Knowledge is processed and learned to be utilized in real-world situations. Even though knowledge has value intrinsically, communication modes are often the critical determinants of the extent to which that knowledge is understood and ultimately, felt. Communication does not determine whether something is true, but it strongly influences whether that truth becomes accessible and socially usable. In this article, truth refers to whether knowledge accurately reflects reality regardless of whether it is understood, while communication refers to the ways knowledge is expressed and shared. Knowledge is understood as justified understanding that can be applied by knowers. I will contend that knowledge may have an eternal core but its utility in action is mostly determined by the way it is spoken and received. This matter will be discussed in the light of mathematics and the arts, focusing on literature.
In mathematics, truths can remain valid even when communication fails, but mathematical knowledge gains power only when people can access and apply it. It seems to inspire an idea of eternal and also universal truth: two plus two equals four, no matter where anyone is on the map of history, culture, language or time. For this reason, mathematical knowledge appears to have power by itself, independent of any given way of articulating it. In parallel, its results can be replicated, but its expression modes, equations, diagrams, trace tables, graphs or long written explanations can very much differ, and it also influences its accessibility. We know that different knowers react to these methods differently. More specifically, students comfortable with words would enjoy a long description of the process, which will guide them and be natural language. Knowers of this nature are susceptible to be less appealed to comparison-based relationship symbols like <, >, and =. Conversely, learners that are STEM-oriented would likely prefer compact mathematical expressions like the three comparison-symbols, without “unnecessary,” descriptive words in the way.
One concrete example is the place of mathematical notation in what mathematicians expand using ideas. Calculus was revolutionary not because the mathematics itself was simple, but because Leibniz's notation provided a clearer symbolic language that made increasingly complex mathematical reasoning easier to communicate, learn, and apply. Its influence was wider because the idea went beyond making it possible to arrive at an accurate answer. As per Leibniz, notational devices like the integral sign and differential notation were essential in making problems manageable. However, without the communicative efficiency calculus fostered, global development would have been elongated. Calculus has accelerated societal progress far beyond machine learning. It enables engineers to design structures such as the Eiffel Tower and Golden Gate Bridge to withstand forces like wind pressure. In epidemiology, it helps model disease transmission, evaluate interventions such as vaccination and quarantine, and calculate measures including reproduction rates and herd-immunity thresholds. The focus here is not on whether correct answers came from the integral sign or the differential notation. Instead, it was how readily knowers were able to work the answers and solve math problems that have increasingly become complicated. Most importantly, such illustration of increased power derived from the mode of conveyance. More people were able to access and utilize the same strategies to obtain answers quickly on account of the evolution of Leibniz’s selection of notations.
A counterclaim with strong force can be formed, though. Mathematical knowledge does not have to be communicated in an elegant manner for it to be successfully passed on from a knower to another. There is some truth in this. This assertion also protects the distinction between truth and communication. However, in discussing “power,” we are thinking about human agents. A theorem that no one understands or uses can still be authentic, but it does not transform any real-world systems. Once we measure power through actions of knowers, we see that conveyance is a key determinant of discerning two occurrences. One being mathematical information remaining primarily accessible to specialists with advanced foundational knowledge only, where the other is knowledge spreading wider into practices.
In a different realm of knowledge, the arts, the link between knowledge and communication is even more apparent because meaning and expressions are intrinsic. In literature, meaning is heavily influenced by the tone, rhythm, figurative language, structure, and specific word choices. Unlike mathematics, literature often produces emotional and experiential knowledge rather than only factual understanding. Readers come to understand not only what happens but also what it feels like. This means the capabilities of the knowledge in literature, where altering the expressions can fully alter the content of what is communicated, are even more dependent on communication than in mathematics.
“Still I Rise” by Maya Angelou is an exemplary literary text that expands on the aforementioned dependence. Reading the poem line-by-line made me feel empowered and easy to paint moments of a tenacious individual fighting through hardships. The speaker in the text sounds defiant because of the repeated declarations of “I rise” in conversational tone, along with rhythm of the lines. The knowledge here is not a condensed understanding like "people can resist oppression." It is an embodied understanding of how resistance feels. In contrast to a line-by-line reading, an example summary of the poem may be as straightforward as, "The speaker does not lose confidence despite being oppressed.” The core idea remains in this summary. However, the power in personal voice and musical quality are destroyed. This is testimony in literature that the power of knowledge is very fragile when conveyance is taken differently, specifically when it is trimmed down to only the message itself. The power emerges from how the language impacts readers, meaning the conveyance does not affect the access to the knowledge but shapes the knowledge.
I have felt similarly in reading translated novels. I find that occasionally if I am reading the story in a translation of a book and later scanning a short summary online, the summary is telling me the story, but it does not discuss the mood. For instance, a summary can insist that, “The protagonist is alienated from society,” but the text spends pages making the reader feel it the way it is stated as. The summary just says what it is but not what it feels like. Changing the form of knowledge transmission can greatly distort and weaken the knowledge literature can create. Knowledge not only concerns events or claims, but also opinions and emotions. This is heavily dependent upon the particular form of communication as well as others as it is possible too.
A counterargument to literature is also relevant. In some educational environments, paraphrasing and summarizing literature can help us learn efficiently. If a teacher were pressed for time, they would describe the focus on “Still I Rise” in a few sentences. Even students who have never read the poem, if not much, will now have some knowledge such as its content and the era it is based in, for example, in history, including African American struggles and the civil rights movement. This communication is convenient and ensures knowledge is widely disseminated. So even in literature, simpler ways for communicating could spread some kind of knowledge even if at the expense of weakening other forms of knowledge such as emotional impact.
Across mathematics and the arts, there are similar patterns with different degrees of dependence. The two areas of knowledge differ in what conveyance changes. In mathematics, if a result is represented differently, the core truth of the result may remain, but how it is taught and explained greatly determines who can use it when and at what pace. In literature, when the expression changes, the original knowledge can transform or even obliterate. The audience’s background determines that the level of access to knowledge used is subjected to how one addresses them.
All things considered, both the evaluation of mathematics and the arts on whether power of knowledge determined by the way knowledge is conveyed leads to ethical implications. If the power of knowledge is contingent upon conveyance, then knowers who control communication channels possess a meta-power over knowledge in society. Teachers, authors, translators, media figures, and even exam designers, determine which kinds of knowledge are put out for the general public. Although a great piece of written text is often a source of admiration in the academy, a complicated text never finds its way to the masses. An oversimplified explanation can skew the original information. Such ethical questions remind the practical responsibility for knowers in control to carefully assess what effects their decisions have on the rest of the knowers processing their shared knowledge.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
