# Implications of Tacit Knowledge



## Romans922 (Feb 24, 2007)

As I am somewhat new to presuppositional apologetics, what are the implications of tacit knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge) for apologetic discourse?


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 24, 2007)

And......nothing..?


----------



## Herald (Feb 24, 2007)

from Wikipedia:



> By definition, tacit knowledge is not easily shared. One of Polanyi's famous aphorisms is: "We know more than we can tell." Tacit knowledge consists often of habits and culture that we do not recognize in ourselves. In the field of knowledge management the concept of tacit knowledge refers to a knowledge which is only known by an individual and that is difficult to communicate to the rest of an organization. Knowledge that is easy to communicate is called explicit knowledge. The process of transforming tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge is known as codification or articulation.



I am resistant to adopting tacit knowledge as a form of knowledge. We either know or we don't know. In the arena of apologetics we are learning or espousing what we know. I do believe that knowledge knows degrees. I know more today than I knew yesterday, and I will know more tomorrow than I know today.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 24, 2007)

Would tacit knowledge give us implications to understanding Romans 1 and people who suppress their knowledge of God and truth? People who know but don't necessarily realize that they know? People who are living their life in God's Creation yet not realizing that their life, the world, all of creation is from God...


----------



## Herald (Feb 24, 2007)

Romans922 said:


> Would tacit knowledge give us implications to understanding Romans 1 and people who suppress their knowledge of God and truth? People who know but don't necessarily realize that they know? People who are living their life in God's Creation yet not realizing that their life, the world, all of creation is from God...



Romans 1 deals with individuals who *cannot know*. Consider the following passage:

*1 Corinthians 2:14 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. *

Is that a tacit knowledge or no knowledge at all?


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 24, 2007)

yeah so i have to write a paper on the implications of tacit knowledge for Christians in apologetic discourse. Any help? 

Romans 1:18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, *so that men are without excuse*.


----------

