Types of Knowledge

We discussed the difference between two statements in class the other day – ‘I know Paris’ and ‘I know Paris is the capital of France’. How many different types of knowing exist? Is there a difference between the knowing expressed in the two statements given above?
‘I know Paris’ is a rather vague statement – this kind of knowing could refer to almost anything. I could be making this statement as a Parisian – in this case however, it would have some sentimental value attached to it. I know Paris, I am personally attached to the city, and know it as nobody else does – this is a very personal and individualistic type of knowing. I could be making the statement as a tourist, meaning that I know Paris as a tourist destination, and as a beautiful European city – it could also possibly have some emotional value attached (it could be the best holiday of my life etc.). Knowing the city personally would identify as knowledge by acquaintance – this knowledge is personal and almost entirely based on my opinion and experience. Nobody else can have the same knowledge as me in this sense, as everybody will have their own way of experiencing and interpreting things and situations.
Now, one could look at an entirely new dimension of the issue altogether – the statement does not specify which Paris I know, I could very well be referring to a person called Paris, another place called Paris, a word called ‘paris’ which means something else, even Paris Hilton! Again, I could be talking about the fact of their existence, or knowing them personally, or my personal attachment to them. Alternatively, I could merely be saying that I know Paris exists, that I know it is a city in the world. I could be saying that I know where Paris on the map, or where it is located in the world (latitude, longitude). I could make this statement if I knew all about the people, culture, cuisine, language etc. of Paris, even if I have never actually visited Paris. This is not my own knowledge, or not what I have experienced – it is what I have been told or taught in school, or read in newspapers, magazines, books, atlases etc., or I could have heard it on the radio or the television. This would identify as knowledge by description.

‘I know Paris is the capital of France’ is a very definite clear statement – when I make this statement, I am saying that I know Paris is the city where the central government of France is situated. This would identify as knowledge by description – I have heard, read or been told in/by a reliable source that Paris is the capital of France, and I therefore believe it. It was someone’s opinion to begin with, to make Paris the capital of France, and when it was agreed by a group of people in France, the central government of the country was set up in Paris. We view this as definite irrefutable knowledge because it is a ‘universally accepted fact’ and everyone believes that Paris is the capital of France. However, possibly if the rest of the world refused to accept Paris as the capital of France, this statement would not be identified as knowledge at all, because it wouldn’t be a universal fact!

Yes, knowledge by acquaintance most certainly is opinionated – it is based on opinion and experience, it is each person’s own point of view/perspective. It can therefore be said that knowledge by acquaintance is biased knowledge. In my opinion (note, this is an opinion, not knowledge), knowledge by description is rarely biased, unless it is interpreted or understood in a wrong sense. For example, if someone told me that ‘Paris is the capital of France’ and I thought some place (also called Paris) other than the main city of Paris is the capital of France, I would be misinterpreting the information given to me, and this could be called biased knowledge.

- Priyal Chitale.