Executive Summary

In every domain—science, theology, engineering, law, governance, interpersonal communication—people regularly speak at different levels of knowledge. Yet most confusion, conflict, and misjudgment arises not from disagreement over facts but from mismatched epistemic levels: one person is speculating while the other assumes expertise; one is giving firsthand knowledge and the other is offering broad generalities; one is issuing a confident conclusion but has not checked primary data; one is expressing intuition while presenting it as evidence.

This white paper proposes a structured typology of knowledge levels, organized from lowest to highest epistemic certainty, along with communication strategies to identify and signal one’s level when speaking or writing. The goal is to improve clarity, avoid epistemic overreach, build trust, and provide frameworks for evaluating claims according to their evidential grounding.

1. Introduction: Why Levels of Knowledge Matter

1.1 The Problem of Epistemic Ambiguity

People often make statements without clearly identifying how well they know the matter. This ambiguity produces:

Overconfidence and epistemic arrogance Misplaced reliance (believing speculation is fact) Poor decision-making Unnecessary conflict and mistrust Invalid conclusions built on unverified assumptions

1.2 The Need for Explicit Epistemic Signaling

In an age of information overload, expertise fragmentation, and algorithmic amplification, readers and listeners need tools to evaluate:

Where information comes from How reliable it is Whether the speaker’s confidence is justified What further verification is necessary

Explicit signaling of one’s level of knowledge reduces confusion and increases transparency.

2. A Hierarchy of Knowledge: Eight Distinct Levels

This typology is designed to apply across disciplines. Each level corresponds to a different degree of certainty, evidence, and justification.

Level 1: Ignorance (Uninformed Awareness)

Definition: One knows that one does not know.

Indicators:

“I’m not familiar with this topic.” “I have no information yet.”

Risks: None—this is intellectually honest.

Value: Invites inquiry, avoids false claims.

Level 2: Exposure (Surface Familiarity)

Definition: One has encountered the concept but lacks details.

Example: Aware that quantum computing exists but cannot explain how it works.

Indicators to communicate:

“I’ve heard of this but haven’t studied it.” “My understanding is at a very high level.”

Level 3: Intuition (Unstructured Pre-Understanding)

Definition: Subjective impressions or pattern recognition without systematic evidence.

Examples:

“It seems to me that…” “My hunch is…”

Risks: May be mistaken or biased.

Value: Sparks hypotheses.

Level 4: Lay Understanding (General Knowledge)

Definition: One can explain basic concepts, definitions, and broad principles, but cannot evaluate specialized evidence.

Example: A person who can describe how vaccines work but cannot critique specific clinical trials.

Indicators:

“I understand the big picture but not the technical details.” “My knowledge is general rather than expert.”

Level 5: Competent Understanding (Informed Analysis)

Definition: One has studied the topic in depth, can explain mechanisms, and can assess mainstream evidence but is not a specialist researcher.

Examples:

A well-read amateur historian An engineer discussing adjacent fields

Indicators:

“I have a working knowledge of the topic.” “I can follow expert discussions but I’m not a domain specialist.”

Level 6: Qualified Expertise (Formal or Practical Proficiency)

Definition: One has formal training, direct experience, or long engagement within the field.

Examples:

A licensed clinician A linguist with fieldwork experience A theologian fluent in original biblical languages

Indicators:

“This is within my professional competence.” “I have verified this through both study and practice.”

Level 7: Primary Source Expertise (Original Research or Firsthand Insight)

Definition: One has worked with primary evidence, data, archives, experiments, field observation, or lived reality in a way others have not.

Examples:

A historian who has translated the manuscript A scientist who ran the experiment A person describing an event they witnessed

Indicators:

“I have examined the primary materials myself.” “This is based on direct experience or original research.”

Level 8: Authoritative Mastery (Synthesis-Level Insight)

Definition: One not only understands the field but can integrate multiple subfields, evaluate competing paradigms, and generate new models.

Examples:

A senior scholar recognized in the discipline A leading engineer who designs standards A theologian whose work shapes doctrinal understanding

Indicators:

“This reflects a consensus of deep research and synthesis.” “I have surveyed all major frameworks on this issue.”

3. Cross-Cutting Dimensions of Knowledge

Level alone is not enough. Knowledge varies in other essential dimensions:

3.1 Breadth vs. Depth

Breadth: How wide the field of understanding is Depth: How granular and technical the understanding is

3.2 Theoretical vs. Practical

Theoretical: conceptual, abstract Practical: embodied, experiential

3.3 Synchronic vs. Diachronic Knowledge

Synchronic: understanding at a point in time Diachronic: understanding of development or change over time

3.4 Tacit vs. Explicit Knowledge

Tacit: instinctive, intuitive, experiential Explicit: codified, formal, teachable

Recognizing these axes clarifies what kind of “knowing” is being claimed.

4. Why People Miscommunicate Their Level of Knowledge

4.1 Overconfidence Bias

People often overestimate how much they know.

4.2 The Dunning-Kruger Effect

Low-skill individuals overrate their competence.

4.3 Social Incentives to Appear Certain

Cultural norms disproportionately reward confidence over accuracy.

4.4 Discomfort with Ambiguity

Many avoid admitting uncertainty, fearing loss of status.

4.5 Confusion Between Adjacent Levels

Lay understanding often masquerades as competent understanding; competent understanding masquerades as expertise; expertise masquerades as mastery.

5. How to Communicate One’s Epistemic Level

Below are practical, repeatable methods.

5.1 Explicit Verbal Signaling

Phrase Sets by Level

Level

Useful Phrases

1. Ignorance

“I don’t know enough to say.”

2. Exposure

“I’ve heard of this but haven’t dug in.”

3. Intuition

“My impression/hunch is…”

4. Lay Knowledge

“I have a general understanding.”

5. Competent

“I’ve studied this in depth though I’m not a specialist.”

6. Expert

“This falls within my professional expertise.”

7. Primary Source

“I’ve reviewed the primary data/documents myself.”

8. Mastery

“Based on comprehensive, multi-source synthesis…”

Encouraging explicit phrasing reduces misinterpretation.

5.2 Citation Signaling (How One Knows)

Communicators should identify their evidential basis:

Primary research Peer-reviewed scholarship Professional experience Well-regarded secondary sources General knowledge Personal intuition

This reveals not just what one knows but how one knows it.

5.3 Scope Signaling

Clarifying what part of the issue one is addressing:

“I’m speaking about the technical side, not the legal side.” “I’m addressing theology, not denominational history.” “I understand the biological mechanism, not the clinical applications.”

5.4 Confidence Signaling

Explicitly rating one’s confidence:

Low (intuition / speculation) Medium (working model) High (well-supported conclusion) Very High (consensus or primary evidence)

Equivalent to Bayesian prior transparency.

5.5 Domain Boundary Signaling

Recognizing where one’s knowledge stops:

“This is outside my area.” “I defer to specialists on this dimension.” “I can explain the concept but cannot evaluate the methodology.”

5.6 Meta-Statements

Statements about the epistemic context:

“This is an emerging field with limited evidence.” “There is no consensus yet.” “Experts disagree on the interpretation.”

These help the audience calibrate expectations.

6. How Institutions Should Encourage Epistemic Clarity

6.1 Media and Journalism

Require explicit tagging of claims by evidence type:

Verified fact Expert interpretation Statistical extrapolation Speculation Opinion

6.2 Academia

Encourage scholars to identify:

Primary source engagement Theoretical framework used Limitations of evidence

6.3 Churches and Religious Instruction

Pastors and theologians should distinguish:

Direct scriptural exegesis Theological inference Tradition Personal opinion

6.4 Engineering and Applied Sciences

Documentation should include:

Empirical testing status Model assumptions Confidence levels Known failure modes

6.5 Government and Policy

Policies should indicate:

Evidence quality level Uncertainty estimates Expert disagreement zones

7. Danger Zones: What Happens When Levels Are Confused

7.1 Mistaking Intuition for Evidence

Leads to superstition and poor decision-making.

7.2 Mistaking Lay Understanding for Expertise

Produces strong opinions on weak foundations.

7.3 Mistaking Expertise for Omniscience

Experts overextend outside their domain.

7.4 Mistaking Mastery for Infallibility

Even domain masters have blind spots.

7.5 Mistaking Ignorance for Moral Defect

People often assume disagreement means malice rather than differing knowledge levels.

8. Recommended Framework: The Epistemic Disclosure Protocol (EDP)

A simple, replicable model for individuals and organizations:

State your knowledge level State your confidence level State your evidence base State your domain boundaries State competing views if applicable State remaining uncertainties

Used consistently, this protocol greatly improves communication.

9. Conclusion

Knowledge is not binary. It exists along an eight-level continuum, influenced by depth, breadth, experience, and evidence. Miscommunication arises when people fail to signal which level they are speaking from. Clear, explicit epistemic signaling fosters transparency, reduces conflict, improves decision-making, and builds trust.

A culture that encourages people to state how they know what they think they know is one that takes truth, humility, and intellectual integrity seriously.