Influenced by later Wittgenstein’s philosophy, a group of Scandinavian philosophers, with K.S. Johannessen as the leading figure, make a unique contribution to the ongoing discussion of tacit knowledge. They differentiate the strong and the weak interpretations of tacit knowledge, and put their emphasis on the former. Based upon his practice-centered interpretation of later Wittgenstein’s philosophy, Johannessen makes much out of Wittgenstein’s notion of intransitive understanding to argue for the strong thesis of tacit knowledge and advocates a pragmatic turn in epistemology.

This essay discusses Polanyi sideas about the “comprehensive entity.” It shows how Polanyi’s philosophical perspective emphasizes comprehension. It outlines Polanyi’s careful approach to ontological questions and shows how Marjorie Grene and to some degree Polanyi linked the theory of tacit knowing to ideas in Continental philosophy about being-in-the-world. It suggests that Polanyi’s post-critical philosophical realism, like Peirce srealistn, is more akin to medieval realism than contelnporary discussions.

This essay examines Michael Polanyi’s notion of tacit knowing and seeks to clarify and elaborate upon its claims. Tacit knowing, which is conscious although inarticulate, must be distinguished from tacit processes, which are largely unconscious. Schematization is explored as a primary tacit process that humans share with all animals. This tacit process organizes and secures, in long-term memory, information of interest provided by receptors and those learned skifls conducive to survival. Human empirical knowing integrates schematized subsidiaries info articulate explicitness through culturally-embedded symbols evoked in terms of felt fittingness.

Michael Polanyi’s work has often been conflated with that of Thomas Kuhn. This article shows that although Polanyi and Kuhn both conceded the similarities in some aspects of their accounts of science, both were critical of the other’s position. The key to a correct understanding of the tensions between the authors and their views is to recognize the clash of worldviews within which their philosophies of science were constructed.