenides introduction of their
personal beliefs at the time, 21st century atlases would still be depicting the Imago Mundi[2].
Hence in this regard Schmidts ideology is technically invalid, however the validity of the
premise is not black and white. Through the areas of knowledge of natural science and religion
both interpretations of the premise can coexist in our world.
The areas of knowledge of religion and natural sciences are at the two complete ends of
the spectrum. Religion attempts to explain the purpose of life through the authority of past
religious scriptures, with the incorporation of different polytheistic and pantheistic systems.
Knowledge that is derived from religious text is very subjective to the interpretation of the reader.
Natural sciences, in contrast, are an area of knowledge that aims to discover the regularities in
the world through observation and formulated theories. The sciences are shared knowledge,
independent of culture and are based on very generalized statements that explain the principles
and laws of the natural world define concepts. Hence the study of natural science is very
objective and relationships follow the form of if y happens then x will be the result so there is

a general consensus of scientific theory regardless of culture.

The contrasting methodology of both areas of knowledge best reflect the idea that both
interpretations of the quote can co-exist. Religious studies follow a methodology that is very
largely based on scriptures and teachings that are then passed down through generations by
prominent figures and leaders of the religious system. Religious texts such as the Quran and the
Bible are saturated with metaphors and rhetorics that have to be analyzed in the context of the
time they were written, thus leading to a multitude of interpretations, creating differing versions
of the religious texts. Therefore religious knowledge is based on the personal beliefs of the
prominent figure religious systems and their personal interpretations of the religious texts. For
example there are 8 primary versions of the Christian Bible, that adheres to the translation and
interpretations of their own prominent figure. Martin Luthers german translation of the old
testament was sought out as being controversial at the time as the teachings of the text were
altered based on Luthers own interpretation of Christianity, however those who believed in
Luthers alterations of the testament became followers of Lutheranism. Luthers personal
knowledge through faith and emotion became the shared knowledge of Lutheranism disproving
Eric Schmidt's quote.
Contradictory to religious systems however, the nature of scientific method leaves very
little room for differing interpretations. The aim of the scientific method is to achieve natural
sciences goal to explain natural phenomena in a very pragmatic and objective way. A general
and standardized procedure for a certain scientific theory is formed in order adhere to the
different perceptions of the the many cultural and religious backgrounds of the scientific
community. By creating a single universal method to prove a scientific theory, it eliminates the
subjective influences of these different backgrounds thus allowing a general consensus to be
reached. The scientific method relies on the observation of the experiment and constant retrials
in order to fully insure that the theory is viable. The constant repetition of the trials insures that
scientist from across the world will find the exact same results if they wish to replicate the
experiment. Through this type of testing, scientific theories become very hard to disprove as
copious amounts of trials and alterations would have happened before it became considered as a
theory. Therefore knowledge that is accepted in the scientific community is shared knowledge as
there is very little room for personal beliefs to convolute the theory.
However therein lies the weakness behind the scientific theory. Galileo once said In
questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single
individual.. The restraints of that shared belief is what impedes the scientific world to move
forward. At times the scientist dwells so much so on the past knowledge that they do not
consider other abstract ideas. For example the latest breakthrough in pancreatic cancer research
came from a Jack Andraka, a fifteen year old sophomore from North County High School. He
managed to find a more efficient and significantly cheaper method of detecting pancreatic cancer
using supplies commonly found in Home Depot. This is an example of how the science method
can sometimes cause narrow mindedness in the community, because sometimes the old method
is more so considered than the new thus impeding the ability to develop. Jack Andraka is also an

example of how personal beliefs in the science world can disprove the collective beliefs of the
many, and disproves the notion that validity lies in the beliefs of the many.
The very nature of the two areas of knowledge is what causes the differing stances on
Eric Schmidts statement. Religion itself is mostly based on emotion and faith, two very
subjective areas of knowing that adheres to the personal interpretations of things whereas
Science is based off logic and reasoning where very little self belief is taken into account,
however emotions will always exist even when dwelling on a very logical concept, causing
science to be similar to religion some regards. Personally I believe that a personal knowledge is
somewhat like a seed, with constant nurture by the many the seed will eventually grow into the
shared knowledge. I believe that ideas stem from personal beliefs and the validity of an idea
should not be judged based on whether it is believed by the many or the few.

[1] Latin phrase meaning if all else is equal

[2] Babylonian Map of the world, depicting a flat earth

Red color: Real life situation mentioned and clearly shown however it is used to explain the
quote used in the prompt rather than a new real life situation. Structuring and paragraph wise,
should be used in a separate paragraph
Light Blue Color: Development of the idea is used here from real life situation to KI, though
should be divided into another paragraph
Color: Defines the two TOK terms mentioned in the KI, the problem is that the paragraph is also
utilized to describe the development of the KI. And to an extent defines one interpretation of the
quote however it not really clear that, that is what he is trying to do. Though it does define the
words, it could have been structured better.
Green Color: Presents another interpretation of the quote with the use of an examples however it
is only briefly used and never truly revisited.
Purple color: Introduces the two areas of knowledge used to develop the ideas of the KI and
succinctly describes the scope and application of the two areas of knowledge overall, not a lot to
improve.
Dark Green: development of methodology of the 2 ares of knowledge and seeing how they
contradict one another. Uses two examples of religions and how there are overlapping concepts
that addresses the main TOK KI
Gold Color: Now there is a counter argument for the two methodologies and exploration of the
science as a counter claim for religion as the area of knowledge of religion.
White: Describes the downsides of shared knowledge and presents a counter claim to the counter

claim. Once again uses several real life example however could be developed more.
Conclusion: Should be used more to develop the TOK idea and should be applied towards other
real life example though strong and revenant should refer back to more real life examples.