You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ShardPhoenix comments on Confusion about science and technology - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: NancyLebovitz 23 October 2013 12:27PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (36)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: ShardPhoenix 24 October 2013 12:09:15AM *  0 points [-]

You appear to be getting at the concept of Tacit Knowledge.

Collins showed [10] that a particular laser (The ppTEA laser) was designed in America and the idea, with specific assistance from the designers, was gradually propagated to various other universities world-wide. However, in the early days, even when specific instructions were sent, other labs failed to replicate the laser, it only being made to work in each case following a visit to or from the originating lab or very close contact and dialogue. It became clear that while the originators could clearly make the laser work, they did not know exactly what it was that they were doing to make it work, and so could not articulate or specify it by means of monologue articles and specifications. But a cooperative process of dialogue enabled the tacit knowledge to be transferred.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 25 October 2013 01:58:36PM 2 points [-]

I expect that part of what I'm talking about is tacit knowledge, but I bet that some of it is explicit but localized knowledge. The knowledge (whether tacit or explicit) remains local partly because no one is interested in hearing about it-- too arcane for the lay public, too low status for scientists, partly because a lot of it is trade secrets and/or requires a security clearance, and partly because it's highly specific, which means it gets forgotten if a project or technology is abandoned.