Compare and Contrast knowing a friend to knowing how to swim, knowing a scientific theory and knowing a historical period. What conclusions about the nature of knowledge can you reach?
there are different ways to 'know' a friend, you can know of them/know them by name eg,"do you know catherine?"; you can know about them, eg what they like, what's their favourite food, general stuff like that; and you can know them on a deeper level, where you know their feelings, thoughts, problems etc.
2) knowing how to swim:
you can know the procedure of swimming, the theoretics of it, but until you experience or try it, you can't really claim to know how to do it (because you have never tried it).
3) knowing a scientific theory:
in this case you do not need to have experiential knowledge of it because in many cases that is impossible or irrelevant. However you can know the theory in as far as you understand what it is, how it is applied and what implications it has.
4) Knowing a historical period:
not too sure about this one, but i think it's close-ish to knowing a scientific theory in that you can't experience it because it's in the past, but you can know what happened, you can know how those happenings affected societies, the course of history, the development of techniques, cultures, industries, etc. You can know everything about it, and you also have the advantage of hindsight, you can know how things should have, could have might have gone and how that has affected today.
Oh, and also important when discussing knowing history it knowing the facts as opposed to the fiction, it is important to consider point of view, bias and intentional altering of historical records. Because often information you receive regarding historical periods is from a secondary source, etc.
I will leave you to draw your own conclusions.
good luck
;
