Editing Knowledge (section)

== Types ==
A common distinction among types of knowledge is between propositional knowledge, or knowledge-that, and non-propositional knowledge in the form of practical skills or acquaintance.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hetherington|2022a|loc=§ 1. Kinds of Knowledge}} | {{harvnb|Barnett|1990|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=eTjlAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA40 40]}} | {{harvnb|Lilley|Lightfoot|Amaral|2004|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=HT8VDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA162 162–163]}} }}</ref>{{efn|A distinction similar to the one between knowledge-that and knowledge-how was already discussed in ancient Greece as the contrast between ''[[Episteme|epistēmē]]'' (unchanging theoretical knowledge) and ''[[Techne|technē]]'' (expert technical knowledge).<ref>{{harvnb|Allen|2005|loc=Lead Section}}</ref>}} Other distinctions focus on how the knowledge is acquired and on the content of the known information.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Baehr|2022|loc=Lead Section}} | {{harvnb|Faber|Maruster|Jorna|2017|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=KKo0DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT340 340]}} | {{harvnb|Gertler|2021|loc=Lead Section}} | {{harvnb|Rescher|2005|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=o7m3amAbDEsC&pg=PA20 20]}} }}</ref>

=== Propositional ===
{{main|Declarative knowledge}}
[[File:Latin dictionary.jpg|thumb|alt=Photo of the Totius Latinitatis Lexicon by Egidio Forcellini, a multi-volume Latin dictionary|Declarative knowledge can be stored in books.]]

Propositional knowledge, also referred to as declarative and descriptive knowledge, is a form of theoretical knowledge about facts, like knowing that "2 + 2 = 4". It is the paradigmatic type of knowledge in [[analytic philosophy]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Klein|1998|loc=§ 1. The Varieties of Knowledge}} | {{harvnb|Hetherington|2022a|loc=§ 1b. Knowledge-That}} | {{harvnb|Stroll|2023|loc=§ The Nature of Knowledge}} }}</ref> Propositional knowledge is ''propositional'' in the sense that it involves a relation to a proposition. Since propositions are often expressed through that-clauses, it is also referred to as ''knowledge-that'', as in "Akari knows that kangaroos hop".<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hetherington|2022a|loc=§ 1b. Knowledge-That}} | {{harvnb|Stroll|2023|loc=§ The Nature of Knowledge}} | {{harvnb|Zagzebski|1999|p=92}} }}</ref> In this case, Akari stands in the [[Relation (philosophy)|relation]] of knowing to the proposition "kangaroos hop". Closely related types of knowledge are ''know-wh'', for example, ''knowing who'' is coming to dinner and ''knowing why'' they are coming.<ref>{{harvnb|Hetherington|2022a|loc=§ 1b. Knowledge-That, § 1c. Knowledge-Wh}}</ref> These expressions are normally understood as types of propositional knowledge since they can be paraphrased using a that-clause.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hetherington|2022a|loc=§ 1c. Knowledge-Wh}} | {{harvnb|Stroll|2023|loc=§ The Nature of Knowledge}} }}</ref>{{efn|For instance, to know whether Ben is rich can be understood as knowing that Ben is rich, in case he is, and knowing that Ben is not rich, in case he is not.<ref>{{harvnb|Hetherington|2022a|loc=§ 1c. Knowledge-Wh}}</ref>}}

Propositional knowledge takes the form of mental representations involving concepts, ideas, theories, and general rules. These representations connect the knower to certain parts of reality by showing what they are like. They are often context-independent, meaning that they are not restricted to a specific use or purpose.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Morrison|2005|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=znbkHaC8QeMC&pg=PA371 371]}} | {{harvnb|Reif|2008|p=33}} | {{harvnb|Zagzebski|1999|p=93}} }}</ref> Propositional knowledge encompasses both knowledge of specific facts, like that the atomic mass of gold is 196.97 [[Dalton (unit)|u]], and generalities, like that the color of leaves of some trees changes in autumn.<ref>{{harvnb|Woolfolk|Margetts|2012|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=whziBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA251 251]}}</ref> Because of the dependence on mental representations, it is often held that the capacity for propositional knowledge is exclusive to relatively sophisticated creatures, such as humans. This is based on the claim that advanced intellectual capacities are needed to believe a proposition that expresses what the world is like.<ref name="auto6">{{harvnb|Pritchard|2013|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=sfUhAQAAQBAJ 1 Some preliminaries]}}</ref>

=== Non-propositional ===
[[File:Bicycle ride.jpg|thumb|alt=Photograph of someone riding a bicycle|Knowing how to ride a bicycle is one form of non-propositional knowledge.]]
Non-propositional knowledge is knowledge in which no essential relation to a proposition is involved. The two most well-known forms are knowledge-how (know-how or [[procedural knowledge]]) and knowledge by acquaintance.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hetherington|2022a|loc=§ 1. Kinds of Knowledge}} | {{harvnb|Stroll|2023|loc=§ The Nature of Knowledge}} | {{harvnb|Stanley|Willlamson|2001|pp=[https://philpapers.org/rec/WILKHV 411–412]}} }}</ref> To possess knowledge-how means to have some form of practical [[ability]], skill, or [[Competence (human resources)|competence]],<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hetherington|2022a|loc=§ 1d. Knowing-How}} | {{harvnb|Pritchard|2013|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=sfUhAQAAQBAJ 1 Some preliminaries]}} }}</ref> like knowing how to ride a bicycle or knowing how to swim. Some of the abilities responsible for knowledge-how involve forms of knowledge-that, as in knowing how to prove a [[Mathematics|mathematical]] theorem, but this is not generally the case.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Steup|Neta|2020|loc=§ 2.2 Knowing How}} | {{harvnb|Pavese|2022|loc=Lead Section, § 6. The Epistemology of Knowledge-How}} }}</ref> Some types of knowledge-how do not require a highly developed mind, in contrast to propositional knowledge, and are more common in the animal kingdom. For example, an [[ant]] knows how to walk even though it presumably lacks a mind sufficiently developed to represent the corresponding proposition.<ref name="auto6"/>{{efn|However, it is controversial to what extent goal-directed behavior in lower animals is comparable to human knowledge-how.{{sfn|Pavese|2022|loc=§ 7.4 Knowledge-How in Preverbal Children and Nonhuman Animals}}}}

Knowledge by acquaintance is familiarity with something that results from direct experiential contact.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hetherington|2022a|loc=§ 1a. Knowing by Acquaintance}} | {{harvnb|Stroll|2023|loc=§ St. Anselm of Canterbury}} | {{harvnb|Zagzebski|1999|p=92}} }}</ref> The object of knowledge can be a person, a thing, or a place. For example, by eating chocolate, one becomes acquainted with the taste of chocolate, and visiting [[Lake Taupō]] leads to the formation of knowledge by acquaintance of Lake Taupō. In these cases, the person forms non-inferential knowledge based on first-hand experience without necessarily acquiring factual information about the object. By contrast, it is also possible to indirectly learn a lot of propositional knowledge about chocolate or Lake Taupō by reading books without having the direct experiential contact required for knowledge by acquaintance.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Peels|2023|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=acCpEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA28 28]}} | {{harvnb|Heydorn|Jesudason|2013|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=6QDqPIsiEXEC&pg=PT10 10]}} | {{harvnb|Foxall|2017|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=HSE6DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT75 75]}} | {{harvnb|Hasan|Fumerton|2020}} | {{harvnb|DePoe|2022|loc=Lead Section, § 1. The Distinction: Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description}} | {{harvnb|Hetherington|2022a|loc=§ 1a. Knowing by Acquaintance}} }}</ref> The concept of knowledge by acquaintance was first introduced by [[Bertrand Russell]]. He holds that knowledge by acquaintance is more basic than propositional knowledge since to understand a proposition, one has to be acquainted with its constituents.<ref>{{multiref |1={{harvnb|Hasan|Fumerton|2020|loc=[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-acquaindescrip/ introduction]}} |2={{harvnb|Haymes|Özdalga|2016|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=iz6uCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA27 26–28]}} |3={{harvnb|Miah|2006|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=l7KvAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA19 19–20]}} |4={{harvnb|Alter|Nagasawa|2015|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=FgPWBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA93 93–94]}} |5={{harvnb|Hetherington|2022a|loc=§ 1a. Knowing by Acquaintance}}}}</ref>

=== ''A priori'' and ''a posteriori'' ===
{{main|A priori and a posteriori}}
The distinction between ''a priori'' and ''a posteriori'' knowledge depends on the role of experience in the processes of formation and justification.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Stroll|2023|loc=§ A Priori and a Posteriori Knowledge}} | {{harvnb|Baehr|2022|loc=Lead Section}} | {{harvnb|Russell|2020|loc=Lead Section}} }}</ref> To know something ''a posteriori'' means to know it based on experience.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Baehr|2022|loc=Lead Section}} | {{harvnb|Moser|2016|loc=Lead Section}} }}</ref> For example, by seeing that it rains outside or hearing that the baby is crying, one acquires ''a posteriori'' knowledge of these facts.<ref>{{harvnb|Baehr|2022|loc=Lead Section}}</ref> ''A priori'' knowledge is possible without any experience to justify or support the known proposition.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Russell|2020|loc=Lead Section}} | {{harvnb|Baehr|2022|loc=Lead Section}} }}</ref> Mathematical knowledge, such as that 2 + 2 = 4, is traditionally taken to be ''a priori'' knowledge since no empirical investigation is necessary to confirm this fact. In this regard, ''a posteriori'' knowledge is empirical knowledge while ''a priori'' knowledge is non-empirical knowledge.<ref>{{harvnb|Moser|2016|loc=Lead Section}}</ref>

The relevant experience in question is primarily identified with [[Experience#Perception|sensory experience]]. Some non-sensory experiences, like memory and introspection, are often included as well. Some conscious phenomena are excluded from the relevant experience, like rational insight. For example, conscious thought processes may be required to arrive at ''a priori'' knowledge regarding the solution of mathematical problems, like when performing [[mental arithmetic]] to multiply two numbers.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Baehr|2022|loc=§ 1. An Initial Characterization, § 4. The Relevant Sense of 'Experience'}} | {{harvnb|Russell|2020|loc=§ 4.1 A Priori Justification Is Justification That Is Independent of Experience}} }}</ref> The same is the case for the experience needed to learn the words through which the claim is expressed. For example, knowing that "all bachelors are unmarried" is ''a priori'' knowledge because no sensory experience is necessary to confirm this fact even though experience was needed to learn the meanings of the words "bachelor" and "unmarried".<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Baehr|2022}} | {{harvnb|Russell|2020|loc=§ 4.1 A Priori Justification Is Justification That Is Independent of Experience}} }}</ref>

It is difficult to explain how ''a priori'' knowledge is possible and some empiricists deny it exists. It is usually seen as unproblematic that one can come to know things through experience, but it is not clear how knowledge is possible without experience. One of the earliest solutions to this problem comes from [[Plato]], who argues that the soul already possesses the knowledge and just needs to recollect, or remember, it to access it again.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Woolf|2013|pp=[https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/122/485/171/961176 192–193]}} | {{harvnb|Hirschberger|2019|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=LWGlDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT22 22]}} }}</ref> A similar explanation is given by [[Descartes]], who holds that ''a priori'' knowledge exists as [[innate knowledge]] present in the [[mind]] of each human.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Moser|1998|loc=§ 2. Innate concepts, certainty and the a priori}} | {{harvnb|Markie|1998|loc=§ 2. Innate ideas}} | {{harvnb|O'Brien|2006|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=TOQcebWMstwC&pg=PA31 31]}} | {{harvnb|Markie|Folescu|2023|loc=§ 2. The Intuition/Deduction Thesis}} }}</ref> A further approach posits a special mental faculty responsible for this type of knowledge, often referred to as [[rational intuition]] or rational insight.<ref>{{harvnb|Baehr|2022|loc=§ 1. An Initial Characterization, § 6. Positive Characterizations of the A Priori}}</ref>

=== Others ===
Various other types of knowledge are discussed in the academic literature. In philosophy, "self-knowledge" refers to a person's knowledge of their own [[Sense|sensations]], [[thought]]s, beliefs, and other mental states. A common view is that self-knowledge is more direct than knowledge of the external world, which relies on the interpretation of sense data. Because of this, it is traditionally claimed that self-knowledge is indubitable, like the claim that a person cannot be wrong about whether they are in pain. However, this position is not universally accepted in the contemporary discourse and an alternative view states that self-knowledge also depends on interpretations that could be false.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Gertler|2021|loc=Lead Section, § 1. The Distinctiveness of Self-Knowledge}} | {{harvnb|Gertler|2010|p=1}} | {{harvnb|McGeer|2001|pp=13837–13841}} }}</ref> In a slightly different sense, [[Self-knowledge (psychology)|self-knowledge]] can also refer to knowledge of the [[self]] as a persisting entity with certain [[personality traits]], [[preference]]s, physical attributes, relationships, goals, and [[Identity (social science)|social identities]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Gertler|2021a}} | {{harvnb|Morin|Racy|2021|pp=373–374}} | {{harvnb|Kernis|2013|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=r0gahbOYsU4C&pg=PA209 209]}} }}</ref>{{efn|Individuals may lack a deeper understanding of their character and feelings and attaining self-knowledge is one step in [[psychoanalysis]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Wilson|2002|pp=3–4}} | {{harvnb|Reginster|2017|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=Pr5LDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA231 231–232]}} }}</ref>}}

[[Metaknowledge]] is knowledge about knowledge. It can arise in the form of self-knowledge but includes other types as well, such as knowing what someone else knows or what information is contained in a scientific article. Other aspects of metaknowledge include knowing how knowledge can be acquired, stored, distributed, and used.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Evans|Foster|2011|pp=721–725}} | {{harvnb|Rescher|2005|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=o7m3amAbDEsC&pg=PA20 20]}} | {{harvnb|Cox|Raja|2011|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=OR4Ld8NeFE8C&pg=PA134 134]}} | {{harvnb|Leondes|2001|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=5kSamKhS560C&pg=PA416 416]}} }}</ref>

[[Common knowledge]] is knowledge that is publicly known and shared by most individuals within a community. It establishes a common ground for communication, understanding, social cohesion, and cooperation.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Desouza|Awazu|2005|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=GRyBDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA53 53]}} | {{harvnb|Jorna|2017|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=KKo0DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT340 340]}} | {{harvnb|Faber|Maruster|Jorna|2017|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=KKo0DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT340 340]}} }}</ref> [[General knowledge]] encompasses common knowledge but also includes knowledge that many people have been exposed to but may not be able to immediately recall.<ref>{{harvnb|Schneider|McGrew|2022|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=bqKgEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA115 115–116]}}</ref> Common knowledge contrasts with [[domain knowledge]] or specialized knowledge, which belongs to a specific domain and is only possessed by experts.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Faber|Maruster|Jorna|2017|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=KKo0DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT340 340]}} | {{harvnb|Vempala|2014|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=qfcOBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA277 Creativity, Theories of Musical]}} }}</ref>

{{Anchor|Situated knowledge}}
'''Situated knowledge''' is knowledge specific to a particular situation.<ref name="auto4">{{multiref | {{harvnb|APA staff|2022}} | {{harvnb|Hunter|2009|pp=[https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230244481_23 151–153]}} }}</ref> It is closely related to practical or tacit knowledge, which is learned and applied in specific circumstances. This especially concerns certain forms of acquiring knowledge, such as [[trial and error]] or learning from experience.<ref>{{harvnb|Barnett|2006|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=WX9UVK6FYSkC&pg=PA146 146–147]}}</ref> In this regard, situated knowledge usually lacks a more explicit structure and is not articulated in terms of universal ideas.<ref>{{harvnb|Hunter|2009|pp=[https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230244481_23 151–153]}}</ref> The term is often used in [[feminism]] and [[postmodernism]] to argue that many forms of knowledge are not absolute but depend on the concrete historical, cultural, and linguistic context.<ref name="auto4"/>

[[Explicit knowledge]] is knowledge that can be fully articulated, shared, and explained, like the knowledge of historical dates and mathematical formulas. It can be acquired through traditional learning methods, such as reading books and attending lectures. It contrasts with [[tacit knowledge]], which is not easily articulated or explained to others, like the ability to recognize someone's face and the practical expertise of a master craftsman. Tacit knowledge is often learned through first-hand experience or direct practice.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Gascoigne|Thornton|2014|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=IVlsBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA8 8, 37, 81, 108]}} | {{harvnb|Hill|2009|loc=[https://www.encyclopedia.com/management/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/knowledge-based-view-firm § Idiosyncratic Views of Knowledge]}} }}</ref>

[[Cognitive load theory]] distinguishes between biologically primary and secondary knowledge. Biologically primary knowledge is knowledge that humans have as part of their evolutionary heritage, such as knowing how to recognize faces and speech and many general problem-solving capacities. Biologically secondary knowledge is knowledge acquired because of specific social and cultural circumstances, such as knowing how to read and write.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Sweller|Ayres|Kalyuga|2011|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=sSAwbd8qOAAC&pg=PA3 3–4]}} | {{harvnb|Sweller|2010|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=mFJe8ZnAb3EC&pg=PA31 31]}} }}</ref>

Knowledge can be [[Belief#Occurrent and dispositional|occurrent or dispositional]]. Occurrent knowledge is knowledge that is actively involved in cognitive processes. Dispositional knowledge, by contrast, lies dormant in the back of a person's mind and is given by the mere ability to access the relevant information. For example, if a person knows that cats have [[whiskers]] then this knowledge is dispositional most of the time and becomes occurrent while they are thinking about it.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Stroll|2023|loc=§ Occasional and Dispositional Knowledge}} | {{harvnb|Bartlett|2018|pp=[https://philpapers.org/rec/BAROS-4 1–2]}} | {{harvnb|Schwitzgebel|2021}} }}</ref>

Many forms of Eastern spirituality and religion distinguish between higher and lower knowledge. They are also referred to as [[Para Vidya|para vidya]] and [[Vidya (philosophy)#Hierarchy of knowledge|apara vidya]] in [[Hinduism]] or the [[two truths doctrine]] in [[Buddhism]]. Lower knowledge is based on the senses and the intellect. It encompasses both mundane or conventional truths as well as discoveries of the empirical sciences.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Rambachan|2006|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=ORPkAf3SZBQC&pg=PA10 10–11]}} | {{harvnb|Thakchoe|2022|loc=Lead Section}} | {{harvnb|Mishra|2021|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=v8s7EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA52 52]}} | {{harvnb|Ghose|1998|loc=[https://incarnateword.in/cwsa/7/the-glory-of-god-in-man Political Writings and Speeches. 1890–1908: The Glory of God in Man]}} }}</ref> Higher knowledge is understood as knowledge of God, [[Absolute (philosophy)|the absolute]], the [[true self]], or the [[ultimate reality]]. It belongs neither to the external world of physical objects nor to the internal world of the experience of emotions and concepts. Many spiritual teachings stress the importance of higher knowledge to progress on the spiritual path and to see reality as it truly is beyond the [[Maya (religion)|veil of appearances]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Rambachan|2006|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=ORPkAf3SZBQC&pg=PA10 10–11]}} | {{harvnb|Mishra|2021|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=v8s7EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA52 52]}} | {{harvnb|Ghose|1998|loc=[https://incarnateword.in/cwsa/7/the-glory-of-god-in-man Political Writings and Speeches. 1890–1908: The Glory of God in Man]}} }}</ref>