Knowing and Understanding

I won't spend a lot of time balking at the definitions of knowing and understanding, but I feel that the definitions that are used (where creative application of knowledge is understanding and the lack of that is considered knowing) become jargon for developing teaching methodology that escapes what I consider to be the general connotations of the two words. I'll explain my definitions of these two words and why I think the language should be revised. However, I don't intend to ford that stream as these terms are generally accepted as such in the context that we are using them. I'll accept them the way they are, but I'm going to complain a bit first. :)

Knowing is associated with Truth to me. Traditionally, it is a step past understanding and exists in the realm of the universal. To know something is to understand the intricacies and subtleties of a particular meme. Further, it is the appreciation of the multiplicity of views that exist pertaining to that meme and a selection of the appropriate view. William James shows us that this is a faulted idea with his introduction of pluralism. A carpenter, physicist, and a cook all view a table differently. The carpenter sees the grain of the wood, feels the hardness of the wood, looks for defects in the workmanship. The physicist sees the table more conceptually in the realm of atoms all bound to form the shape that the table takes. The cook looks at the dimension of the tabletop and considers how many can eat at the table and how much food can the table hold while there are people seated there. All of this merely displays that there is no universally applicable "right" view. In light of this we can slightly change this definition of knowing to selecting the appropriate view given the context. In this way we remove it from the universal and place it firmly in the hands of the particular. Knowing no longer becomes associated with Truth but with truth of the matter at hand.

Understanding to me is merely the first step in the process of knowing. It can be singular in that it appreciates a particular view or it can be plural in that it appreciates multiple views. The failure of understanding is that it doesn't regularly apply appropriately. It may be able to perform a task in the right context but may not recognize the same opportunity in a different one. This also applies in a different way. The understander may appreciate how something is done but is unable to do it. This is kind of the opposite of the definition that we received in the texts. Understanding, in my terms, is best illustrated by John Dewey's notion that knowing is the equivalent of doing. One can understand how to ride a bike (the physics, the mechanics, and/or the aesthetics) without knowing how to do so. While understanding might enhance one's ability to know, it still lacks the ability to produce the perceivable result (in many cases).

The consequences of altering terms in a fashion that is contrary to general public consensus makes concepts opaque for all but the few who are willing to invest the time to engross themselves in the subtleties of technical jargon of the field. Fortunately, I happen to be one of those people in this case. But the problem remains for those who are not as interested. Why should we make things more difficult than they already are? I understand the need to unpack ideas to reduce ambiguity and communicate effectively. However, doing so in a manner that causes an ambiguous term to exit its original domain offers no benefit to communication. That's why we invent new words.