Knowledge has inherent value

Utility - the quality of being of practical use "I will assume that my opponent concedes my arguments as there have been no rebuttals offered. The point that some knowledge is useless will be addressed in a few ways." You assume wrong then as you reached no logical conclusions. Instead you rattled of lengthily about Kant and Shakespeare I could only discern the following arguments: 1. Knowledge is useful in making decisions 2. Life is a series of long decisions 3. Thus knowledge has relevant value Argument: Only relevant knowledge is useful in making decisions. 1. Knowledge gains things that bring utility 2. These things could not happen without knowledge 3. Therefore knowledge brings utility Argument: Only relevant knowledge gains things that bring utility 1. There is no downside to possessing knowledge Argument: There are many services that are free with ads which allow paid versions without ads This business model is successful and many people pay to remove ads thus it is clear they receive a negative utility from the ads as they are willing to sacrifice money (equal to the amount of negative utility) to remove those ads Thus they retain a negative utility from the knowledge in those ads "but there is nothing to say it will not at a later date" A clear logical fallacy if there ever was one: Argument To The Future: arguing that evidence will someday be discovered which will (then) support your point. Even the fact that there are a superfluous number of e-mails helps one realize their e-mail defences are too weak against spam, or that the Viagra industry is highly active and would offer a good job. All irrelevant information This is also taking into consideration that utility isn't even part of the accepted definition of value value is a synonym for utility? "1. Only relevant knowledge has value (common knowledge)" R1.Any knowledge can be made to be relevant R2. Nothing in the agreed upon definition of value requires "relevance" per se My opponent clearly does not understand the definition of value. If I had a pile of garbage, would I value it because it has the potential of decomposing into soil which can be sold 500 years later as high quality manure? No. Humans clearly do not value garbage as it is denoted by the word "garbage" and is cast aside. Another instance of humans paying to get rid of something they do not value. R1. Fallacy of composition the characteristics of the parts are not necessarily the characteristics of the whole. lol if you're going to say that it's fallacy of composition then you are actually going to have to show where the syllogism fails Even if it were true that: irrelevant knowledge exists, there is more of it than relevant knowledge, and the irrelevant knowledge does not have value, none of this this would deductively guarantee that knowledge on the whole is irrelevant and by extension without inherent value. A statement with absolutely no backing? I showed how most of the minutia from every day lives lacks value, spam lacks value, advertisements lack value. In fact they give negative value as most people pay to get rid of them. You attempted to say that irrelevant information can be made relevant? Well of course it has the ability to be relevant, and it only gains value when it becomes relevant and not until that point in time. It's quite clear that there is only a small body of relevant information in most peoples lives that holds value. Otherwise there is a massive body of irrelevant information of which we cannot use that has no value to us. 1. The human mind can only hold a fixed amount of information 2. Current estimates of brain capacity range from 1 to 1000 terabytes (http://www.sizes.com...)(http://www.moah.org...) 3. There is larger amount of data available than the human mind can posess which is constantly increasing. 4. Therefore brain space is at a premium, and while the knowledge may possess value in the future, it is irrelevant until that point in time and thus lacking vaue.