From David Allen
Discussions of tacit and explicit knowledge, such as that made by Harry Collins (29 May, p 30), often run afoul of the map-versus-territory confusion: the map is an abstraction of the territory, it isn’t the territory itself. The map explicitly shows many features, but it necessarily leaves out other details – tacit knowledge. It might not show features that are essential to a particular reader in a particular context, such as where a stream is too muddy to cross.
The context principle is at the core of this issue. Traditionally, this states that a philosopher should always ask for a word’s meaning in terms of the context in which it is being used, not in isolation. More broadly: context creates meaning and in its absence there is no meaning.
I find my work on knowledge systems useful in understanding this principle. Domains – which could be anything from individuals to collections of data – can only be connected if they have contexts in common: some sort of relation to each other. In terms of computers, this context might be the programming language, hardware or operating system. Common contexts provide shared meaning and open a path for communication between disparate domains.
Explicit knowledge is knowledge that has been represented in a common context, so that it can be effectively communicated between the domains of concern, whereas tacit knowledge is knowledge that hasn’t been represented in a common context for the domains of concern.
Advertisement
It follows that explicit knowledge in one context can be tacit in another. For example, an algorithm that describes how to ride a bicycle might make the knowledge explicit for a robot, but not for a person. However, demonstrating the act of riding a bicycle might be all a person needs.
It should be equally clear that the lack of a map does not mean that a map cannot be drawn.
Wilsonville, Oregon, US
