Typical for explicit knowledge is its formality: Something is true/false just because of a explicit/formal definition. This formal/explicit definition is basically a calculus which contains a number of premises which determine this calculus. Premises are claims which -- per definition -- cannot be proven or disproven. The entire mathematics is based on such calculus systems which are determined by a static set of premises which allow a fixed (maybe also infinite?) number of conclusions. Many people think that every consequence drawn on the basis of these premises is a new perception. Indeed it is just a conclusion which is valid just within the given calculus. Furthermore this conclusion is not a new perception but only a possible element of the pseudo-perception set of the given calculus. Let me explain this claim by an example: A is smaller than B and B is smaller than C (formal syntax: A < B < C) is a transitivity with the following formal notation:
aRb, bRcBased on this statement I can draw the conclusion that
A is smaller than C.But is it really a new perception? In fact this conclusion is already a part of the given statement and not a perception because the notion of "R" (relation) and its catenation determine the drawn consequence and also its truth. So the drawn consequence is not a conclusion but a truth per definition.
The main statement in the above argumentation is that explicit knowledge is not as almighty and perception bearing as it supposed to be.
The antipole to explicit knowledge is determined by implicit knowledge which also known as "tacit knowledge". This kind of knowledge is the main research area of humanities like sociology, psychology and some linguistic research areas. Of course also humanities contain explicit knowledge just as applied physics contain implicit knowledge.