What do you think?
Rate this book


410 pages, Kindle Edition
Published November 21, 2023
That’s where my little saying about the pursuit of less wrong answers comes in, and all of this goes to explaining why I thought a book about ignorance was bound to be of interest to me. Even if you accept that there are things that we can know fully and completely, that would still leave far more of which we remain in ignorance. Ignorance is the impetus to learn more, a perpetual state, perhaps, against which we strive to form fragile bastions of rebellious knowledge. The ignorance that we know – that is, that which we know we do not know – shapes our inquiries, drives our research, and forms the frontier into which we venture with each new thought experiment or research paper. It is a defined ignorance, and quite distinct from the ignorance of which we are ignorant – that is, that which we do not know we do not know.
Burke does well in defining these states of ignorance, and even attempts to add additional forms of ignorance that strike me as being less universal in scope and applicability, and the first part of the book in which he makes these definitions and discusses the meaning and history of ignorance is quite interesting and well-written. It met my high hopes for Ignorance (what a strange phrase to write, if you ignore the italics), which is why much of the book’s remainder was so disappointing. Instead of examining ignorance in a fundamental manner, such as someone like Zeno might have done, Ignorance devolves from concepts to historical and modern examples of what I will term partial ignorance.
Partial ignorance being the state in which some people know something and others do not, a distinction of which Burke makes much. Most of his discussion of ignorance is not about what cannot be known, or what can be known but has not been probed, but rather about inequalities of knowledge, which he treats as if it is a revelation that not everyone knows everything that everyone else does, and a source of great evil. He examines history and the present for different types of ignorance amongst different groups, and pins all manner of ills upon that partial ignorance. While that may have been a contributing factor, it seems unlike a root cause.
More concerning, though, is Burke’s intellectual arrogance in a book about ignorance. His attitude comes across as “the peons are ignorant, but us elite scientists know things that the peons’ lesser minds cannot begin to approach.” I’ve complained about the arrogance of the modern scientific enterprise/intelligentsia, and that damage such an attitude does to the fundamental concept of a discipline of skepticism. More relevantly to this review, Burke consistently fails to acknowledge his own ignorance whilst calling out others’ ignorance. It betrays a colossal blind spot that permeates the entire book and forces the reader to call into question all claims and conclusions he makes.
Ignorance is a topic worthy of study, as odd as it might sound to study ignorance (at preliminary analysis, it might even seem impossible, but it is not). Ignorance is adequate for introducing the topic, providing an idea of where the examination of ignorance sits in modern scholastic circles, but it fails to provide significant insights on the topic, and its author’s intellectual arrogance strikes a discordant, ironic note. While it might be expected that the authors of books on other topics should exhibit such an attitude, it is quite off-putting in a book that is supposed to study ignorance. Of all topics, one would imagine that to be the one to inspire humility in the author. Alas, that was not the case.