‘Knowledge’ is not the name for trying to impress with big words like ‘quantum physics’, and claiming knowledge does not involve name dropping, for example, making frequent references to Albert Einstein, Bill Gates and other international or local heroes of various kinds. Knowledge also rarely shows its fine face amidst the fashionable nonsense that overcrowds bookshelves, the minds of people, and that empties the pockets of the gullible. Claiming to have done ‘research’ without any further evidence and thus to ‘have’ knowledge on some or other topic is also not honest or convincing. Lastly, anecdotes, hype and personal conviction do not provide the evidential and logical back up needed when claiming knowledge.

“Says who?” you may be tempted to ask, and the answer is of considerable importance to all those who do not want to be taken for a ride: No one, or no one in particular, and not even a famous person. Rather, the very successful and highly productive mode of thought which came to be called ‘scientific thinking’ has a long history (from about 500-300 years before the Common Era in ancients societies like China and Greece, to the present) and is still characterised by criticism, discussion, and ongoing attempts to do better: to find more secure evidence for claims, better methods with which to produce evidence, and finer ways to observe and analyse data. It is open to anyone who wants to know. The Guardian newspaper has interesting news and columns on good and bad science, visit http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/latest ; and both Francis Wheen , at http://books.guardian.co.uk/top10s/top10/0,,1140156,00.html , and Ben Goldacre, at http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/ , give us pause for thought.

Defining knowledge

Knowledge is a term best applied to justified, true beliefs, that is, beliefs with considerable evidential support. Evidence, moreover, can only count as justification for a claim when such data have been gathered through a repeatable, public method of research. A method that allows for controlled observations and comparisons. ‘Research’ really is not merely thinking, reading a book or two, and talking to a few experts about something; these worthwhile activities may help the thinker/reader/talker to ask better questions, or to engage others’ research in a sensible way, but it is not a search for verified statements or truth about some or other aspect of what is ‘out there’ – independent of our feelings, interests, and commitments. (Visit the CSIR Home Page and read their ‘Good Research Guide’ to familiarize your self with some rules for doing research http://www.csir.co.za/websource/ptl0002/pdf_files/publications/CSIR_Good_Research_Guide.pdf ). The product at the end of this road has the status of knowledge – not ever lasing, absolute Truth, but factual claims about some or other part of reality.

Deciding on what counts as good, strong supporting evidence and how to ascertain the truth of claims over repeated tests and measures, takes us to the heart of scientific thinking. Science – not as the laboratory caricature on TV ads, but as a particularly productive mode of thought – attempts to find good, strong supporting evidence for claims about reality (including people, events, and things). It is not the name for the end of knowledge, but the name of a process: a never-ending attempt, over time and place, to find more and better supporting evidence for beliefs/claims/statements about the world or any part of it. Contrary to public opinion, ‘science’ is a humble endeavour in the face of our human fallibilities, and the ever-increasing need to have factual knowledge of the world in which we live (visit http://whyfiles.org/ and http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/ for interesting news on this crucial if also much maligned part of our lives). Scientific thinking binds practitioners to a repeatable, public method with rules for observations and also for drawing conclusions based on (justified by) the evidence produced.

Different kinds of knowledge

In finding our way around what knowledge is and how to use it, it also helps to distinguish between different kinds of knowledge, for example, between theoretical and practical knowledge, and knowledge by acquaintance; also, between tacit, implicit and explicit knowledge – and more. (If you really are interested in this, examine the various entries at http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=kinds+of+knowledge .) Further, one may relate these different kinds of knowledge to each other so as to produce still further distinctions, or place different kinds of knowledge in particular contexts by way of underlining gender- or culture-specific ways of knowing and/or knowledge. The point is, these distinctions result from various positions on questions such as: what is knowledge, how do we obtain it, how can we be certain that what we know counts as the (factual) truth, and what is the use of knowledge. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge ). Furthermore, it is worth reminding ourselves that not all claims about how to live and what to do are actually knowledge claims; they are best thought of in terms of guiding values, moral principles, religious injunctions, cultural commitments, and so forth.

The distinction between knowledge-that and knowledge-how is sufficient for this short discussion on knowledge. The former, or knowledge-that, has to do with claims/statements about how things, in fact, are. These are statements about the world or a part of it that assert a factual state of affairs, facts that were and will continue to be checked, through research, against objective evidence or data. Knowledge-how, in turn, indicates practical knowledge such as we notice in statements such as: ‘I know how to ride a bicycle’; ‘He really has a feel for troubled adolescents’, and so on. In the case of claiming practical knowledge, showing how will suffice to verify a claim to practical knowledge, while knowledge-that depends on the results/conclusions of planned and controlled research. The trick for users of knowledge is to know what counts as practical knowledge (knowledge-how) and what counts as knowledge-that: each in its proper place will contribute to successful problem-solving. They are however not the same. Someone who has ‘a lot of experience’, as we say in lay terms, is typically someone with practical know-how, and not necessarily someone in control of knowledge-that. If the former wants to convert her practical know-how into factual statements, she has to do the hard work of research: search again and again through a certain method for evidence with which to justify claims.

What to do with knowledge

We all want to use knowledge, and this is clearly a good thing to do with it! The problem is that unless we have a sure grasp of what it is, we will be taken in by all kinds of claims without good, strong evidence, by claims that have nothing to do with either knowledge-that or knowledge-how, and even by claims that belong in the world of ‘sales-talk’, and even more dubious projects. But knowledge changes, which means, that if we want to use it, we have to learn how to discern the best of current knowledge on the issues we are involved in or concerned with.

Even educated people believed well into the 19th century that the earth was about 6000 years old; nowadays, it is believed that the earth is about 4,600 million years old. This is just one dramatic example of a change in beliefs about our world or a part of it due to better methods, evidence, and analysis of data. Other examples include beliefs about the causes of illness and health, and really many more. We are thus challenged with the task of sifting through often perplexing mazes of information, many claims, and vast amounts of knowledge. In addition, technological developments bring together distant people, cultures, resources, and potential sites of exchange. Those who manage to negotiate these challenges and exchanges successfully will also manage to turn knowledge into a wealth creating asset. Just how to do this is, of course, not as easily said, but is the crux of my interest in knowledge and the management of this for people and organizations (visit http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_6/capozzi/ for an interesting view on knowledge management).

---

Share this article