We can’t really provide reasoning for “why” we believe it to be that way, it just simply is.
The Basics Series: 4. Knowledge
Wilson Allen Campbell III
11

It might help to introduce the word “axiom” here — we accept these first principles as premises for our further reasoning. While it’s possible that at some point we might revisit these axioms, and have to replace them with other axioms, for the purposes of the discussion to follow, we accept them as true.

It might also be interesting to divide knowledge along two different axes — experiential/non-experiential and practical/head. For both “practical” and “head” knowledge, you can either be taught without having had the “experience” yourself, or you can have learned it “the hard way” through your own personal experience. This would form a quadrant graph where you could discern the difference between knowing the “head” knowledge of the Pythagorean Theorem in a non-experiential way (knowing the literal equation), and knowing the “head” knowledge of the Pythagorean Theorem by actually deriving the formula from basic operations. You could also discern the difference between knowing the “practical” knowledge of “alligators are dangerous” in a non-experiential way because your mentor told you, and knowing it because you got bit once.

Again, thank you for your series, I continue to enjoy it!

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Jere Krischel’s story.