[P]ossession of knowledge is not a binary condition, but a spectrum from awareness or intuition, through hypothesis, theory and law, through parsimonious theoretical completeness, through axiomatic declaration, through tautological identity.
The context for use of such knowledge in pursuit of some action determines necessary sufficiency.
Despite our habits, one cannot say that one knows something without stating the sufficiency of knowledge required, and still have a decidable proposition – there just isn’t enough information there.
Now, we can assume the question of utility from the context, and therefore the standard of knowledge required. But knowledge cannot be divorced from action, even if that action is merely identity or perception.
But like many empty verbalisms that are not problems, but merely inarticulate language masquerading as complexity. The common fallacy of using the language of experience rather than action.
One cannot sever the qualitative expression “knowledge” either from the context of an act, from choice, nor from the cost of action. We can discount these values for arbitrary purposes, but to discount cost and context in pursuit of a general rule is very different from saying that in application of any general rule the action, choice and cost determine the sufficiency of knowledge.
I have been making this general argument regarding the use of the scientific method for either (a) production, (b) technological or (c) purely scientific purposes. The method we use is the same in each circumstance, but we merely apply discounts or premiums to different outputs of the scientific method.
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute