Knowledge and Understanding: Differences and Relationships
Nagib Callaos, Jeremy Horne
Authors Information |
Citation |
Full Text |
Nagib Callaos
International Institute of Informatics and Systemics (IIIS), United States
Jeremy Horne
Newland University, Mexico / President-emeritus of the Southwest Area Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), United States
Cite this paper as:Callaos, N., Horne, J. (2025). Knowledge and Understanding: Differences and Relationships.
Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 23(6), 47-67. https://doi.org/10.54808/JSCI.23.06.47
Online ISSN (Journal): 1690-4524
Abstract
We explore in this article the distinction and interaction between knowledge and understanding. While epistemologically, knowledge is often defined as a justified belief, understanding emerges from the interpretation and application of that knowledge. Importantly, one may exist without the other, though both can also intersect and reinforce one another through dynamic feedback loops.
These relationships can be understood cybernetically: negative feedback loops reduce discrepancies between knowledge and understanding, while positive feedback loops strengthen congruence. The interplay becomes particularly evident in Action Research, Action Learning, and Action Design, where applying knowledge generates or deepens understanding.
A special case is transdisciplinary communication, which requires intellectual effort to effectively share knowledge across domains. This effort often produces neurological effects that transform knowledge into understanding or raise its level. Consequently, applying knowledge to real-world problems may generate understanding in two ways: (1) through the application itself, which links abstract knowledge with specific contexts, and (2) through transdisciplinary communication, when it is required for problem-solving via multidisciplinary teams or effective Transdisciplinary Communication.
Understanding is, therefore, both a prerequisite for and a result of transdisciplinary communication. It requires a minimal level of understanding in order to convey knowledge, yet successful communication almost inevitably enhances the communicator's own understanding. In both application and communication, the intellectual effort involved increases neural complexity, raising the likelihood of understanding as an emergent property.
