Skip to main content
Log in

On Tacit Knowledge for Philosophy of Education

  • Published:
Studies in Philosophy and Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article offers a detailed reading Gascoigne and Thornton’s book Tacit Knowledge (2013), which aims to account for the tacitness of tacit knowledge (TK) while preserving its status as knowledge proper. I take issue with their characterization and rejection of the existential-phenomenological Background—which they presuppose even as they dismiss—and their claim that TK can be articulated “from within”—which betrays a residual Cartesianism, the result of their elision of conceptuality and propositionality. Knowledgeable acts instantiate capacities which we might know we have and of which we can be aware, but which are not propositionally structured at their “core”. Nevertheless, propositionality is necessary to what Robert Brandom calls, in Making It Explicit (1994) and Articulating Reasons (2000), “explicitation”, which notion also presupposes a tacit dimension, which is, simply, the embodied person (the knower), without which no conception of knowledge can get any purchase. On my view, there is no knowledgeable act that can be understood as such separately from the notion of skilled corporeal performance. The account I offer cannot make sense of so-called “knowledge-based” education, as opposed to systems and styles which supposedly privilege “contentless” skills over and above “knowledge”, because on the phenomenological and inferentialist lines I endorse, neither the concepts “knowledge” nor “skill” has any purchase or meaning without the other.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See, e.g. Hirsch (1988), Christodoulou (2014), Policy Exchange (2015).

  2. On colour-recognition, see McDowell (1994, Lecture III, sect. 5).

  3. McDowell (1994, 57; qtd 2013, 44).

  4. E.g., Wrathall (2014); Dreyfus (2005a, b, 2014, passim).

  5. “Contexture” is taken from Heidegger (1988, 1–24, passim).

  6. See also Taylor (2013).

  7. On this holistic conception of the person, see Hacker (2007).

  8. Merleau-Ponty (1966, 169); see also Wrathall (2014, 8), Dreyfus (2005b, 132).

  9. On affordances see Dreyfus (2014, passim), Wrathall (2014).

  10. See Gascoigne and Thornton passim, but especially chapters 2 and 4 (passim; 76–77; 130).

  11. On testimony and tacit knowledge, see Gascoigne and Thornton (183–89).

  12. In different terms and contexts, David Lewin (2016), drawing on Taylor, explores the constitutive-affective role of the propositional frame. Quine (1963), Cavell (2002), and Brandom (2000) are but three philosophers who have shown the bankruptcy of the analytic/synthetic distinction. Cavell reminds us that preserving necessity is not the same as preserving analyticity.

  13. Peregrin (2014, 1), qtd Derry (2016, 2).

  14. Gascoigne and Thornton (179–83), Ross (2008), Collins (2004, 2010), Collins and Evans (2007).

  15. This is one reason why those participants who are retrospectively credited as innovators and geniuses are often controversial if not rejected in their time. The innovator strains at the norms of their discourse, but without ever breaking entirely free of their reach.

  16. McDowell (2007, 349), qtd Gascoigne and Thornton (164).

  17. Aldridge (2015, ch.4).

  18. For a Heideggerian perspective close to this, see Heidegger (1962, 213), Aldridge (2015, 110).

References

  • Aldridge, D. 2015. A hermeneutics of religious education. London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandom, R. 1994. Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandom, R. 2000. Articulating reasons: An introduction to inferentialism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carman, T., and M.B.N. Hansen (eds.). 2005. The Cambridge companion to Merleau-Ponty. Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavell, S. 2002. Must we mean what we say? Must we mean what we say? 1–43. Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christodoulou, D. 2014. The seven myths about education. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, 2004. Interactional expertise as a third kind of knowledge. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 3: 125–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, 2010. Tacit and explicit knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, and R. Evans. 2007. Rethinking experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Derry, J. 2013. Can inferentialism contribute to social epistemology? Journal of Philosophy of Education. 47(2): 222–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derry, J. 2016. Inferentialism and education. Paper presented at PESGB annual conference, New College, Oxford, 1–3 April 2016.

  • Dreyfus, H. 1993. Heidegger’s critique of the husserl/searle account of intentionality. Dreyfus (2014). 76–91.

  • Dreyfus, H. 2005a Overcoming the myth of the mental: how philosophers can profit from the phenomenology of everyday expertise. Dreyfus (2014). 104–125.

  • Dreyfus, H. 2005b. Merleau-Ponty and recent cognitive science. In ed. Carman & Hansen, 129–150.

  • Dreyfus, H. 2013. The myth of the pervasiveness of the mental. ed. Schear, 15–40.

  • Dreyfus, H. 2014. In Skillful coping: Essays on the phenomenology of everyday perception and action, ed. Mark A. Wrathall. Oxford: OUP.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gascoigne, N., and T. Thornton. 2013. Tacit knowledge. Durham: Acumen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, P.M.S. 2007. Human nature: The categorial framework. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. 1962. Being and time (trans: John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson). Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Heidegger, M. 1988. The basic problems of phenomenology. (trans: Richard Hofstadter). Indiana: Indiana UP.

  • Hirsch, E.D. 1988. Cultural literacy: What every american needs to know. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, D. 2016. ‘The sky is not a cow’: Interpreting religion beyond the propositional frame. Paper presented at PESGB Annual Conference, New College, Oxford, 1–3 April 2016.

  • McDowell, J. 1994. Mind and world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, J. 2007. Response to Dreyfus. Inquiry 50 (4): 366–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, J. 2013. The myth of the mind as detached. ed. Schear, 41–58.

  • Merleay-Ponty, M. 1966. The structure of behaviour. (trans. A.L. Fisher). 2nd Ed. Boston: Beacon P.

  • Peregrin, J. 2014. Inferentialism: Why rules matter. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pippin, R. 2013. What is ‘conceptual activity’? In ed. Schear, 91–109.

  • Polanyi, M. 2009. The tacit dimension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Policy Exchange 2015. The annual lecture with E.D. Hirsch. http://policyexchange.org.uk/modevents/item/the-annual-education-lecture-with-e-d-hirsch. Retrieved 24 April 2016.

  • Quine, W.V.O. 1963. Two dogmas of empiricism. From a logical point of view, 2nd ed, 20–46. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, G. 2008. An interview with Harry Collins. American Scientist [online]. http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/an-interview-with-harry-collins. Retrieved 25/11-15.

  • Schear, J.K. (ed.). 2013. Mind, reason, and being-in-the-world: The McDowell-Dreyfus debate. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. 2005. Merleau-Ponty and the epistemological picture. In ed. Carman & Hansen, 26–49.

  • Taylor, C. 2013. Retrieving realism. In ed. Schear, 61–90.

  • Wrathall, M. 2014. Introduction: Hubert Dreyfus and the phenomenology of human intelligence. Dreyfus 2014. 1–22.

Download references

Acknowledgements

My thanks to the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain. Their Research Retreat marked the beginnings of what has grown into the present article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oliver Belas.

Additional information

From January 2018 Oliver Belas will be Lecturer in Education at University of Bedfordshire.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Belas, O. On Tacit Knowledge for Philosophy of Education. Stud Philos Educ 37, 347–365 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-017-9585-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-017-9585-0

Keywords

Navigation