So as you know limited knowledge is thrown around as an argument against the state. "If I could tell you how roads would be provided in a free society that would be an argument FOR the state; and I don't believe central planning is possible." I definitely believe that using violence to make an artificual hierarchy is wrong, but I believe a natural hierarchy does exist. Since we all can't contain all knowledge in our limited brains we require social organization. Through our interactions with each other massive amounts of knowledge is maintained, more than could be contained by one man. I argue that since knowledge is hierarchical then also the organization of knowledge maintainers must be hierarchical.
The hierarchy I see is only 3 levels, but we could debate the exact number. Level 1 for me is the statistical probabilistic understanding of things. So what is likely to happen if x occurs. Its just a raw prediction scheme with very little understanding. The mass of all knowledge is contained this way because small closed form understanding is rare. The second teir builds on the first, it is the ontological understanding. From what is likely/probabilistic we start to find the smaller closed form laws that govern whatever knowledge we are trying to attain. Lastly level 3 knowledge is knowledge that doesn't come from a step by step examination of level 2 knowledge, instead it is more like a evolutionary leap, I would include apriori knowledge in this category.
What do you guys think?