endangered species in the boreal forest; etown high school basketball roster. Epistemology is often defined as the theory of knowledge, and talk of propositional knowledge (that is, S knows that p) has dominated the bulk of modern literature in epistemology. So, on Grimms (2011) view, grasping the relationships between the relevant parts of the subject matter amounts to possessing the ability to work out how changing parts of that system would or would not impact on the overall system. Grimm, S. Understanding as Knowledge of Causes in A. Fairweather (ed. Decent Essays. Epistemologically, a single-right-answer is believed to underlie each phenomenon, even though experts may not yet have developed a full understanding of the systemic causes that provide an accurate interpretation of some situations. ), Knowledge, Truth and Obligation. To what extent do the advantages and disadvantages of, for example, sensitive invariantist, contextualist, insensitive invariantist and relativist approaches to knowledge attributions find parallels in the case of understanding attributions. For the purposes of thinking about understanding, some of the most important will include: (i) what makes a system of beliefs coherent? Although, many commentators suggest that understanding requires something further, that is something in additional to merely knowing a proposition or propositions, Grimm thinks we can update the knowledge of causes view so that this intuition is accommodated and explained. That is, we often describe an individual as having a better understanding of a subject matter than some other person, perhaps when choosing whom to approach for advice or when looking for someone to teach us about a subject. Orand this is a point that has received little attentioneven more weakly, can the true beliefs be themselves unreliably formed or held on the basis of bad reasons. Grimm (2011) calls this subjective understanding. He describes subjective understanding as being merely a grasp of how specific propositions interlinkone that does not depend on their truth but rather on their forming a coherent picture. Rohwer argues that counterexamples like Pritchards intervening luck cases only appear plausible because the beliefs that make up the agents understanding come exclusively from a bad source. If Kelps thought experiment works, manipulation of representations cannot be a necessary condition of understanding after all.
epistemological shift pros and cons - hashootrust.org.pk These retractions do not t seem to make sense on the weak view.
The Epistemological Shift from Descartes to Nietzsche: Intuition and For example, Kvanvig (2003) holds that understanding is particularly valuable in part because it requires a special grasp of explanatory and other coherence-making relationships. Riggs (2003: 20) agrees, stating that understanding of a subject matter requires a deep appreciation, grasp or awareness of how its parts fit together, what role each one plays in the context of the whole, and of the role it plays in the larger scheme of things (italics added). Wilkenfeld suggests that this ability consists at least partly in being able to correct minor mistakes in ones mental representation and use it to make assessments in similar cases. We regularly claim that people can understand everything from theories to pieces of technology, accounts of historical events and the psychology of other individuals. Argues against compatibility between understanding and epistemic luck. View Shift in Epistemology.docx from SOCIOLOGY 1010 at Columbia Southern University. For, even if understanding why 22=4 does not require a grasp of any causal relation, it might nonetheless involve a grasp of some kind of more general dependence, for instance the kind of dependence picked out by the metaphysical grounding relation. This would be the non-factive parallel to the standard view of grasping. In other words, each denies all of the others respective beliefs about the subject, and yet the weak view in principle permits that they might nonetheless understand the subject equally well. 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. ), The Routledge Companion to Epistemology. Autore dell'articolo: Articolo pubblicato: 16/06/2022 Categoria dell'articolo: fixed gantry vs moving gantry cnc Commenti dell'articolo: andy's dopey transposition cipher andy's dopey transposition cipher Rohwer, Y. This is the idea that one has shifted, or changed, the way he or she takes in knowledge.
epistemological shift - porosity.ca Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. The agents belief is justified and true, thanks to the fact that there is a genuine sheep hiding behind the rock, but the belief is not knowledge, as it could easily have been false. and Pritchard, D. Varieties of Externalism. Philosophical Issues 41(1) (2014): 63-109. Of course, though, just as Lackey (2007) raises creationist teacher style cases against knowledge transmission principles, one might as well raise a parallel kind of creationist teacher case against the thesis that one cannot attain understanding from a source who herself lacks it. His conception of mental representations defines these representations as computational structures with content that are susceptible to mental transformations. Wilkenfeld constructs a necessary condition on objectual understanding around this definition. Many epistemologists have sought to distinguish understanding from knowledge on the basis of alleged differences in the extent to which knowledge and understanding are susceptible to being undermined by certain kinds of epistemic luck. Hence, he argues that any propositional knowledge is derivative. There are three potential worries with this general style of approach. An earlier paper defending the intellectualist view of know-how. (For example, propositions, systems, bodies of information, the relationships thereof, and so on?). Strevens, however, holds that than an explanation is only correct if its constitutive propositions are true, and therefore the reformulation of grasping that he provides is not intended by Strevens to be used in an actual account of understanding. Kelps account, then, explains our attributions of degrees of understanding in terms of approximations to such well-connected knowledge. Philosophy of Science, 79(1) (2012): 15-37. The proponent of moderate factivity owes an explanation. He also suggests that what epistemic agents want is not just to feel like they are making sense of things but to actually make sense of them. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014. Positivism follows an identical approach as the study of natural sciences in the testing of a theory. The topic of epistemic value has only relatively recently received sustained attention in mainstream epistemology. Van Camp, W. Explaining Understanding (or Understanding Explanation. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 4(1) (2014): 95-114. Khalifas (2013) view of understanding is a form of explanatory idealism. Consider here an analogy: a false belief can be subjectively indistinguishable from knowledge. Defends the strong claim that propositional knowledge is necessary and sufficient for understanding. Facebook Instagram Email. This in part for three principal reasons. Argues that a type of understanding might be the norm that warrants assertion in a restricted class of cases. Meanwhile, he suggests that were you to ask a fake fire officer who appeared to you to be a real officer and just happened to give the correct answer, it is no longer plausible (by Pritchards lights) that you have understanding-why. Wilkenfeld, D. Understanding as Representation Manipulability. Synthese 190 (2013): 997-1016. Divides recent views of understanding according to whether they are manipulationist or explanationst; argues for a different view according to which understanding is maximally well-connected knowledge. How should an account of objectual understanding incorporate these types of observationsnamely, where the falsity of a central belief or central beliefs appears compatible with the retention of some degree of understanding? philos201 Assignment Details Recall that epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. To complicate matters further, some of the philosophers who appear to endorse one approach over the other can elsewhere be seen considering a more mixed view (for example, Khalifa 2013b). However, such a strong view would also make understanding nearly unobtainable and surely very rarefor example, on the extremely strong proposal under consideration, recognized experts in a field would be denied understanding if they had a single false belief about some very minor aspect of the subject matter. Strevens (2013) focuses on scientific understanding in his discussion of grasping. This is the idea that one has shifted, or changed, the way he or she takes in knowledge. He says that knowledge about a phenomenon (P) is maximally well-connected when the basing relations that obtain between the agents beliefs about P reflect the agents knowledge about the explanatory and support relations that obtain between the members of the full account of P (2015: 12). However, Elgin takes this line further and insists thatwith some qualificationsfalse central beliefs, and not merely false peripheral beliefs, are compatible with understanding a subject matter to some degree. For if the view is correct, then an explanation for why ones understanding why the painting is beautiful is richer, when it is, will simply be in terms of ones possession of a correct answer to the question of why it is beautiful. In particular, he wants to propose a non-propositional view that has at its heart seeing or grasping, of the terms of the casual relata, their modal relatedness, which he suggests amounts to seeing or grasping how things might have been if certain conditions had been different. To be clear, the nuanced view Grimm suggests is that while understanding is a kind of knowledge of causes, it is not propositional knowledge of causes but rather non-propositional knowledge of causes, where the non-propositional knowledge is itself unpacked as a kind of ability or know-how. Defends views that hold explanation as indispensable for account of understanding and discusses what a non-factive account of grasping would look like. Whitcomb (2010) notes that Goldman (1999) has considered that the significance or value of some item of knowledge might be at least in part determined by whether, and to what extent, it provides the knower with answers to questions that they are curious about. In other words, even though there is no such gas as that referred to in the law, accepting the law need not involve believing the law to be true and thus believing there to be some gas with properties that it lacks. Argues against the view that moral understanding can be immune to luck while moral knowledge is not. Many of these questions have gone largely unexplored in the literature. Drawing from Stanley and Williamson, she makes the distinction between knowing a proposition under a practical mode of presentation and knowing it under a theoretical mode of presentation. Stanley and Williamson admit that the former is especially tough to spell out (see Glick 2014 for a recent discussion), but it must surely involve having complex dispositions, and so it is perhaps possible to know some proposition under only one of these modes of presentation (that is, by lacking the relevant dispositions, or something else). Zagzebski, L. Recovering Understanding In M. Steup (ed. For example, in Whitcomb (2010: 8), we find the observation 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. Meanwhile, Pritchard (2009: 11) notes as we might be tempted to put the point, we would surely rather understand than merely know. A helpful clarification here comes from Grimm (2012: 105), who in surveying the literature on the value of understanding points out that the suggestion seems to be that understanding (of a complex of some kind) is better than the corresponding item of propositional knowledge. A longer discussion of the nature of understanding and its distinctive value (in relation to the value of knowledge) than in his related papers. 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. It is moreover of interest to note that Khalifa (2013b) also sees a potential place for the notion of grasping in an account of understanding, though in a qualified sense. ), Justification and Knowledge. The Case of Richard Rorty A Newer Argument Pro: Hales's Defense o. A view on which the psychics epistemic position in this case qualifies as understanding-why would be unsatisfactorily inclusive. Another seemingly promising lineone that engages with the relation question discussed aboveviews grasping as intimately connected with a certain set of abilities. If, as robust virtue epistemologists have often insisted, cognitive achievement is finally valuable (that is, as an instance of achievements more generally), and understanding necessarily lines up with cognitive achievement but knowledge only sometimes does, then the result is a revisionary story about epistemic value. For example, you read many of your books on screens and e-readers today. Explores the pros and cons with at least 2 credible sources. In such a case, Kvanvig says, this individual acquires an historical understanding of the Comanche dominance of the Southern plains of North America from the late 17th until the late 19th century (2003: 197). This is a point Elgin is happy to grant. Discuss the pros and cons of the epistemological shift in an essay. Baker, L. R. Third Person Understanding in A. Sanford (ed. According to his positive proposal, objectual understanding is the goal and what typically sates the appetite associated with curiosity. CA: Wadsworth, 2009. The childs opinion displays some grasp of evolution. Since Kvanvig claims that the coherence-making relationships that are traditionally construed as necessary for justification on a coherentist picture are the very relations that one grasps (for example, the objects of grasping) when one understands, the justification literature may be a promising place to begin. So the kind of knowledge that it provides is metaknowledgeknowledge about knowledge. Grimm, S. The Value of Understanding. Philosophy Compass 7(2) (2012): 103-177. Consider, for instance, the felicity of the question: Am I understanding this correctly? and I do not know if I understand my own defense mechanisms; I think I understand them, but I am not sure. The other side of the coin is that one often can think that one understands things that one does not (for example, Trout 2007).