When I say that one must start by thinking about all the things that might count as knowledge, I do not mean to claim that anything like classical epistemology is being pursued. First, for the sociologist of knowledge, or the Wittgensteinian philosopher, there is no classical epistemology—knowledge cannot be found in the absence of the activities of humans. The point is that we must start with an attempt to think about knowledge in a way that goes beyond human experience if we are to understand that experience properly. The starting point is to think of knowledge as “stuff” that might also be found in animals, trees, and sieves and then try to work out from this starting point what it is that humans have. Human experience alone is too blunt an instrument for the task.