Definition of Embedded Knowledge

A second characteristic is that it is the relationship that plays a central role in the transmission of pragmatic content through Hannah`s claims of knowledge in high stakes. After Sarah raises the possibility that the bank will change its business hours, Hannah can reasonably be expected to assert her knowledge claims that are relevant to whether or not this possibility exists. But their literal claims of knowledge do not address this question. According to Rysiew, who uses the relevant alternative framework to formulate his point of view, (_{{textsc {Weak}}}) implies being able to exclude the relevant alternatives. Relevant alternatives to a supposedly known statement do not vary based on non-traditional factors (such as practical uses, interests, and the importance of opportunities for error) in the context. Footnote 10 Given that, in the high stakes, changing bank hours is an exceptional but irrelevant alternative to opening the bank on Saturday, the proposals expressed semantically in Hannah`s assertions do not speak for the relevant issue. However, since hannah can be assumed to be cooperative and obey the relationship, listeners may conclude that she intended to convey different content that answers the question — roughly hannah/is unable to rule out salient counter-opportunities at the bank`s opening on Saturday. It is something codified and stored that can be transferred; like an article, a guide, a video that demonstrates a process. Someone else can interact with this material and internalize it, react to it and thus do something. But there is another state in which knowledge can be expressed, and that is actually to integrate it into a product, object or system. Let me explain this with an example. I worked with a team at a pilot chemical plant in the United States. It was a factory that operated a new process, and they learned – gained knowledge – about how the plant works.

One of the things they learned during the discussion, testing and success was how to close the plant safely. Once they knew how to do it, they wrote it down as a procedure and perfected the procedure until they got it right. The next step was then to program this process in the plant`s operating system so that in the event of a problem – a fire, overflow, blockage – the plant would automatically shut down following the best practice procedure. Well, in what state is this knowledge? I would like to say that it goes beyond the explicit. It`s no longer like an example of an encyclopedia, it`s not something that « can be easily transferred to others. » It is wired to the operating system. Because of the difficulty of effectively managing integrated knowledge, successful companies can gain a significant competitive advantage. It could be argued that knowledge is only information unless it has some significance for action. But action should not only be seen as « physical ».

Action can also be further reflection or intellectual development. However, the value of knowledge lies in action and practice, just as the value of practices is shaped by knowledge. The theory is tested and developed by actions. Can MPI explain the verdict on the truth about Caleb`s report? According to MPI, (2) semantically expresses content that Hannah thinks she doesn`t know (_{{textsc {Weak}}}}) that the bank will be open on Saturday. Is this what (2) communicates? Apparently not. First, this semantic content is probably wrong, contrary to the intuitive judgment of (2). When banking cases are presented, Hannah hasn`t changed her mind between low and high stakes. [DeRoses` presentation (2009, p.

2) contains the words « To remain as confident as I was before the bank was then open. »] And invariantists and their opponents have reason to say about low stakes that Hannah believes her knowledge attribution(_{{textsc {Weak}}}). It is therefore unlikely that she will believe in negation in high stakes. Second, it would be contrary to Gricean`s image to claim that Caleb reports a belief of Hannah with the content that Hannah does not know (_{{Low}}) that the bank will be opened on Saturday on the basis of the hearing (4). Finally, according to the MPI, Hannah`s assertion in (4) does not convey this false semantic content, but the true content, pragmatically implicit, that Hannah cannot exclude the counter-possibilities that stand out in high stakes. Footnote 11 As a general rule, sincere speakers intend to communicate what they believe. Thus, if Hannah in (4) intends to communicate pragmatic implicit content rather than semantically expressed content, she expresses her belief in pragmatic implicit content. (Compare: At the end of a terrible day, if you make the ironic statement « It`s not going to get any better than this, » you`re probably not expressing your faith in its literal content. On the contrary, you probably do not believe in the literal content of your claim and intend to express your belief in the opposite. Footnote 12) Caleb`s claim is therefore more naturally understood as a report on the belief Hannah wanted to communicate, and it is the content (4) that pragmatically implies, not the content it expresses semantically. Footnote 13 The second problem is that even if we include the context problem assuming that the appropriate counter-possibility stands out in the context of Caleb`s report, the relational representation of the MPI would have an implication at the wrong « level ». If Caleb himself were in a high context where it would be relevant (in the sense of the maxim « be relevant ») whether or not the bank changed its business hours, the implication of (2) who most directly addresses this concern would be that Hannah cannot rule out that the bank has changed its business hours (instead of Hannah believing it).

This involvement is more relevant to the salient issue than the local involvement that Hannah believes she cannot rule out that the bank has changed its opening hours. So, the second problem is that we would need a convincing presentation not only about why ((2^{prime })) is involved, but also why the content that Hannah cannot exclude that the bank has changed its opening hours is not involved. Worse still, this representation should be sufficiently principled to also provide the right local implications for knowledge sets in all integration constructs. Another lesson that could be drawn from the observation would be to look for non-Greek alternatives. This is the second option for MPIer. There is a wide range of non-Creacean pragmatic representations developed in response to Grican problems with built-in implications. Most of them were developed for specific phenomena, such as scalar implications. Non-Crecean pragmatic representations contain views that postulate non-Gricean implications – for example, Levinson`s « standard implications » and the Chierchia and Landman implications that are part of grammar – as well as views that postulate earlier « primary » pragmatic processes – for example, the « explanations » of relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson), Bach`s « implications » and Recanati`s « free enrichment » (Levinson 2000; Chierchia, 2004; Landman 2000 Sperber and Wilson 1986; Recanati, 2010). So we can ask: can there be a non-Greek version of MPI based on such a pragmatic representation that successfully explains the contextual variability and integrability of « knowledge »? For example, imagine a situation where another organizational routine is invoked when the volume of a product exceeds a certain level. Why was a particular level considered? It may be that production technology leads to a gradual change in terms of production costs, that the associated financing costs undergo a gradual change at this level, or many other explanations related to the broader characteristics of the environment in which the organization operates. It is clearly important to try to articulate this integrated knowledge.

In addition, when a routine is changed, it is necessary to examine in detail the changes in the knowledge required to perform the routine and ensure that the people who interact with the routine have this knowledge. An interesting example occurred in my own research when a relatively simple change in a routine resulted in problems arising from the accuracy of the data entered and NOT from a change in the data itself. Employees needed an explanation of why it was important to improve accuracy and the impact of not providing adequate accuracy. To anticipate a later topic, the value of the relatively inaccurate data had dropped to zero (if not a negative value) when implementing the new routine! The problems of calculation, composition and context – in short, the problem of integrated implications – for the integrated knowledge sets under postural verbs raise serious doubts about the feasibility of defending invariantism by invoking Georgian pragmatics.

D'autres actualités...