On 26/08/16, 5:00 PM, "silklist on behalf of WordPsmith" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
> Intrigued by the phrase "second-hand nature of knowledge." > Can any knowledge be grouped into first- and second-hand? Oh I don’t know. Experiential knowledge does tend to be a cut above the “I’ve read about it” variety. For example that question about the “Eruv” enclosures erected on streets in orthodox jewish neighbourhoods so that observant jews can step outside their homes during the Sabbath and still technically remain indoors. What difference do you see between our mutual friend Vikram Joshi pointing out that he lived in such a neighbourhood and saw those for himself versus someone else who just read about it somewhere? Not much when you’re looking at the +15 on the pounce in a quiz. Possibly a lot more when that fact becomes one part of the total knowledge that makes you / shapes you as a person. A cruder non quizzing (or Brahman Naman) example that might draw a clearer distinction would be the hormonal teenager’s “before and after” – the before being when his only date is Mrs.Palm and her five daughters, helped along by an impressive collection of porn, and the after being when he begins to actually make friends with and date, let alone take that relationship any further. I am sure both the before and after incarnations of that teenager are familiar with the “insert tab A into slot B” mechanics of sex – but do they have the same knowledge? --srs
