First-hand versus second-hand vs. third-hand ; experience as a gauge for Truth.
- first-hand knowledge/information = information you have from directly experiencing the subject; knowledge from personal _experience_.
- second-hand knowledge/information = information from someone with first-hand experience; knowledge learnt from someone who _experienced_ the subject. For example, having an event related to you by someone who experienced it. Or, being taught a skill by someone with experience*.
- third-hand information = "story" ; information from people who did not experience the subject and who may not have learned that information from people with second-hand experience.
Because any number of intermediate steps (degrees of separation from first-hand experience) can exist in "third-hand information," such information should be assumed to be unreliable; even when presented as 'fact,' or with an 'air of authority', this type of indirect knowledge can be based on rumour or hearsay. Even with a source of information assumed to be reliable (e.g. a book), the information is often not even second-hand (from neither direct or indirect personal experience) and, furthermore, is modified (intentionally or unintentionally; by theory, opinion, rhetoric, similar experiences, et al.) by the third-hand source (e.g. the author).
= Why are these distinctions important? =
Thinking about how far away from direct experience (which could be called "knowledge") any information may be is supposed to be a way to remind yourself that what-you-think-you-know
may not be "truth," or may not be as reliable as it first seems.
One interesting and relevant example is Television News (broadcast journalism, as opposed to print journalism).
On news-shows, you will often see a "reporter" who has been sent to the location where an event took place. This is designed to give you the _impression_ that you are getting *first-hand* information about an event. But, in fact, you may not even be getting second-hand information, let alone first-hand.
The reporter almost always has arrived at the scene after the event has taken place. Furthermore, they usually don't have the time to find and talk to multiple people with first-hand experience. And do you actually know if information they are relating to you is from a first-hand source?
This is how the distinction of 'what degree of separation from experience?' can be a useful tool: you can better gauge what level of confidence you have about a "story" if you ask yourself if what you are hearing is first-hand, second-hand, or third-hand. For example, when the reporter says "We spoke to so-and-so at the scene, and he told us..." you could ask yourself "Does so-and-so have first-hand information?"
Or is 'so-and-so' someone like a Captain, or someone who's job it is to speak to the press?
If so, do you know if they experienced the event?
Do you know if the person questioned by the reporter received information from one, many, or no people with first-hand experience yet?
Because it could be the case that the person quoted is, in fact, another person without first-hand experience (direct knowledge) of what happened.
And thinking about whether the information is connected to direct experience, you may then realize that, even though it seems like you are getting reliable information--because the reporter is where the event occurred, or the person interviewed could be assumed to have gotten multiple first-hand reports--you don't actually know if you are getting second-hand or third-hand information. This can help you to realize you may not know the whole story, or may not know the true story.
= Further degrees of separation from experience (4th-hand, 5th-hand,...) ==
Theoretical examples of further "handedness": degrees of separation from first-hand experience/knowledge:
fourth-hand information : Learning from books (for subjects other than skills).
fifth-hand information : Information from someone who learned from books (including skills, unless that person also has first-hand experience [practice*]).
sixth-hand information : Information from sources like Wikipedia (where the authors do not have 1st- or 2nd-hand information, and have not even obtained 4th- or 5th- hand information; i.e. cases where neither the author nor the author's source have any connection to "experience").
= Footnotes =
* For skills/disciplines/studies of a subject, a good guideline for what constitutes "experience" is 'more than 300 hours of (first-hand) practice and/or study'.** It used to be that "a reporter at the scene" meant you could assume that the reporter experienced, or was experiencing, the events he/she was reporting on. Or, at the least, that the reporter had spent some amount of time speaking to as many people as possible to try to get multiple first-hand reports. Now, however, you can see that having "a reporter at the scene" is often merely an attempt to exploit this pre-established viewer assumption: multiple news vans arrive; if they can't be filmed at the scene they try to stand close to the scene; and the "reporters" just read "copy" that was written for them back at the studio. Or you see something like reporters sent to Iraq, where they are limited in who they can speak to; it makes for good television, because of scenes from the location, but does not necessarily mean you are getting a more reliable "story", because they are still separated from people with important first-hand experience...
= About (Meta) =
I wrote this blog article in reaction to hearing Tom Cruise say "There's first-hand data, second-hand data, and third-hand data.... and third-hand data is way out there." Maybe it can , in some small way, help prevent such an unclear statement on the subject from ever being spoken again ;-)
