[mindcrime]

Wouldn't it be fair to say that one has to know what the current path is and have some idea where it leads and what its issues are, before forging a new path?

I mean, any idiot can go off-trail and start blundering around in the weeds, and ultimately wind up tripping, falling, hitting their head on a rock, and drowning to death in a ditch. But actually finding a new, better, more efficient path probably involves at least some understanding of the status quo.

[agar]

> probably involves at least some understanding of the status quo.

Oh man, you had me going with such a vivid metaphor. I was really hoping for a payoff in the end, but you abandoned it. The easy close would be "probably involves at least some understanding of the existing terrain" but I was optimistic for something less prosaic.

[mindcrime]

Sorry to disappoint. My creative juices aren't flowing today I guess. Need more coffee, or something!

[someweirdperson]

To walk a path no knowledge of the existing is needed. But to be able to claim it is new it is. Even more so to be able to claim that the new is better.

[fnordpiglet]

Bias and ignorance are two different things. No knowledge is ignorance. Bias is using knowledge to judge new knowledge. The goal isn’t to pursue things with raging ignorance but to pursue them with no bias and collecting knowledge without conclusion, then once you’re knowledgeable of what is there you can take off with raging ignorance in the direction no one has gone before. But you can’t do than holding bias any more than you can having ignorance of what directions have been gone before.