As a phenomenological philosopher, I have a hard time finding this comment useful. Neither would contributors to journals like Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. — Joshs

I'm wondering why you even bothered to take the time to respond to such a vacuous, facile comment.

Tacit vs. explicit. — Banno

Tacit means unstated; not effed.

If this tacit knowledge is effable, then why is it not included in the explicit instructions? Will you ever answer this question?

Edit: Furthermore, you’ve told us that the explicit instructions alone are insufficient to know how to play and that no knowledge is gained from playing, so how does one gain this tacit knowledge?

Unstated or unstateable?

Will you ever answer this question? — Luke

I have, multiple times, to you and in anther more interesting discussion with @Moliere.

I'll try again, this time with an example. I've spent a few days trying to get the lick for Mannish Boy right. I'm after something like the the Johnny Winter sound, but have a Gretch semi rather than a Fender. Playing with the gain I can get a satisfactory sound, but it's missing something, which I think is an overdub of a bass run. Or it might be keys.

While I haven't found quite what I want, it's not that I can't talk about it - it's tacit, but is made explicit in both the twiddling of various knobs and the discussion.

Is there something about the lick that cannot be said? I don't see what.

Tacit knowledge is communicable. Hence not ineffable.

(Harmonica?)

I've spent a few days trying to get the lick for Mannish Boy right. I'm after something like the the Johnny Winter sound, but have a Gretch semi rather than a Fender. Playing with the gain I can get a satisfactory sound, but it's missing something, which I think is an overdub of a bass run. Or it might be keys. — Banno

Don't hurt me, don't hurt me now.

It just seems like if one acknowledges that meaning is use, one would want to downplay the aboutness of language. Why even care about reference if it's just action that matters?

Happy to got there with you.

There's no keys mentioned in the notes, so it must be a harp.

What this whole discussion misses is the interplay between the words and the world; it's not that the tacit knowledge is off by itself somewhere, but is there in the "a bit more gain, and a little reverb", said or done.

Unstated or unstateable? — Banno

That can be determined by finally answering my question: if tacit knowledge is effable, then why is it not included in the explicit instructions in the first place?

Is there something about the lick that cannot be said? — Banno

This does not at all answer my question.

What does the lick have to do with your tacit knowledge of how to play?

I asked you about your tacit knowledge, which you distinguished from the knowledge contained in the explicit instructions. I did not ask you about any tacit knowledge that the lick somehow possesses.

Telling me that you don’t possess knowledge of how to play a lick or - worse - of how to perfect a sound, is a poor attempt at distraction.

What does the lick have to do with your tacit knowledge of how to play? — Luke

:rofl:

Less than I'd like. It's only six notes, but it's a bitch.

Sounds more like a lack of knowledge than any tacit knowledge. :roll:

Sounds more like a lack of knowledge than any tacit knowledge. :roll: — Luke

Perhaps @Banno could be persuaded to record a performance of "the lick" for us as a fitting capstone to this effing thread. I have a feeling the performance would be "ineffable" :rofl:

Well, if what I just described does not answer your question, then I've not understood your question. And after pages of discussion, if that's the case, then I'm thinking you don't understand your question either. SO, yes, you can go back to insults, but I think I'll move on with discussion of tacit.

LOL. I must not understand my question because you don’t?

Yes, what you described does not answer my question. The reason is because I asked about tacit knowledge and you described a situation in which you lack knowledge. Did you think that “tacit knowledge” meant a lack of knowledge?

And I can go back to insults? That’s rich. I’m not the one telling people to “fuck off” as a substitute for an argument, Banno. That’s you.

And after pages of discussion, if that's the case, then I'm thinking you don't understand your question either. — Banno

Yet from my vantage he understands his own question just fine, it is you that are missing it.

if tacit knowledge is effable, then why is it not included in the explicit instructions in the first place? — Luke

How exactly does a description of some knobs you are considering fiddling with answer this question?

What this whole discussion misses is the interplay between the words and the world; it's not that the tacit knowledge is off by itself somewhere, but is there in the "a bit more gain, and a little reverb", said or done. — Banno

I think Quine's point was that there's nothing in your knob twiddling that stands as evidence that what you mean by 'gain' coincides with what the engineer who designed the amp meant by it.

It's not a matter of imprecision. It's that everything is actually ineffable. Speech with a lack of clear reference is never about anything in particular.

So to all, it's not uncommon for tacit knowledge to be described as ineffable. It derives I believe from Michael Polanyi, someone who receives scant attention these days. Not even his own article in SEP.

But tacit know-how is, if not stateable then demonstrable. So, , it’s entirely doable for someone else to twiddle ones knob satisfactorily, perhaps with instruction.

But tacit know-how is, if not stateable then demonstrable. — Banno

Not stateable = ineffable.

it’s entirely doable for someone else to twiddle ones knob satisfactorily, perhaps with instruction. — Banno

A truly worthy first entry to my "Favorite Quotations"!

indeed, which is it? The position of the knob or the timing of a note are tacit yet stateable.

indeed, which is it? The position of the knob or the timing of a note are tacit yet stateable. — Banno

First explain in what sense either of them are tacit knowledge.

These seem like things which - if known - could be included in the explicit instructions of how to play. So why wouldn’t they be?

If it can be stated, then it can be included in the explicit instructions on how to play.
If it can’t be stated, then it’s ineffable.
Recall you asserted that the explicit instructions alone are insufficient for one to know how to ride/play.
Therefore, there is something that cannot be stated, in principle, according to you.
Otherwise, everything necessary to know how to play could be made explicit and included in the instructions and the instructions would therefore be sufficient for one to know how to play.

So why do you assert that the explicit instructions alone are insufficient to know how to play? What knowledge is missing?

Bear in mind that the act of riding or playing is not knowledge. You might say this demonstrates knowledge. Okay, then what knowledge does it demonstrate that cannot be made explicit and included in the instructions on how to play/ride?

Hmm. Tacit and ineffable are not synonyms.

Hence that which is tacit is not thereby ineffable.

That was rather the point. I had taken the argument to be that the tacit was an example of the ineffable. That was hypothesised back on page one:

Tacit knowledge is a candidate for the ineffable. — Banno

An argument later considered and dismissed, since it is a simple issue to state things that have hitherto been unstated.

What appeared to be the ineffable bit is just the doing, the getting on the bike and riding it. — Banno

...or that roll-on to two strings, not one as is more common, with an immediate pull-off... so that the fourth string is muted.

Check it:

This dude shows the roll (at 1:15) but misses the hammer on, bending instead (at 3:00). I prefer the hammer on.

Yep, we are talking about stuff that is also tacit, hence what is tacit is not ineffable. The whole thing could have been shown, rather than discussed.

But none of this helps if you are Luke, and begin with the assumption that the tacit is ineffable,...

So we again get no further. I'm going to maintain that at the least the tacit can be made explicit, and that the video above does just that.

Tacit 'knowing-that' can be made explicit, there are aspects of know-how that cannot be understood, much less expressed or shown.

Hence that which is tacit is not thereby ineffable. — Banno

You seem to keep forgetting that we are discussing tacit knowledge. I have never denied that tacit knowledge can be made explicit. The question I've put to you numerous times now is why that knowledge is not included in the instructions.

You made the dubious claim on page 1 of this discussion that the explicit knowledge given by the list of instructions could be "to whatever detail we desire" and yet we still wouldn't know how to ride/play:

Or, suppose we had a list of the instructions for riding a bike, to whatever detail we desire. Would we then know how to ride a bike? Well, no. So what is missing? Just, and only, the riding of the bike. — Banno

An argument later considered and dismissed, since it is a simple issue to state things that have hitherto been unstated.

What appeared to be the ineffable bit is just the doing, the getting on the bike and riding it. — Banno

This has nothing to do with knowledge. The "riding of the bike" is not knowledge. As I said in my last post:

Bear in mind that the act of riding or playing is not knowledge. You might say this demonstrates knowledge. Okay, then what knowledge does it demonstrate that cannot be made explicit and included in the instructions on how to play/ride? — Luke

Again, if it can be included in the instructions, and we can have those instructions "to whatever detail we desire", then why wasn't it included in the instructions in the first place? If it can't be included in the instructions then it's ineffable. Your dubious assertion implies that not everything can be included in the instructions, because the instructions are insufficient for knowing how to play/ride. There is some knowledge missing from the instructions, otherwise they would be sufficient for knowing how.

...there are aspects of know-how that cannot be understood, much less expressed or shown. — Janus

Such as...?

A bit of know-how that cannot be understood...?

What does this look like?

The question I've put to you numerous times now is why that knowledge is not included in the instructions. — Luke

And I've answered you, repeatedly, with examples, that it can be, and that's what makes the tacit knowledge explicit.

The question I've put to you numerous times now is why that knowledge is not included in the instructions.
— Luke

And i've answered you, repeatedly, with examples, that it can be, and that's what makes the tacit knowledge explicit. — Banno

Then why can we not know how to ride a bike despite having a list of instructions to whatever detail we desire? As you said yourself:

The experience [of riding a bike] neither adds to, nor is, one's knowledge of riding a bike. — Banno

You say that no matter what level of detail we have in the instructions we still wouldn't know how to ride, but you also say that riding a bike adds no knowledge. So what knowledge is missing from the instructions?

It's not a matter of imprecision. It's that everything is actually ineffable. Speech with a lack of clear reference is never about anything in particular. — frank

It occurs to me that if reference is inscrutable, and one takes all of meaning to be referential, then Quine pretty much renders language inscrutable.

I'd been taking Quine as a criticism of the referential theory of meaning. But if one supposes that meaning just is reference, then he shows that language can't work.

Is that what you are suggesting?

So what knowledge is missing from the instructions? — Luke

None.

What's missing is the riding of the bike.

That was my point way back on page one.

:meh:

I'm sorry you are finding this so hard.

(Edit: That is, if we assume the instructions are complete then by that very fact there is nothing missing from them; but we can add that a set of instructions may be incomplete, or incompleteable, in accord with Wittgenstein's talk of rules... But that's another level of complexity.)

None.

What's missing is the riding of the bike.

That was my point way back on page one. — Banno

That has nothing to do with KNOWLEDGE. You made a KNOWLEDGE claim. You said that the KNOWLEDGE (know how) provided by the instructions is incomplete no matter the level of detail.

I'm sorry you are finding this so hard.

I'm not surprised you don't read me very closely, but I am surprised you don't read yourself very closely:

Or, suppose we had a list of the instructions for riding a bike, to whatever detail we desire. Would we then know how to ride a bike? Well, no. So what is missing? Just, and only, the riding of the bike. — Banno

The experience [of riding a bike] neither adds to, nor is, one's knowledge of riding a bike. — Banno

Now remember, the riding of the bike has nothing to do with knowledge. And your claim was about knowledge.

Such as...?

A bit of know-how that cannot be understood...?

What does this look like? — Banno

Transparent attempt to get me to say what cannot be said.

That's why I added "What does it look like" in case you could show us.

So, how can one demonstrate or justify that there are "aspects of know-how that cannot be understood, much less expressed or shown"?

:roll: