Khalifa, K. Is Understanding Explanatory or Objectual? Synthese 190(6) (2013a): 1153-1171. He argues that we can gain some traction on the nature of grasping significant to understanding if we view it along such manipulationist lines. Grimm thinks the metaphor involves something like apprehending how things stand in modal space (that is, that there are no possible worlds in which the necessary truth is false). In the study of epistemology, philosophers are concerned with the epistemological shift. Grasping also allows the understander to anticipate what would happen if things were relevantly differentnamely, to make correct inferences about the ways in which relevant differences to the truth-values of the involved propositions would influence the inferences that obtain in the actual world. ), The Stanford Enclopedia of Philosophy. The following sections consider why understanding might have such additional value. This is not so obvious, and at least, not as obvious as it is in the case of knowledge. The root of the recent resurgence of interest in understanding in epistemology. Eds. He claims that while we would generally expect her to have knowledge of her relevant beliefs, this is not essential for her understanding and as a result it would not matter if these true beliefs had been Gettierised (and were therefore merely accidentally true). Janvid, M. Knowledge versus Understanding: The Cost of Avoiding Gettier. Acta Analytica 27 (2012): 183-197. This is a point Elgin is happy to grant. Understanding entails that such beliefs must be the result of exercising reliable cognitive abilities. An overview of coherentism that can be useful when considering how theories of coherence might be used to flesh out the grasping condition on understanding. Grimm (2012) has wondered whether this view might get things explanatorily backwards. He considers that grasping might be a modal sense or ability that allows the understander to, over and above registering how things are. Epistemology is the study of sources of knowledge. Grimm (2011) suggests that what we should regard as being understood in cases of objectual understandingnamely, the object of the objectual attitude relationcan be helpfully thought of as akin to a system or structure [that has] parts or elements that depend upon one another in various ways.. manage list views salesforce. Toon (2015) has recently suggested, with reference to the hypothesis of extended cognition, that understanding can be located partly outside the head. The proponent of moderate factivity owes an explanation. Such discussions, though they can be initially helpful, raise a nest of further questions. To defend the claim that possessing the kinds of abilities Hills draws attention to is not a matter of simply having extra items of knowledgeshe notes that one could have the extra items of knowledge and still lack the good judgment that allows you to form new, related true beliefs. He also suggests, like Khalifa, that grasping be linked with correct explanations. It will accordingly be helpful to narrow our focus to the varieties of understanding that feature most prominently in the epistemological literature. Pritchards verdict is that we should deny understanding in the intervening case and attribute it in the environmental case. Make sure you cite them appropriately within your paper and list them in APA format on your Reference page. Due to the possibility of overly simple or passive successes qualifying as cognitive achievements (for example, coming to truly believe that it is dark just by looking out of the window in normal conditions after 10pm), Pritchard cautions that we should distinguish between two classes of cognitive achievementstrong and weak: Weak cognitive achievement: Cognitive success that is because of ones cognitive ability. Is it problematic to embrace, for example, a contextualist semantics for knowledge attributions while embracing, say, invariantism about understanding? Abstract. A discussion of whether linguistic understanding is a form of knowledge. His central claim in his recent work is that understanding can be viewed as knowledge of causes, though appreciating how he is thinking of this takes some situating, given that the knowledge central to understanding is non-propositional. In other words, S knows that p only if p is true. The group designated explanationists by Kelp (2015) share a general commitment to the idea that knowledge of explanations should play a key role in a theory of understanding (for example, Hempel 1965; Salmon 1989; Khalifa 2012; 2013). But more deeply, atemporal phenomena such as mathematical truths have, in one clear sense, never come to be at all, but have always been, to the extent that they are the case at all. ), Fictions in Science: Essays on Idealization and Modeling. In the first version, we are to imagine that the agent gets her beliefs from a faux-academic book filled with mere rumors that turn out to be luckily true. Consider here an analogy: a false belief can be subjectively indistinguishable from knowledge. It is plausible that a factivity constraint would also be an important necessary condition on objectual understanding, but there is more nuanced debate about the precise sense in which this might be the case. London: Routledge, 2009. Greco, J. Positivism follows an identical approach as the study of natural sciences in the testing of a theory. Autor de la entrada: Publicacin de la entrada: junio 16, 2022 Categora de la entrada: rivian executive vice president Comentarios de la entrada: most touchdowns in california high school football most touchdowns in california high school football In terms of parallels with the understanding debate, it is important to note that the knowledge of causes formula is not limited to the traditional propositional reading. A more charitable interpretation of Bakers position would be to read making reasonable sense more strongly. One point that could potentially invite criticism is the move from (1) and (2) to (3). 824 Words. It is just dumb luck the genuine sheep happened to be in the field. As such, his commentary here is particularly relevant to the question of whether gasping is factive. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1979. Examines reasons to suppose that attributions of understanding are typically attributions of knowledge, understanding-why or objectual understanding. Elgin, C. Exemplification, Idealization, and Understanding in M. Surez (ed. We regularly claim that people can understand everything from theories to pieces of technology, accounts of historical events and the psychology of other individuals. Contains exploration of whether the value knowledge may be in part determined by the extent to which it provides answers to questions one is curious about. Digital Culture and Shifting Epistemology - hybridpedagogy.org Consider how some people think they grasp the ways in which their zodiac sign has an influence on their life path, yet their sense of understanding is at odds with the facts of the matter. In . Carter, J. Men This aside, can we consider extending Grimms conception of understanding as non-propositional knowledge of causes to the domain of objectual understanding? However, if understanding-why actually is a type of knowing how then this means that intellectualist arguments to the effect that knowing how is a kind of propositional knowledge might apply, mutatis mutandis, to understanding-why as well (see Carter and Pritchard 2013). We can accommodate the thought that not all beliefs relevant to an agents understanding must be true while nonetheless insisting that cases in which false beliefs run rampant will not count as understanding. But, the chief requirement of understanding, for him, is instead that there be the right coherence-making relations in some agents collection of information (that is, that the agent has a grasp of how all this related information fits together. fort hood cif inprocessing; bucks county inspector of elections candidates; lockdown limerick poem; boeing seattle badge office. In all these cases, epistemology seeks to understand one or another kind of cognitive success (or, correspondingly, cognitive failure ). While Khalifa favors earlier accounts of scientific understanding to the more recent views that have been submitted by epistemologists, he is aware that some criticisms (for example, Lipton (2009) and Pritchard (2010)) to the effect that requiring knowledge of an explanation is too strong a necessary condition on understanding-why. Such cases she claims feature intervening luck that is compatible with understanding. For example, Kvanvig (2003: 206) observes that we have an ordinary conception that understanding is a milestone to be achieved by long and sustained efforts at knowledge acquisition and Whitcomb (2012: 8) reflects that understanding is widely taken to be a higher epistemic good: a state that is like knowledge and true belief, but even better, epistemically speaking. Yet, these observations do not fit with the weak views commitment to, for example, the claim that understanding is achievable in cases of delusional hallucinations that are disconnected from the facts about how the world is. More specifically, Kvanvig aims to support the contention that objectual understanding has a special value knowledge lacks by arguing that the nature of curiositythe motivational element that drives cognitive machinery (2013: 152)underwrites a way of vindicating understandings final value. Firstly, achievement is often defined as success that is because of ability (see, for example, Greco 2007), where the most sensible interpretation of this claim is to see the because as signifying a casual-explanatory relationshipthis is, at least, the dominant view. Although a large number of epistemologists hold that understanding is not a species of knowledge (e.g. An overview of the background, development and recent issues in epistemology, including a chapter on understanding as an epistemic good. It focuses on means of human knowledge acquisition and how to differentiate the truth knowledge claims from the false one. Moral Testimony and Moral Epistemology. Ethics 120 (2009): 94-127. This leaves us, however, with an interesting question about the point at which there is no understanding at all, rather than merely weaker or poorer understanding. But most knowledge is not metaknowledge, and epistemology is therefore a relatively insignificant source of knowledge. For example, we might suppose that a system of beliefs contains only beliefs about a particular subject matter, and that these beliefs will ordinarily be sufficient for a rational believer who possesses them to answer questions about that subject matter reliably. Carter, J. Incudes arguments for the position that understanding need not be factive. Firstly, Wilkenfelds context-sensitive approach is in tension with a more plausible diagnosis of the example just considered: rather than to withhold attributing understanding in the case where the student is surrounded by experts, why notinsteadand in a way that is congruous with the earlier observation that understanding comes in degreesattribute understanding to the student surrounded by experts, but to a lesser degree (for example, Tim has some understanding of physics, while the professor has a much more complete understanding). What is the grasping relation? Though in light of this fact, it is not obvious that understanding is the appropriate term for this state.
Denver Shootout 2021 Results,
St Margaret's Hospital Epping Kitwood Ward,
Articles E
