[JonChesterfield]

> if this novelty is worth understanding, somebody I trust will soon explain it to me in terms I can readily digest

That's unsound. It prevents learning anything which is not widely known and simply explained.

I don't know the author. All the context I have is the article up to that point where I lost interest. However yes, if all you try to learn are the trivial things everyone agrees on, for some circular definition of "wrong", you won't be wrong.

Bad strategy. High value are things few people know. Highest value are things people know to be true that are not so.

[a_wild_dandan]

You've mistaken a heuristic for a formal argument, making your disinterest is a self-inflicted wound. Everyone uses heuristics to manage their precious, finite time. Sifting through ideas via academic prescreening and the clarity of their expression are excellent heuristics -- especially for a famous philosopher.

[layer8]

No, it means no single person needs to be a giant on which shoulders we stand. Instead we can form a pyramid of arbitrarily small dwarfs.

[pixl97]

What value is something that only you know? The moment you act on these hidden bits of information you start leaking entropy that points back to the knowledge you keep.

[jibalt]

Have you considered the possibility that you're wrong? Dan Dennett is one of the world's most renowned thinkers, and you would do well to take the broader lesson of his article to heart. Also look into Dunning and Kruger.

[xionplean]

It is hysterical to me that there is this online "go to Dunning and Kruger in the total wrong context" heuristic that people who don't know anything about the subject spit out.

If you understood Dunning and Kruger you would not post this not to mention make a Daniel Dennett appeal to authority case.