This seems to be a complicated, abstruse way of saying "reading statements of knowledge doesn't thereby convey practical skills".

If I explain one paradigm in the concepts of another paradigm that leads in it's nature to complicated and abstruse ways of making a statement.

But in this case the claim is more general. There are cases where the programmer can describe a heuristic that he uses to make decisions without pointing to a statement that has justified veracity.

Google for example wants to give it's managers good management skills. To do that they give them checklists of what they are supposed to do when faced with a new recruit. Lazlo Bock from Google's People Operations credits the email that gives that checklist with a resulting productivity improvement of 25% due to new recruits coming up to speed faster.

You don't need to understand the justification for a checklist item to be able profit from following a ritual that goes through all the items on checklist. Following a ritualistic checklist would be knowledge in the Chinese sense where there's a huge emphasis of following proper protocols but it wouldn't be seen as knowledge in the philosophic western tradition.

But why does it matter? What harm can come from thinking that knowledge is about demonstrable truths? If generating knowledge is about generating demonstrable truths you can use the patent system to effectively reward knowledge creation.