John,
In response to Eugene Taurman's assertion that
>>Knowledge can not be stored, only information can be stored.
>>Knowledge has
>>to do with ability and willingness to use information.
You reply that
>
>While I support the idea that there can be useful distinctions made
>between knowledge and information, I'm not sure that there is anything
>like a consensus to support Gene's statement.
>Leaving that as perhaps a quibble, I think it is even more unusual to add
>the notion of "willingness to use" to the definition of "knowledge."
>There is one common definition of knowledge that includes the idea of
>"ability ... to use" -- although that meaning is even more commonly
>referred to as "practical knowledge." But I confess that this is the
>first time I have ever seen "willingness to use" stated as part of the
>fundamental nature of "knowledge."
My own understanding is that while I can acquire knowledge by
experimentally testing theories, I theorise that I can only pass it on to
others as information. Further, that for others to transform what is
presented by me as knowledge and received by them as information to become
their own knowledge they would need to understand and test by experiment
themselves the same theories on which my knowledge is based. I don't know
if that is what Eugene was pointing to, but I hope it is ;-). I guess the
key distinction I am making is that while deposits into knowledge banks
may be knowledge, that withdrawls are inevitably information. While this
may not be a commonly accepted distinction, what do you make of it?
Warm regards
Mark
--"Mark Feenstra" <mark@strategiclearning.co.nz>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>