Discussions of tacit and explicit knowledge, such as that made by Harry Collins (29 May, p 30), often run afoul of the map-versus-territory confusion: the map is an abstraction of the territory, it isn't the territory itself. The map explicitly shows many features, but it necessarily leaves out other details - tacit knowledge. It might not show features that are essential to a particular reader in a particular context, such as where a stream is too muddy to cross.
The context principle is at the core of this issue. Traditionally, this states that a philosopher should always ask for a word's meaning in terms of the context in which it is being used, not in isolation. More broadly: context creates meaning and in its absence there is no meaning.
I find my work on knowledge systems useful in understanding this principle. Domains - which could be anything from individuals ...
To continue reading this article, subscribe to receive access to all of newscientist.com, including 20 years of archive content.