Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
Umm.....I'm pretty much in extreme disagreement with most of this.
First there are not "different kinds of knowledge." Maybe you are defining knowledge different than me.
|
Even within "scientific" psychology there is a distinction between declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge - "knowing that" as distinct from "knowing how". The common example is riding a bike. One might know a lot about physics and bodies in motion and that sort of thing without being able to ride a bike, on the other hand one may be able to ride a bike without knowing anything about physics.
It may be that most of out knowledge is procedural - certainly infants seem to know a lot but it is unlikely that they have much declarative knowledge. People who are very good at what would appear to be activities that seem almost entirely intellectual - based on declarative knowledge, chess experts and mathematicians for example - often report that they just "see" solutions and only later apply their declarative knowledge in order to explain what the have seen. Our language use is another example - it is perfectly possible to make well-formed English sentences without knowing anything about subjects, verbs and subject-verb agreement.
This may be apocryphal, but apparently cows know how to cure headaches - by drinking water near willow trees which contains salicylic acid - aspirin - it's unlikely though that they know anything declarative about willow trees, aspirin, or even headaches.