A definition of Inexplicable that states "Non-propositional knowledge, i.e. knowledge that cannot, even in principle, be formulated as a set of propositions."
|Community||Accepted From||Acceptance Indicators||Still Accepted||Accepted Until||Rejection Indicators|
|Scientonomy||1 September 2019||The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.||Yes|
Suggestions To Accept
|Modification||Community||Date Suggested||Summary||Verdict||Verdict Rationale||Date Assessed|
|Sciento-2018-0011||Scientonomy||28 December 2018||Accept the three-fold distinction between explicit, explicable-implicit, and inexplicable.||Accepted||The consensus on this modification emerged primarily off-line. It was agreed that "the modification should be accepted".c1 It was also agreed "that the three-fold distinction is to be accepted as it introduces a distinction between explicable-implicit and inexplicable and thus contributes to the clarity of discussions concerning implicit and explicit."c2||1 September 2019|
Inexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018) is an attempt to answer the following question: What is inexplicable knowledge? How should it be defined?
See Inexplicable for more details.
The category is agent-relative and encompasses that knowledge which cannot - even in principle - be explicated. The definition was first suggested by Hakob Barseghyan and Maxim Mirkin in their The Role of Technological Knowledge in Scientific Change2 and was restated by Mirkin in his The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic.
- Mirkin, Maxim. (2018) The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic. Scientonomy 2, 39-53. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/29645.
- Barseghyan, Hakob and Mirkin, Maxim. (2019) The Role of Technological Knowledge in Scientific Change. In Héder and Nádasi (Eds.) (2019), 5-17.