Or, knowledge and effort. (The use of the term “knowledge” here is sloppy; see ‣ for more principled classification.)
‣. Intellect without experience is often worse than useless (because it lacks Humility). Don't share you opinions about something you didn't try yourself — ‣.
It's a characteristic of an art that it requires both knowledge and practice. Science is pure knowledge. ‣.
‣: theory teaches the rules of the art, practice trains to follow them consistently.
Related:
See also
TODO review Mastery by Robert Greene
‣ Education is what, when, and why to do things, Training is how to do it. Either one without the other is not of much use. You need to know both what to do and how to do it.
https://dddeurope.com/2018/speakers/dave-snowden/#keynote
[The reason why chefs can make a brilliant meal with whatever they have at hand is that they] have two types of knowledge, that Aristotle calls phronesis and sophia. They have the theoretical knowledge of taste and the practical knowledge of apprenticeship. It’s the combination of 4-5 years of apprenticeship with deep theoretical knowledge […] which gives them resilience, not one or the other. At the moment, we tend to argue: theory or practice, or practice over theory. That’s a mistake.
‣ Specific knowledge can’t just be read straight out of a single book, nor can it be taught in a single course, nor can it be programmed into a single algorithm.
‣
https://www.noemamag.com/ai-and-the-limits-of-language/ But the ability to explain a concept linguistically is different from the ability to use it practically. The system can explain how to perform long division without being able to perform it or explain what words are offensive and should not be said while then blithely going on to say them. The contextual knowledge is embedded in one form — the capacity to rattle off linguistic knowledge — but is not embedded in another form — as skillful know-how for how to do things like being empathetic or handling a difficult issue sensitively.