OrangePhilosophy

Dave,
I've wondered about that myself. I wish I could offer some help. The only thing that comes to mind is Cook Wilson, but I don't think he published much.

-Chuck

Here's some notes from a fellow in Edinburgh, with a nice little Bibliography:
http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/wpollard/knowinghowthat.pdf

Also, I saw:
Snowdon, Paul. "Knowing How and Knowing That: A Distinction Reconsidered" Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 104:1 Sep 2003.

Arguable one of the great discussions in ancient chinese thought was precisely about the knowing how & knowling that, with the Daoists perhaps holding that knowing that is useless without knowing how. If you want to read more I would suggest Chad Hansen's ingightful book, A Daoist theory of chinese thought.

Cheers David

While it doesn't fit exactly into Ryle's distinction, one could also bring up Heidegger and his distinction between present-at-hand and ready-at-hand. Present at hand was more propositional knowledge and he inverted the usual relationship saying that read-at-hand or utility was more fundamental. One could, I suppose, move to the Ryle distinction with Heidegger in his middle phase arguing that knowledge-how is more fundamental than knowledge-that. I think one would have to be careful though.

Gosh that was truly terrible spelling. The Daoist story which is supposed to to illustrate this distinction is from (I think) Zhuangzi and is the story of wheel wright Slab, basically the story goes that a Duke is wandering round studying one of the books of the Sages and this lowly Wheelwright laughs at him being a Duke he basically says tell me whats so funny and you better have a good reason for laughing or off with your head. The wheel wright says pardon me Duke but I don't understand why you are wasting your time with the leavings of the Sages. "What" goes the Duke! the wheelwright says well I am growing old and I am trying to teach my son how to bend wood to make wheels, I have taught him everything I know, what to do when making a wheel, still he cannot do it. When I die all I will leave behind is him, and as a wheelwright he will be no good, what I can't teach him is the skill I have, it is the same thing with reading the Sages, what made them Sages cannot be found in their leavings.

There is a fair bit throughout Zhuangzi (Also know as Chuang-Tzu) to do with this distinction usually making the point that skill is more important than knowledge.

Thanks all. Very helpful. I'm finding some stuff here and there on my own as well. Much obliged.

Dave Bzdak

Uriah also just put a post up on this subject at
http://www.arizonaphilosophy.com/index.php?p=49

I believe there is a wealth of resources on the topic from a cog sci perspective, would that help at all?

Aristoteles, Ethic Nicomachus : chapter 2

Dave, I'm a teacher in South Carolina. Try taking a look at Jane R. Martin's work entitled "On the Reduction of "Knowing That" to "Knowing How". This is in Language and Concepts in Education, edited by B. O. Smith and R. H. Ennis. Chicago:Rand McNally Company, 1961, pp. 399-404.

i am a professor at Cambridge university. i am experienced in the teachings of T.O.K I am very exicted and intereseted when i meet people like myself who know the refreneces to knowing.
Please email me if any questions. i am looking to hearing from you.