Procedural knowledge
ability to do something
Procedural knowledge, also known as know-how, is the knowledge exercised in the performance of some task. Unlike descriptive knowledge (also known as declarative knowledge, propositional knowledge or "knowing-that"), which involves knowledge of specific propositions (e.g. "I know that snow is white"), that is, facts that can be expressed using declarative sentences, procedural knowledge involves one's ability to do something (e.g. "I know how to change a flat tire"). A person does not need to verbally articulate their procedural knowledge for it to count as knowledge, since procedural knowledge requires only knowing how to correctly perform an action or exercise a skill.
The term procedural knowledge has narrower but related technical uses in both cognitive psychology and intellectual property law.
Overview
Procedural knowledge (i.e., knowledge-how) is different from descriptive knowledge (i.e., knowledge-that) in that it can be directly applied to a task. For instance, the procedural knowledge one uses to solve problems differs from the declarative knowledge one possesses about problem solving because this knowledge is formed by doing.
The distinction between knowing-how and knowing-that was brought to prominence in epistemology by Gilbert Ryle who used it in his book The Concept of Mind.
Know-how is also often referred to in lay terms as street smarts (sometimes conceived as the opposite of book smarts), and a person employing their street smarts as street wise.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Procedural knowledge” as ability to do something. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as ability to do something. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 21, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q1813993. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Procedural knowledge”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Procedural knowledge primary sources, Procedural knowledge archive and Procedural research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Procedural knowledge”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Procedural knowledge” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.