Accept the three-fold distinction between explicit, explicable-implicit, and inexplicable.
The traditional distinction between explicit and implicit (or tacit) doesn't do justice to the body of knowledge that hasn't yet been explicitly stated but can - in principle - be openly formulated. Thus, traditionally, tacit knowledge would denote both the knowledge that has not yet been explicated by an epistemic agent as well as knowledge that is in principle inexplicable. To avoid conflation, we need to switch to a three-fold distinction that clearly separates explicable-implicit knowledge from inexplicable knowledge.
Accept the following three-fold distinction between explicit, explicable-implicit, and inexplicable:
Theories To Accept
- Explicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018): Propositional knowledge that has been openly formulated by the agent.
- Explicable-Implicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018): Propositional knowledge that hasn’t been openly formulated by the agent.
- Inexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018): Non-propositional knowledge, i.e. knowledge that cannot, even in principle, be formulated as a set of propositions.
- Implicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018): Not explicit.
This modification attempts to answer the following question(s):
- Explicit: What is explicit knowledge? How should it be defined?
- Explicable-Implicit: What is explicable-implicit knowledge? How should it be defined?
- Inexplicable: What is inexplicable knowledge? How should it be defined?
- Implicit: What is implicit knowledge? How should it be defined?
The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
Click on the Discussion tab for comments.
- 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.