Re: Is knowledge considered to be 'knowledge' if you cannot describe it?
I presume you know the difference between left and right, but you cannot descibe it without giving examples. Your belief is justfiied and true, although with left and right the knowledge is analytic.
A synthetic example is color; could you describe the difference between red and blue to a blind person who had never seen color?
Re: Is knowledge considered to be 'knowledge' if you cannot describe it?
A fine example, David. To be sure, if by describe you mean to try to show another what something is through a form of communication, then know this: at this point in time, we, as a human race have not accomplished a perfect and thorough form of communication. As such, it would be impossible to truly and thoroughly describe anything fully to another. Unless we develop technology to share our memories with others, we will never be able to correctly and thoroughly describe something to someone else. Until then, our human methods of description will remain relative, and thus meager.
Re: Is knowledge considered to be 'knowledge' if you cannot describe it?
David, I would appreciate it if you would do two things. First, please do not use the same name as me. Maybe the impersonation was accidental, maybe not; I really don't know. Second, try saying something intelligent (ie. constructive).
Tristian, you remind me of a problem I have faced in debates. Knowledge like left and right cannot be communicated verbally... indeed, it must be demonstrated or experienced. We were debating the possibility of dimensions beyond the three we see, when the question came up; can we not imagine them because they are not possible? Or we just haven't experienced them and cannot describe them verbally?
;
