<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Tacit-Knowledge on cekrem.github.io</title><link>https://cekrem.github.io/tags/tacit-knowledge/</link><description>Recent content in Tacit-Knowledge on cekrem.github.io</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://cekrem.github.io/tags/tacit-knowledge/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>The Tacit Dimension: Why Your Best Engineers Can't Tell You What They Know</title><link>https://cekrem.github.io/posts/the-tacit-dimension/</link><pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://cekrem.github.io/posts/the-tacit-dimension/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;In 1966, a Hungarian chemist named Michael Polanyi published a short book called &lt;a href="https://www.amazon.com/Tacit-Dimension-Michael-Polanyi/dp/0226672980" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Tacit Dimension&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. Its central claim is seven words long, and it is the thing the AI coding industry needs you to forget:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We can know more than we can tell.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Polanyi was a working scientist before he became a philosopher, and the question that bothered him was simple. How does an old chemist look at an apparatus and know it&amp;rsquo;s going to fail, before the symptoms appear? How does a surgeon&amp;rsquo;s hand find the right pressure without anyone teaching the exact weight? How does an experienced researcher recognise a promising line of work &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; they can say what&amp;rsquo;s promising about it?&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>