Personal Knowledge and Tacit Internalization

While many philosophers sought to define science as a purely objective, detached logical system, Michael Polanyi argued that scientific progress relies heavily on the “personal knowledge” of the practitioner.

The Myth of Objective Detachment

Polanyi, a physical chemist himself, rejected the idea that scientists are neutral observers who simply follow a mechanical “method.” He argued that all knowledge involves an active, personal commitment. If you strip away the observer’s passion, judgment, and expertise, you don’t get “pure data”—you get nothing meaningful at all.

Tacit Knowledge

Polanyi’s most famous concept is Tacit Knowledge: the idea that “we know more than we can tell.”

There are skills and understandings that we possess but cannot fully articulate in words. Consider:

• The Carpenter: A master carpenter knows the “feel” of a good joint. They can explain the theory, but their actual skill is a form of internalized, tacit knowledge gained through practice.
• The Scientist: A researcher “senses” which anomalies are worth investigating and which are just noise. This “scientific intuition” is a form of tacit knowledge.

From Theory to Interiorization

How do we acquire this knowledge? Polanyi described a process of interiorization. When we learn to use a tool (like a probe or a microscope), we eventually stop “feeling” the tool in our hand and start “feeling” the object at the end of the tool. The tool becomes part of our body; it is internalized.

In science, we “dwell in” our theories. We use them as tools to perceive the world. This means our scientific conclusions are grounded in a framework we have personally accepted and integrated into our way of being.

The Discretionary Judgment

Because knowledge is tacit and personal, science requires discretionary judgment. Rules and methods cannot cover every possible situation. The scientist must decide when a law applies, when a measurement is “good enough,” and when a theory is beautiful enough to be true despite conflicting data. This judgment is not subjective whim; it is an exercise of expertise within a responsible community of peers.