As I mentioned in the comments section of my blog, I found out about S&W's paper via Cath 2009, which I recently came across while looking for work on the ability hypothesis.  I also found Cath's paper helpful in interpreting S&W's analysis, though he does not question any of their assumptions or conclusions.

About knowing-how and knowing-that . . . The situation is a bit more complicated than what your analysis shows, Luke.  Noe (2005) also claims that, in order to attribute "knows how to X," somebody must first demonstrate the ability to X.  Yet, Bengson, Moffett&Wright (2009) shows that this is not the case.  The relationship between knowing how to X and being able to X is not so simple.  (Though BM&W are careful not to attribute this over-simplification to Ryle, and instead attribute it to Neo-Ryleanism.)  I address this situation in a new paper I'm working on.  I've just completed a draft, and it significantly adds to and develops (and in some cases, corrects) what I posted on my blog.  I'm hoping to have it ready for submission soon.

I don't have my draft paper online, but I would be happy to email a copy to anybody who was interested.  I would be especially pleased if any professionals would be willing to read it and offer comments or criticism.  (As a non-professional without ties to any university, I am rather hungry for professional feedback.)

Regards,

Jason
Sept. 21, 2009