'If you cannot communicate it, it isn't knowledge.' Agree or disagree and discuss

How many times have you found yourself hopelessly trying to explain something to someone but just couldn't get the message across? Frantically, you try to explain what it is you want to say, but the more you try the less sense you seem to make. Confused, humiliated and stressed out, you give up, leaving the other people even more confused. And how many times has a friend been telling you a story in a hesitant manner, finding it difficult to get the message across, and you just sit there, bewildered, having absolutely no idea what they are talking about. We all know what we want to say, but communicating and getting the message take a whole other level of understanding of the subject at hand. But if only you know it, and you can't seem to communicate it, is it knowledge?

There are many ways of communication, some much more complex and refined, hence more difficult to make yourself clear, some simpler and straight forward. Usually people use more then one form of communication, especially where understanding is fundamental, such as teaching, as opposed as more subtle areas, such as literature. Referring to the ToK diagram, the ways of knowledge most involved are language, reason and perception. Language is possibly the most controversial issue as there are thousands of languages and dialects, and the boundaries for the ability to speak and comprehend it are immense. A person might be trying to say something to a person of very limited language capabilities. If the communicator is very adaptable, he should be able to communicate his 'knowledge' to someone of poor language skills. This agrees with the statement above. However, we could also have a genius rocket scientist, specialist of advanced quantum mechanics who might be unable to explain to this person how to do long multiplication, or something fairly basic. No doubt he knows how to do it, but to explain it and teach it is something totally different, because he would need to break down the steps, and tell it using simple language. This clearly disproves the main statement above. The vocabulary used is a very important factor also not to be forgotten. The communicator will probably have to change from his normal use of words, to a vocabulary which is perhaps simpler and more commonly used, trying not to vary the words used for the same explanations.

Reason, another 'way of knowing', would be useful in trying to communicate an idea across. If the communicator can prove and explain the meaning or why something happens, it will be understood much more easily. Knowing the reason for something is much more useful than just knowing that something happens. For example; you may know how to do a maths problem, but without actually fully grasping the reason, you might be unable to apply this knowledge further on. In this case, you might know something, yet you don't have full knowledge of the matter, and you would be unlikely to be able to explain how to do the problem to a friend. Without reason, you cannot effectively communicate any real knowledge, and as for all of it, it requires reason to be understood, so if it isn't understood, then it isn't proper knowledge. Perception comes in briefly also because the communicator may be outputting his knowledge as good as anyone, but if the receivers wavelength is different and perception of the idea is not the same, then it is going to be very hard for this knowledge to be transmitted.

Many will argue that your knowledge is acquired information which you understand and can work around within your head. The rest is sub-conscious knowledge, which you know, but you're not necessarily sure of how you know, and would find it hard to express your thoughts on it as it just doesn't link with anything else you already know. On the contrary, just because the person is unable to communicate it effectively he might still know what he wants to communicate. From my personal experience, a couple of times when I have wanted to buy a computer piece here in Brazil, my Portuguese has been inadequate to explain the piece that I wanted. In English, I could tell you all about computers, but as I started to learn Portuguese, my vocabulary was still insufficient to express myself effectively. This is no lack of knowledge, but an inability to communicate in the certain form required. You may argue that if I were knowledgeable on computers, then I would know the terminology in Portuguese. Of course not. The people in VW Germany don't know all the Portuguese names for the parts of the cars in the factory plant in Brazil. Some of my friends have complained that their maths teacher is very bad at maths. However he has a Doctorate in Mathematics and perhaps just doesn't know how to communicate his complex knowledge, which clearly exists.

Personally I disagree with the statement because some people are better speakers, or writers than others, but they might be as knowledgeable. I agree with many of the arguments agreeing with the statement, and many times in lectures we say to ourselves, 'He really does sound like he knows what he's talking about.' A mixture of knowledge and the ability to communicate make this possible. How many times have we found ourselves saying something along the lines of, 'I just don't know how to explain it?'