12. We have learned it. What do we do next?

We have looked (in a window-shopping manner) at knowing and knowledge, learning, thinking and creating, and we have made system models of these processes. If we have been learning, we would have learned, thought or created ways for creating. As far as schooling concerns, we have gone well past learning that internalizes and accumulates data (or knowledge) in our memory. What do we do next? If we are lucky we get to 'use' the knowledge we have. In doing so, we go beyond (knowledge) 'discovery' into 'applications' (of knowledge) and then to live within the context of our (own and public) knowledge!

Naturalizing model:
    {challenge --> [create+review+adapt to fit environment] --> evolution+KLTC}

As bodies of knowledge develop, knowledge objects are added, deleted and changed (refined, rectified, extended, ...). The development of knowledge is very much like a 'co-evolution'. Knowledge objects have to survive validity tests, adapt or change to fit prevailing conditions in the environment. This process is 'naturalizing' or adapting to survive in dynamic environment. Comparing to (human) living or  'learning to fit and survive in a changing environment for as long as we can', naturalizing is not a big-bang creation but sequences of accumulated small changes with occasional major corrections.
   
Perfect knowledge exists by human enforcement. Perfection implies 'closure' = 'no further creation'.

A challenge: Is knowledge democratic?
We see that sciences of today are often based historical sciences and/or experiments and reviewed by fellow scientists. Sometimes there are strong and continuing disputes. But generally, if the majority of scientists accept (by referencing or by staying tacitly silent) then the knowledge or the theory becomes science. Thus, in this way, science is tested by democracy as well as by reasoning and experimenting. [Note that under democracy process, more popular sciences will have more researchers, receive more funding, and will be referenced more. If credibility of sciences is based on referencing (e.g. Google's pagerank), then 'rare sciences' are less credible - even when they are quite rigorous.]

    Should we (democratically) vote for 'knowledge' and accept 'knowledge' by majority?

<NB> 19. To naturalize 1. To become as if native.[1913 Webster] 3. To receive or adopt as native, natural, or vernacular; to make one's own; as, to naturalize foreign words. 4. To adapt; to accustom; to habituate; to acclimate; to cause to grow as under natural conditions.

<NB> 20. Changes in knowledge may arise from changes in perception, interpretation and application or changes in the environment. The changes may combine to fit better in the environment and so strengthen the knowledge. At times the changes may weaken the knowledge and allow alternative knowledge to become more accepted in the community. Knowledge objects can die, break up and recombine, resurrect or relocate, ... as any object in our universe.

<NB> 21. Is there any 'law governing knowledge' (objects)? Does knowledge obey a 'conservation principle' like matters, energy, and charges (as in physics)? Knowledge is often a main pursuit in life (or living); attainment of certain knowledge (of life) is an ultimate achievemnt (success) in life; survival of knowledge sometimes is upheld seriuosly as survival of bloodline (gene or DNA permutation); Is there 'natural knowledge types' equivalent of (A,C,G,T) DNA types which we may combine to produce infinitely many variations of knowledge for infinitely many configurations of environment?