They encompass the larger constellation of ideas and questions that went into the making of the texts while participating in larger theoretical debates about knowledge of the past and other cultures.
The answer, I think, is rooted in a profound misunderstanding despite decades of research and debate about the knowledge economy of how knowledge work does and does not differ from the manual work we have come to understand so well.
Debates about knowledge-how revolve around two main issues.
These considerations suggest that one aspect of the debate between naturalists and non-naturalists is best understood as a debate about whether knowledge and justification can be understood in naturalistically acceptable causal and reliabilist terms or must be understood in terms of naturalistically suspect evaluative terms.
A second, more recent debate about student knowledge resulted in new connotations for misconceptions, however.
Although the results reported above provide evidence of reliability and validity of our test on PCK of business and economics, we situate this work within the larger landscape of debates about whether knowledge for teaching can be developed and assessed outside of the complex classroom context.
Thus, there are debates about whether knowledge and justification require conclusive reasons or merely very strong reasons, whether they require reasons at all rather than mere reliability or causal connectedness, whether the fact that a belief provides a good explanation of some data, or is natural, or is widely accepted provide epistemic support for that belief.
While today most education researchers use misconceptions as described above, yesterday the term was associated with certain perspectives in scholarly debates about student knowledge and learning.
"Economics of Knowledge: The Debate about Codification & Tacit Knowledge," Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(2): 255-287.
And that, in turn, invites an entirely new debate about what constitutes knowledge in different parts of the world and how a Western institution like Wikipedia can capitalize on it.
If we call the knowledge present in the first kind of case "practical" and the knowledge present in the second kind of case "theoretical", then we can see that the debate between intellectualism and anti-intellectualism about knowledge-how is ultimately a debate about practical and theoretical knowledge, rather than a debate about when we should say that some subject "knows how" to do something.
