Categories of Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach

Abstract
The article based on Geary's work suggests that biological knowledge is divided into
two primary and secondary forms - in which secondary biological knowledge becomes more
and more important for cultural reasons. Different from biologically primary knowledge can
be comprehended easily, automatically, unconsciously and cannot be taught; Biologically
secondary knowledge is conveyed by educational institutions by specific methods. We will
be very difficult to acquire biologically secondary knowledge without a clear tuition.
Keywords: biologically primary knowledge, biologically secondary knowledge,
curriculum, culture

1. SETTING THE PROBLEM

There are many ways to classify knowledge, based on criteria such as acquiring, organizing
and storing according to different processes. One category that is relevant concerns the
distinction between knowledge we have specifically evolved to acquire, known as
biologically primary knowledge, and knowledge that has more recently become important for
cultural reasons, known as biologically secondary knowledge. The distinction been discussed
between biologically primary and secondary knowledge and the instructional implications
that flow from that.

2. RESEARCH ISSUES
Bioligically primary knowledge is learned easily, automatically and unconsciously and cannot
be taught. Such knowledge is modular: recognising faces, recognising speech, using general
problem-solving strategies, and engaging in basic social relations… In some ways, it can be
seen as instinctive knowledge that we are programmed to acquire and so does not need to be
taught. Natural selection has helped us to evolve enough to learn these skills over generations,
regardless of culture. If we can acquire information easily and rapidly in an area without
having to first consciously, actively learn and without explicit teaching, then that area almost
certainly constitutes biologically primary knowledge.
Biologically secondary, on the other hand, is that culturally acquired knowledge has
become important in a particular culture such as reading, writing or any of the many other
topics for which instruction is provided… It is capable of processing a wide range of
information categories. The secondary knowledge we acquire is largely dependent on the
culture in which we develop. Since it is culture specific, it will alter from culture to culture.
Contrary to primary knowledge, effort and awareness are needed in acquiring secondary
knowledge. We have not evolved to acquire most aspects of our culture automatically and
unconsciously, especially advanced culture, in the way we acquire biologically primary
knowledge. We require formal and informal institutions to acquire the biologically secondary
knowledge that constitutes culture. It is also mean that attempting to teach biologically
primary knowledge may be futile.
Evidence that novices use a general problem-solving strategy such as means–ends
analysis whenever we must solve a problem for which we do not have domain-specific
knowledge of a solution. Means–ends analysis is the most important, best-known, general
problem-solving strategy discussed in the literature (e.g., Newell & Simon, 1972; Sweller,
1988). In contrast, experts use domain-specific knowledge when solving problems comes
from the substantial literature on expert– novice differences. There are many examples of
recommended general problem-solving strategies (see Polya, 1957); however, they cannot be
taught to improve problem-solving performance because they consist of biologically primary
knowledge which is acquired naturally.
Whenever solving a familiar problem, we automatically use solutions to similar
problems before, which is useful for bioligically primary knowledge. If we cannot think of a
similar problem, exhortations to think of a similar problem are pointless. Attempting to teach
people to think of similar problems when solving unfamiliar problems is likely to remain just
as unteachable in the future as it has in the past. We know of no randomised, controlled
experiments indicating the effectiveness of such a strategy. Without such biologically
primary, general problem-solving techniques we could not have survived and so we have
evolved to assimilate them rapidly and easily without tuition. Discovered knowledge should
be qualitatively better than directly taught knowledge (Bruner, 1961).
Biologically secondary knowledge is teachable but the manner in which we teach has
been bedevilled by our failure to distinguish between primary and them.

3. CONCLUSIONS
In education, rather than showing learners how to best solve a problem, it is assumed that they
learn more or better, if they discover how to solve the problem by themselves, with minimal
levels of guidance from instructors. This view assumes that learners need to learn how to
construct knowledge for themselves and so explicit instructional guidance should be avoided
in favour of having learners discover knowledge. We merely need to be taught the relevant
concepts and procedures, not how to acquire them.

REFERENCES