…
When this first scrolled up for me, I had just glanced at it when I was called away to do something else, and my inner ear was repeating the final panel but misremembered with the terms reversed. I thought it was making an excellent if subtle point. Can a dog do a trick without *knowing* it? (Can a human?) Does a dog really know anything, or is that just what we say as a courtesy, while meaning the dog has a habit or pattern? But then, how does lack of knowledge not prevent successful performance? We say a person knows how to ride a bicycle when we see they are able to, but chances are they could not articulate what to do — so is it the same courtesy designation?
And I think we could raise some of the same questions from the way the comic actually presents the line!
Comics I Don't Understand 
Define “know.” I can tie a shoe but if I were the telephone with you, I’m not sure I could tell you how to do it. The dictionary says “be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.” The dog has observed that whenever I put on my hat and sunglasses, I’m about to leave him alone, so that will often cause him to go to his crate, unasked. I’d say he knows what that observation portends. Ditto the sound of kibble hitting his dish, or of my car in the driveway.
I suspect the dog would not know to insert “on” in “were … the” above. Neither, apparently, do my fingers.
It’s only in debate or the like that definition must come first. In investigations, definition comes later, or perhaps never.
Or in a way, figuring out what the definition of some idea can be given as , is the whole point of the exercise. The questions and examples, and “intuition boosters” as they say — including your valuable contributed examples — are steps on the path of figuring out what we mean when we say such-and-such.
So no, I don’t see Define “know” as a pertinent challenge or pointed riposte giving a good reason for dismissing the questions mooted earlier. Rather, I take it in a spirit of invitation — “Come, let us see if we can figure the meaning of (or define) these terms” says Ed. Bravo!
Oh, and a nice coincidental find:
There’s an old riddle: “What do you have to know in order to teach a dog?” Answer: “More than the dog.”
I take issue with that riddle. You don’t need to know more stuff than the dog knows. You only need to know something the dog doesn’t know. That something is what you are going to teach the dog.
Anyway, there is a whole branch of philosophy all about knowing, and what it means to “know” something.
So you read up on all that, and you think you know all the meanings of “know”.
And then you pick up your Bible and read: “And Adam knew Eve his wife: who conceived and brought forth Cain.”
Indeed, epistemology (the study of knowing) is a major branch of technical philosophy. And somewhat upsettingly, sometimes conflated (by both insiders and outsiders) with Philosophy of Science (to give it title style caps).
You know, it is such a pleasure to comment without spending an extra ten minutes wrestling with a handy dandy password manager, and then still sometimes losing the written text.
@ Dana (@6) – Taking your lead, I tried logging out from both the CIDU site and WordPress, to see whether the Username + E-Mail method still works. Unfortunately, the WP software that CIDU uses can still “see” that my e-mail address is attached to a WP account, so it demanded a login password. Nuts. Perhaps switching to a different address is the only way out.
Yes, Kilby (#8), I think the key was giving the comment form an email that was not linked to a WP account. If I had taken the trouble to dig up one that was valid for emailing me, probably that would have worked as well, but you get it, this was all mid-experiment. Similarly, I’m not sure if it cares about “Name” being unique, but I made a new one just to close out that possible failure path.
It’s a familiar issue in real-world practice with tech problems – when you change several factors at the same time, you won’t find out which were essential to the solution, but you would be improving your chance of reaching a solution sooner. Though pure-science types might say you still don’t have The Answer
It’s a familiar issue in real-world practice with tech problems – when you change several factors at the same time, you won’t find out which were essential to the solution, but you would be improving your chance of reaching a solution sooner. Though pure-science types might say you still don’t have The Answer
…My tribe :-) *sigh*
Mark in Boston wrote, “You don’t need to know more stuff than the dog knows. You only need to know something the dog doesn’t know.”
On a similar note, it’s helpful to remember that everyone you meet knows something you don’t know, and almost always they know something that could be of value to you.
Boise Ed @2, That was the best laugh I’ve had in days. Thanks
@zbicyclist: “everyone you meet knows something you don’t know, and almost always they know something that could be of value to you.”
That’s true in every adventure-type game I’ve ever played.
“…This is not my dog.”
:-)
@ Grawlix (13) – But does it still bite? 🙂
Thank you, Chak. I do hate my own typos.
larK – Similarly when doing accounting and the numbers don’t add up across and up and down on a spread sheet – one must check all the additions in one direction before trying the other direction.