Michael,
I didn't dismiss anything. I asked for clarification on how your
distinctions function, how levels of "knowing-how" would be judged,
whether the context of those judgements would move us to another
realm, and where honoring these different modes best fit. Although I
have in the past been the director of a university multimedia
program, the head of a university graphic design program, and have
taught at several universities, I am a working designer who by no
means dismisses knowing-how (in any sense of the phrase.)
The questions remain: Is riding a bicycle an example of "knowing-how"
or a metaphor? If riding a bicycle is, in fact, a reasonable example
of "knowing-how," how would standards be established about such an
activity? (Is there another example that would serve better?) How
would something that parallels bicycle riding (or knowing how to ride
one) contribute to legitimate goals of a university?
These are neither rhetorical questions nor dismissals, they are
questions formulated in an attempt to understand your point and your
notion of contributions to knowledge.
Gunnar
>Gunnar said
>
>The riding-a-bicycle example brings out legitimate questions about the
>value of "knowing-how" in academic terms. If the mission of universities is
>focused on increasing knowledge, how does "knowing-how" fit in and what
>aspects should be honored? Should Lance Armstrong's bicycling be honored
>more than mine? In what ways does he "know how" more than I do? In many
>objective ways he -does- better, but is that the same? Should cycling
>"knowing-how" be of higher or lower academic value than triathlon
>"knowing-how"?
>
>I reply
>
>unfortunately your extension of the metaphor only shows how knowing-how can
>be dismissed in favour of knowing-that. The transmission of knowing-how is
>seen as a technical or vocational skill, of lower value than the
>traditional Greek ideal of the disembodied intellect. I suggest that the
>traditionalist's view would be that your differentiation was merely
>splitting hairs, i.e. they are all equally valueless. My view is different
>from the traditionalists, though I too suffer from institutionalised
>idealism. Knowing-how is only significant in a research context if it can
>be accompanied by knowing-why (cf. Richard Buchanan's mail 6/8/01), thereby
>contributing to transferable knowledge and/or understanding.
--
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
536 South Catalina Street
Ventura CA 93001-3625
+1 805 667 2200
[log in to unmask]
http://www.gunnarswanson.com
|