Perhaps you should have used the example of the bicycle. Remove any requirement for athletic skill, and the practical distinction between the propositional and procedural fades considerably.
For example, as a kid, I was able to ride a bicycle the first time I tried. Of course, it had training wheels.
Another example. As a young man, I was able to pilot (taxi out, take off, and fly) a small aircraft the first time I tried. (This was 1974, before the common use of simulators.) I had informed my instructor that although I had never even been in a small aircraft before, I had an engineering science education and had already studied the relationships of the basic instrumentation (especially the airspeed indicator) to a wing’s angle-of-attack. After a certain amount of grilling, he let me go for it and he never had to touch the controls.
My point is that I can be successful without ever having to admit propositional knowledge is actually true. I just have to be able to take advantage of its utility in predicting outcomes. I consider this the distinction between engineering and science.
How about a post on understanding consequentialism for us deontologists? :-)
The Wikipedia defines deontological ethics as “approach to ethics that judges the morality of an action based on the action’s adherence to a rule or rules.”
This definition implies that the Scientific method is a deontological ethic. It’s called the “scientific method” after all. Not the “scientific result.”
The scientific method is rule based. Therefore, if there is not a significant overlap between the consequentialist and deontologist approaches, then consequentialism must be non-scientific.
And if a consequentialist is non-scientific, then how can she reliability predict consequences and thus know what is the ethical or moral thing to do?
Who is the “real” doppelganger?