Know-wh does not reduce to know-that

Know-wh (knowing what, where etc) ascriptions are ubiquitous in many languages. One standard analysis of know-wh is this: someone knows-wh just in case she knows that p, where p is an answer to the question included in the wh-clause. Additional conditions have also been proposed, but virtually all analyses assume that propositional knowledge of an answer is at least a necessary condition for knowledge-wh (even if it is not sufficient). This paper challenges this assumption, by arguing that there are cases where we have knowledge-wh without knowledge-that of an answer, for example in the cases familiar from arguments for the Extended Mind hypothesis.