| You take a tone as though you disagree with me, but actually do agree with my conclusion, just not my argument. We have reached the same conclusion. So this is just a technical reply to your criticism of the argument I use to get there - you get there via a different argument, and you claim mine is wrong. But we don't disagree about my conclusion. For how you get there: in your third paragraph you give a shining example that it is not necessary to be able to explain something in order to do it: though everyone (barring a specific hindrance which we would identify and name as a disability) "knows" how to walk, it is clear that if you asked a thousand people "explain how you walk" you would not have a thousand good explanations. So, you have actually produced another example that it is possible to know something without being able to explain it! Walking is a bit different from a purely mental knowledge/skill/etc, of course, and yet we can probably generalize it without taking too many allowances. Returning to your criticism in your first paragraph, I feel like given the fact that you introduced the word "disingenuous" I would say it is disingenuous of you to suggest that people cannot tell whether they have received an explanation that is good. Of course we can. Compare these two explanations: "Why is two the only even number that is prime?" - http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1003491/why-is-two-t... Explanation 1: "Two is a prime because it is divisible by only two and one. All the other even numbers are not prime because they are all divisible by two. ... Because every even number other than 2 is obviously divisible by 2 and so by definition cannot be prime." versus Explanation 2: "Pick a prime p. Call a number n p-divisible if p∣n. Then p is the only p-divisible prime, trivially. In particular, 2 is the only 2-divisible, or even, prime." Can't you easily tell the subjective difference between the two explanations? One is easy to understand. One is hard to understand. To be honest, I can't parse and follow the second example. I have to resort to what I actually KNOW it's saying! Rather than its misplaced formalism. So as you can see this has nothing to do with the subject matter!! It simply shows that KNOWLEDGE is not reflected in CLEAR EXPLANATION. The second explainer clearly has deep knowledge. But this does not translate to an explanation. In essence I am saying the same thing. That yes, we can tell a good explanation when we see one (sorry, this is a subjective claim but I'm sticking with it) but that this in no way, shape, or form is a requisite (or even indication) of actual understanding! |