Inert knowledge is information that can be expressed but not used to solve problems in real-world situations. It’s also known as “dead knowledge”.
You saying “moving the goalpost” all the time is a prime example, you know they phrase but you don’t know how to use it properly.
The reason you can’t use it, is because you don’t actually know it, you only know parts of it (you only understand parts of it), you have to understand it fully in order to use it.
No, it’s because you don’t understand it. This is pointless. You will never admit you are wrong. Good luck bud.
Yes, I know, you don’t understand it, therefore you don’t know it.
You only know parts of it, thus only understand parts of it.
In order to know something, you have to understand it. But you only understand parts of the thing.
Always the childish behavior from you Hirav.
Nope this is an incorrect statement.
This is factually incorrect.
With this logic nobody knows anything unless they know everything. That’s some very flawed logic Hirav.
Inert knowledge is information that a person knows but doesn’t fully understand, which means that they can only recognize, express, or use it in very limited ways.
https://effectiviology.com/inert-knowledge/
If you fully understood it, it wouldn’t be inert, it would just be knowledge.
Understanding is required for knowledge.
Well, no, you can’t compare ‘anything’ with ‘everything’. You clearly don’t understand set theory.
‘Any thing’ is contained in the set of all things, the ‘every thing’ set.
You can understand any thing, even if you don’t understand every thing.
Inert knowledge is information that can be expressed but not used to solve problems in real-world situations. It’s also known as “dead knowledge”.
Correct, yet that’s what you are doing.
You can know something without understanding it. Just like lots of your favorite phrases and words, you know them, but you don’t understand them.
Because you don’t understand it fully enough to use it effectively.
If you understood it fully, it would be knowledge, not inert knowledge.
Exactly, you can know something and also not understand it.
That was never the argument Hirav.
No, if you don’t understand it, you only know parts of the thing. But you don’t know the whole of the thing.
Thus you attempt to shift goal posts again.
Incorrect. You made a false claim.
Just because you didn’t understand the claim, doesn’t mean that it was false.
Show me where I said what you claimed then
No, you have the burden of proof.
You made the claim the burden of proof is on you.
No, you made the claim that my claim was false, you want me to show you which claim was the one that you claimed was false.
You have the burden.
You made the first claim. Provide your proof or move on.
I don’t need to disprove your claim, you need to prove it.
I already have, you didn’t understand it. And then claimed that it was false.
No one can disprove a claim.
But you need to prove that my claim was false, since you claimed that it was.
You have not. I said show me where I said what you claimed. You have failed to do so.
Of course you can. It’s no surprise you don’t know that though. But you need to provide proof of your claim for it to even matter.
Nope.
I don’t need to. You claimed that it was false, so you already know which claim you’re talking about.
I already have, but you didn’t understand it, so you don’t know it. And thus I prove it again.