Dear David Sless,
"Knowing how" and "knowing do" are both inscribed in the history of the word
"know" through its connection with "ken" and "can" such that the statement "I
can ride a bike" means "I know how to ride a bike". When the academic (from
place of practice) urges that "being able to ride as bike" does not amount to
"knowing how to ride a bike" he is extending the claim about what we might know
about ourselves and our experiences. The is the source, in Plato and more
particularly Aristotle, of the distinctions between various personal knowledges.
Thus, for Aristotle, there are three kinds of Doctor: 1) works like a witch
doctor and offers the same solution for all ailments without being able to
distinguish the connections in causal terms; 2) has some understanding of the
connections, through trial and error and is able to support his advice at some
level; 3) looks for the common features that can be abstracted from evience and
then proposes new knowledge based on this knowledge.
Which gets us to the "show" aspects of theory. Theory is able to show that which
is not obvious in the doing (axiom versus theorem). So, it makes good sense to
suggest that a person who "can ride a bike" may not "know how to ride a bike" in
the sense that they can not draw further knoweldge from their riding and/or
cannot illustrate their riding in any other way, that "shows" riding except in
their riding. This last defecit is what separtes technique from technology. That
is, if I am able to isolate what it is in my making that makes the difference,
then my technique is open to duplication/modification/replication and thus
becomes part of "knowledge". Not all doers/designers are in the business of
knowledge though all are in the business of can-do.
keith russell
communication and media arts
uni of newcastle OZ
David Sless wrote:
> Yes, Rosan. I agree with you. Indeed, the proposition you put forward has a
> long history. It's a philosophical distinction made by many epistemologist,
> probably most lucidly by A J Ayre and Polyani. The distinction between
> knowing 'about' something and knowing 'how to do' something is an extremely
> important one. Unfortunately, many people confuse the two. Academics who
> know a great deal about design do not necessarily know how to design, but
> this does not seem to prevent them from asserting their relevance to the act
> of designing. My view is that such claims need to be continually questioned,
> with the onus on those who claim that their knowledge 'about' design is
> relevant to demonstrate its relevance to doing design.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|