In a society where everyone has the opportunity to express their opinions, it has become increasingly difficult to determine which arguments are based on knowledge and which primarily rely on emotions, desires, or personal preferences. The Knowledge model is developed to provide a structured way to evaluate arguments, ideas, and positions. The model is not intended to determine who is right. It is intended to help us assess how well-founded an opinion is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The KUNSKAP model is based on seven questions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
K \u2013 Consequence<\/strong> U \u2013 Substrate<\/strong> N \u2013 Proximity<\/strong> S \u2013 System understanding<\/strong> K \u2013 Responsibility for consequences<\/strong> A \u2013 Alternative<\/strong> P \u2013 Testability<\/strong> The basic idea is simple: The higher the level of knowledge, understanding of consequences and verifiability, the greater reason there is to take the argument seriously.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The model is useful in social debate, politics, the media, working life, and organizational development. It can help us shift the focus from who speaks the loudest<\/em> to who presents the most well-founded argument<\/em>. The .KUNSKAP model does not question people's right to have opinions. On the contrary, it is based on respect for the open society and free debate. But it is based on an important principle:<\/p>\n\n\n\n All people have equal right to express their opinions. But not all opinions have the same value in terms of knowledge and decision-making.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In its core, the KUNSKAP model is therefore not intended in any way to serve as a tool for evaluating and categorizing the value of individual individuals or people. Instead, the model constitutes a thoughtful and objective framework created solely to carefully examine and assess the quality of the arguments presented. In an age characterized by rapid conclusions where subjective thinking all too often is mistaken for solid and verifiable knowledge, this may very well be one of the absolutely most important distinctions that we actually need to restore for a healthy public discourse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Is the person affected by the question or the decision?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Is the argument based on emotions, experiences, data or research?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
How close is the person to the issue being discussed?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Does the person understand the whole, the connections and the consequences?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Who will have to live with the consequences of what is being proposed?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Can the person describe realistic and workable alternatives?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Are the claims intended to be checked, verified or falsified?<\/p>\n\n\n\n