As our son reminded me the other day, the classical definition of knowledge, going as far back as Plato, are statements that are justified, true and believed. Each of those criteria though is problematic and lacks a clear meaning, despite the best efforts in epistemology. I have become enamored with a completely different approach that considers knowledge as the subset of information that is reproduced by humans over time.
I agree with Joseph McBrayer that there are such things as moral facts. That said, Wenger’s idea of knowledge as “information we reproduce over time” is a really elegant approach.
We generally agree on the idea of moral facts, of knowledge about the nature of human life that is objectivity true. This is why the United Nations can produce something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But whether we’re conscious to the basis for human rights, in this instance, is an example of where Wenger’s knowledge-reproduction comes in.
It might be a moral fact that we’re created equal, but our consciousness to it in any given time, place, and culture varies dramatically. Why? Because our knowledge of the moral facts that support the notion of equality might not have been “information reproduced over time.”
Knowledge isn’t simply discovered and then perpetually passed along through time. Lots of knowledge becomes lost, and lots gets suppressed, etc. Wenger’s definition addresses this with precision.