Procedural vs Propositional Knowledge

[Fluffy]

Can someone explain to me the difference between these two types of knowledge? I understand that procedural knowledge is knowing how and propositional knowledge is knowing that but it seems to me that this is either an imagined or meaningless difference.

For example, knowing how to ride a bike is supposed to be procedural knowledge. But surely in order to ride a bike I must know that I have to do x y and z. What is the difference between knowing the principles of how to ride a bike and knowing that a bike has 2 wheels?

To me there is no apparent distinction between the two yet in articles on epistemology, it is often pointed out which kind of knowledge is being talked about.

 

[Paladin]

I wonder if it has to do with the concept of "bottom uppers" and "top downers". I don't know who coined these phrases but there are those like my wife who must take the time to look at all the little pieces of a problem to find the solution, whereas I like to see the solution all of one piece and then break it into its component parts in order to implement it.
Perhaps then it has to do with preference of process rather than separate processes altogether?

Peace
Mark

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

Procedural knowledge is more knowing a process. Propositional knowledge is more knowing a fact. At least, that's been my impression. I think it's sort of the difference between knowing how to do something and knowing why it works.

Like knowing how to fly a plane versus understanding aerodynamics. You don't necessarily need one to do the other.

Plus, I think there's a legal distinction. One you can trademark and the other you can't, sort of thing.

 

[doppelganger]

A similar dichotomy occassionally haunts legal thinking. We talk about issues as either "procedural" or "substantive," for example, when a federal court presides over a case based on "diversity jurisdiction" (a case brought under state "substantive" law, but between residents of different states so that federal courts have jurisdiction). Should state or federal law be applied?

I won't bore you with the details. But despite that some things clearly fall on one side or the other, frequently the line between "procedural" and "substantive" ends up looking rather arbitrary, just as it does in philosophy.

It is also a problem in dealing with mythology as mythology is often about a "methodology" (procedure) rather than a specific knowledge (proposition). Yet, readers of myth often mistake the procedure for a proposition.

 

[Fluffy]

Thanks for your reply Mark but I'm not sure thats quite what I am getting at. I am talking more with regards to defining knowledge and whether we need to make a distinction between these types of knowledge in order for other theories about knowledge to remain correct.

Like knowing how to fly a plane versus understanding aerodynamics. You don't necessarily need one to do the other.

That is how it as been explained to me but it seems that we don't need to know how to ride a bike in order to know how to fly a plane nor know why a bike works in order to know how to fly a plane. There are many items of knowledge that flying a plane do not depend upon and knowing aerodynamics just seems like one among many and not a counterpart.

However, flying a plane does depend on knowing many things such as knowing what each of the controls do and it seems that all these instances of knowledge are in the propositional category. So it still seems like knowing how to do something is equivilant to knowing facts.

It is also a problem in dealing with mythology as mythology is often about a "methodology" (procedure) rather than a specific knowledge (proposition). Yet, readers of myth often mistake the procedure for a proposition.

Can you give an example of procedural knowledge (mythological or otherwise) that cannot be stated in terms of propositional knowledge?

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

However, flying a plane does depend on knowing many things such as knowing what each of the controls do and it seems that all these instances of knowledge are in the propositional category. So it still seems like knowing how to do something is equivilant to knowing facts.

Yes, but it's knowing a specific procedure. You know a bunch of facts about what buttons to push, levers to pull, whatever, and you also know the specific order and sequence of them, how to coordinate them, etc.

I think the distinction exists mostly for legal reasons. Maybe a better analogy would be knowing that corn syrup makes drinks sweeter or that drinks can be carbonated versus knowing how to make Coca-Cola.

 

[doppelganger]

Can you give an example of procedural knowledge (mythological or otherwise) that cannot be stated in terms of propositional knowledge?

Well, stating what procedure one follows is inherently propositional as well.

In law, for example, knowing that one has to establish improper joinder for a federal court to ignore a non-diverse party for removal jurisdiction would be "procedural knowledge" while knowing what constitutes "improper joinder" would be "propositional knowledge." But one can easily conceive of "one must establish improper joinder" standing alone as being a proposition. Perhaps it is only relation to a proposition that another proposition can be considered "procedural."

In myth, it is a little different problem. Is knowing that Jesus died on the Cross procedural or propositional? From a mythological standpoint, it is procedural. It represents a mythological method. But it can also be understood as propositional. This is the what I was getting at in the post above.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Can someone explain to me the difference between these two types of knowledge? I understand that procedural knowledge is knowing how and propositional knowledge is knowing that but it seems to me that this is either an imagined or meaningless difference.

For example, knowing how to ride a bike is supposed to be procedural knowledge. But surely in order to ride a bike I must know that I have to do x y and z. What is the difference between knowing the principles of how to ride a bike and knowing that a bike has 2 wheels?

To me there is no apparent distinction between the two yet in articles on epistemology, it is often pointed out which kind of knowledge is being talked about.

The reason these two are separated is because there are a growing number of philosophers that reject propositional logic and propositional truth. However, because people still seem to know how do to things; they must have a term that covers actions. "If there is no knowledge", a seven year old might ask, "how is it that we know how to ride a bike"? The skeptic will reply, that there is a difference between propositional knowledge and procedural. While you know how to ride a bike, you don't have any knowledge of what it means to ride a bike. You only have your subjective, emotional reaction to the sensation of bike riding.

 

[michel]

Can someone explain to me the difference between these two types of knowledge? I understand that procedural knowledge is knowing how and propositional knowledge is knowing that but it seems to me that this is either an imagined or meaningless difference.

For example, knowing how to ride a bike is supposed to be procedural knowledge. But surely in order to ride a bike I must know that I have to do x y and z. What is the difference between knowing the principles of how to ride a bike and knowing that a bike has 2 wheels?

To me there is no apparent distinction between the two yet in articles on epistemology, it is often pointed out which kind of knowledge is being talked about.

Coming off the bike a couple of times when you first start to ride it..........
</IMG>

 

[Ozzie]

Can you give an example of procedural knowledge (mythological or otherwise) that cannot be stated in terms of propositional knowledge?

The activity of riding a bike becomes procedural when we have mastered it to the extent we no longer need to devote attentional resources to it in order to do it. I suppose propositional knowledge is something we are attending to in conscious thought. But for both, the activity we have knowledge of is the same ie riding a bike. Even when the activity is mastered to the extent requires no further attentional resources, we can still get better at it by practice. So epistomologically I see no difference between knowledge labelled as propositional vs. procedural in the case of riding a bike. The former refers to conscious learning, the latter to unconscious learning of the same activity. Any difference might be found at a neural level between establishing connections in undertaking novel activity, vs strengthening them in with practice (however strengthening them might involve establishing more connections?). A difference might be found in the rate of learning to master the activity between the propositional vs procedural phases, but this is hardly an epistemological difference.