Apologies. I'm not sure what I'm asking and I'm not a philosopher.
It's about knowledge acquisition.
If you lack knowledge about a certain subject it's difficult to evaluate the quality of the answers you receive for questions regarding that subject.
However, as I notice participating of StackExchange's Q&A sites, one can actually affirm an answer or combination of answers did improve her knowledge on the given subject. She can even measure (subjectively) how far an answer improved her understanding of that problem compared to or combined with other answers.
So up to a point we can effectively say our knowledge improves even if we are mostly ignorant in that subject. Perhaps we cannot tell for sure if what we have read is true, only that it did improve our understanding given our current knowledge.
I think my question is, how does that compare with Socrates' saying, "All I know is that there is nothing I know" (or similar saying, sorry. I'm translating from my native language).
What I mean is, isn't it conflicting that the more we know the less knowing we are, while on the other hand it seems that we can effectively (apparently) measure our knowledge acquisition?
And is it true that we can assure we are learning more about a subject even if we are mostly ignorant about it (in the sense that we will naturally have difficulty evaluating that)?
Any appealing introductory material on the subject for the layman?