Now that it is proven that knowledge has many differing forms, why do we use only one word for them? How is knowing a scientific theory different from knowing a historical period, when both sorts of knowledge derive through language in text books and in class? Historical knowledge states something past, and involves nothing that predicts. If history says that the U.S. lost the Vietnam War, any more evidence recovered during that time frame will remain consistent with that fact. A scientific theory, on the other hand, predicts that something will fall into accordance with that theory. Another point is if knowing how to swim and knowing a friend are really that different from each other. Each require a part of memory, remembering the personality, likes and dislikes of a friend, and remembering how to float or propel yourself forward in the water. Each also require a degree of trust, trusting a friend in order to have a true friendship take place, and trusting one’s ability to swim and stay afloat in the water.
Knowledge also requires the ability to adapt and reform prior knowledge. Picturing a pencil, one may imagine a yellow, cylindrical stick-like figure with a pink eraser on top. However, there are also pencils of different colors, shapes, and even mechanical pencils. All follow different patterns and mechanics, but all are pencils none the less. One must adapt that information into their prior knowledge of how a pencil might look. A child may see a brown horse in a children’s book, and a black horse in another, and will identify both as horses, yet they are of different color and size. Adaptation of knowledge is including in all sorts of knowledge. At first, one learns how to swim not by mastering the technique and form to swim the fastest, but by focusing on how to stay afloat, to avoid drowning. Later on, one’s knowledge of swimming adapts, learning new techniques and abilities that allow for faster and nimbler swimming.
Although there are different types of knowledge, all types derive from a single state: attachments to a previous knowledge. Almost everything we “know,” we learn from previous knowledge and experience, not necessarily or usually from ourselves. It is knowledge from a textbook, written by a man years ago, that we gain our knowledge of historical facts or scientific theories from. And even that man received the knowledge to write the book from a previous writer. When we learn skills, like how to swim or how to play a sport, we learn through instructors and trainers, and sometimes through peers. Knowledge of skills is gained through interaction and experience with these people, and all of these people have learned their skills from previous instructors and trainers before them.
There are some people with mind-tempering disabilities known as amnesiacs. They lose their ability to learn and comprehend explicit knowledge (knowledge of facts) but retain their ability to learn and adapt implicit knowledge (knowledge of skills). They lose merely their memory of explicit information. Therefore, you can teach an amnesiac how to navigate a maze, or beat a level in a game, and even though the amnesiac will lose the memory of the maze or game itself, he or she will get better and quicker each time he or she attempts it again. They retain their ability to learn through only experience, instead of through language and memory. This proves that knowledge exists on many different levels and discrepancies, not just in a theoretical manner, but in a completely real, bona fide way of life. To reinforce that evidence, take a human brain for example. Knowledge is present in different areas of the brain, though each part accommodates a different type of knowledge. One part is responsible for language, another for memory, another for physical skills. When one part of the brain is damaged, one may lose an aspect of knowledge, but will not completely lose all knowledge that he or she has held their whole life. If a person gets amnesia, they lose their memory, possibly forgetting facts, but will not forget how to walk or run, or how to eat and drink. These are implicit skills, and it is very hard for one to lose both their implicit and explicit knowledge.
From a collection of my previous theories of knowledge, I have come to several conclusions. There are many differences and levels of knowledge, and the English language does not distinguish the differences. Some languages, like French, have separate words that aim to differentiate the types of knowledge. However, there are many more differences in knowledge that even the romance languages do not distinguish. Differences in how knowledge is learned and how it is used are primarily the aspects that are ignored by words. Finally, even though there is a difference between knowledge that you can state (scientific theories and historical facts) and knowledge that you can use (how to swim), an understanding is required of both. Knowledge is used differently, but in the same way, however confusing that might be. You use some knowledge, and state other knowledge, but both are learned or adapted from previous knowledge, and are used to enhance the mind and expand its capacity.