Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0011

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Commenting on this modification is closed; the modification is accepted.

Paul Patton

16 months ago
Score 0

I believe that the modification should be accepted. The proposal distinguishes explicit knowledge that has been openly formulated as propositions by an agent, and implicit knowledge that hasn't been so formulated. The only sense in which this is problematic is the question of whether this classification is made from the point of view of the historical actor, or that of the modern observational scientonomist. Suppose the historical actor formulated the knowledge explicitly, but historical evidence of this did not survive to the present. From the scientonomist's point of view, then, the knowledge might seem to be explicable-implicit, even though it was explicit for the historical actor. Such limitations on our knowledge should, at least, be acknowledged, but it isn't clear that any changes are needed to accommodate them.

The second distinction is that between propositional knowledge and so-called inexplicable knowledge. This knowledge might better be termed non-propositional than inexplicable to avoid some false aura of mystery. There are clear indications that this sort of knowledge exists. For example, it is not possible to convey usable knowledge of how to ride a bicycle propositionally. A propositional account of the physics of bicycle riding would be of little or no use to someone attempting to acquire this skill.

Hakob Barseghyan

10 months ago
Score 0
This is to record that the consensus regarding this modification has emerged primarily off-line, outside of this discussion page. It has been 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.

You are not allowed to post comments.