In this paper, we shall argue against both intellectualist and anti-intellectualist approaches to knowledge-how,[1] for their failing to provide a suitable framework for empirical research on the subject of practical knowledge. Anti-intellectualists propose, following Ryle (1949), that intelligent action embodies “practical knowledge”, which is distinguished from “theoretical knowledge” by its manifesting abilities or dispositions. Intellectualists, in contrast, claim that there is only one sort of knowledge that is characterized by having propositional content (e.g., Stanley 2011b). Practical knowledge, according to intellectualists, is rather distinguished by how propositional contents are applied in action. Whereas intellectualist approaches (e.g., Stanley 2011b), we shall argue, are right in denying that practical knowledge can be convincingly demarcated from theoretical knowledge by its supposed non-propositional nature, nevertheless they fail to provide a conceptual framework in which the peculiarities by which practical knowledge stands out could be made visible.
On the other hand, anti-intellectualists (e.g., Newen & Jung 2011) often present phenomenologically-motivated identifications of forms of practical knowledge with certain representational formats. Classificatory schemas without theoretical foundation—that is, without a general conceptual framework within which these classifications naturally emerge, and without any clear-cut specification of the explanatory tasks that have to be fulfilled by that classification—have only limited value as a manual for empirical research. Such schemas cannot even be judged according to explanatory productivity or completeness.
The first part of the paper (sections 2, 3, and 4) will be concerned with the shortcomings of both intellectualist and anti-intellectualist approaches, partly programmed by Ryle’s famous, but also somewhat misleading, exposition of the subject. The perception of these deficiencies of both intellectualist and anti-intellectualist approaches leads us to the conclusion that a philosophical framework for practical knowledge, in order to provide a basis for further empirical research, has in the first instance to lay some firm meta-theoretical ground.
The second part of the paper (sections 5, 6, and 7) will provide necessary elements for such a ground by identifying some central behavioral peculiarities of practical knowledge that must be explained by any empirically-adequate theory of knowledge-how. As will be seen, this is, above all, its context-bound, impenetrable, and implicit nature, as well as the automatic and continuous forms of processing that are connected to it. These five peculiarities will, in turn, be illustrated by examples stemming from the realms of sensorimotor knowledge (Milner/Goodale), intuitive knowledge (Damasio), and expert versus novice knowledge (Anderson), among others. We proceed by proposing a possible realization for the explanatory tasks identified in the meta-theoretical part: here we will argue that it is not by recourse to (non-)propositionality in any of its different senses that the peculiarities of practical knowledge can be explained; instead, we shall argue, conceptuality is a more suitable criterion for demarcating practical from theoretical knowledge, and for explaining their respective peculiarities. By “explaining” the peculiarities of practical versus theoretical knowledge we do not mean a kind of logical “derivation”. “Explaining” here is rather to be understood as showing how the realization of necessary conditions for the possession of concepts coincides with those conditions that have to be fulfilled in order to achieve the step from practical to theoretical knowledge, each characterized by their respective peculiarities. In other words, we search for “how-possible-explanations” of the peculiarities of practical versus theoretical knowledge. The driving role of conceptuality would also explain, in that sense, why the contents of practical knowledge cannot be easily verbally expressed, let alone abstractly represented. Such abilities only enter the scene, we argue, when knowledge reaches the conceptual level.