Imagine a mechanic who cannot drive.
Let's assume our imaginary no-driving mechanic is an expert and a specialist. This mechanic is an expert and specialist when it comes to Ford F-150 trucks. This mechanic knows everything there is to know about all of the components, their function, and how they work together as a running, working F-150.This mechanic can fix any F-150 and even build one from the box. We might at this point assume this individual knows F-150s.
However, our F-150 mechanic cannot drive an F150. This mechanic has never driven any vehicle for that matter. Moreover, this mechanic has never used a truck. She has never loaded one, tied down a load, hooked up a trailer, or even backed a trailer. Now it becomes a question as to whether or not our no-driving mechanic knows trucks, much less F150s.
I like the image of the no-driving mechanic because I think it highlights one problem with a reductionistic/analytic/atomistic approach to knowledge. Our mechanic can break the F-150 down to its smallest parts (in a more robust example we might allow our mechanic to know the quantum mechanics of a running F-150). She knows how each part functions within each system (electrical system, cooling system, exhaust system, and so on), and how each system functions in the whole. And yet, she cannot use the truck.
In its crudest form: Is it the case that if we know the physics of our world then we know what is really real in our world? Maybe it is.
In no way do I want to disparage this kind of knowledge. On the contrary, this kind of knowledge has proved invaluable. But is it sufficient? When I think of the no-driving mechanic I am inclined to say that there are important things we need to know that are not discoverable solely by these means.
