Grimm, S. The Value of Understanding. Philosophy Compass 7(2) (2012): 103-177. Your paper should be 3-4 pages in length, not counting the Title page and Reference page. It is not only unnecessary, but moreover, contentious, that a credible scientist would consider the ideal gas law true. Gettier, E. Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Analysis 23 (6) (1963). In this sense, the history of thought can be seen as the sometimes imperceptibly fluid, sometimes bizarre and abrupt, movements of our concepts. Contrast thiscall it the intervening reading of the casewith Pritchards corresponding environmental reading of the case, where we are to imagine that the agent is reading a reliable academic book which is the source of many true beliefs she acquires about the Comanche. 115, No. She claims, it may be possible to know without knowing one knows, but it is impossible to understand without understanding one understands (2001: 246) and suggests that this property of understanding might insulate it from skepticism. Shift in Epistemology.edited.docx - Running head: SHIFT IN However, the core explanationist insight also offers the resources to supplement a grasping account. Meanwhile, when discussing outright (as opposed to ideal) understanding, Kelp suggests that we adopt a contextualist perspective. This is of course an unpalatable result, as we regularly attribute understanding in the presence of not just one, but often many, false beliefs. Wilkenfeld (2013) offers the account that most clearly falls under Kelps characterization of manipulationist approaches to understanding. The Pros And Cons Of Epistemology - 824 Words | Bartleby Hills, A. One reason a manipulationist will be inclined to escape the result in this fashion (by denying that all-knowing entails all-understanding) is precisely because one already (qua manipulationist) is not convinced that understanding can be attained simply through knowledge of propositions. 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. University of Edinburgh Longworth, G. Linguistic Understanding and Knowledge. Nous 42 (2008): 50-79. Just as we draw a distinction between this epistemic state (that is, intelligibility, or what Grimm calls subjective understanding) and understanding (which has a much stricter factivity requirement), it makes sense to draw a line between grasping* and grasping where one is factive and the other is not. Are the prospects of extending understanding via active externalism on a par with the prospects for extending knowledge, or is understanding essentially internal in a way that knowledge need not be? It is just dumb luck the genuine sheep happened to be in the field. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1975. He also suggests, like Khalifa, that grasping be linked with correct explanations. Specifically, he takes his opponents view to be that knowledge through direct experience is what sates curiosity, a view that traces to Aristotle. epistemological shift pros and cons - roci.biz There is little work focusing exclusively on the prospects of a non-factive construal of understanding-why; most authors, with a few exceptions, take it that understanding-why is obviously factive in a way that is broadly analogous to propositional knowledge. The topic of epistemic value has only relatively recently received sustained attention in mainstream epistemology. This is the idea that one has shifted, or changed, the way he or she takes in knowledge. By contrast, Pritchard believes that understanding always involves strong cognitive achievement, that is, an achievement that necessarily involves either a significant exercise of skill or the overcoming of a significant obstacle. In other words, they claim that one cannot always tell that one understands. epistemological shift pros and cons. Pritchard (2008: 8) points out thatfor exampleif one believes that ones house burned down because of the actions of an arsonist when it really burnt down because of faulty wiring, it just seems plain that one lacks understanding of why ones house burned down. Here, and unlike in the case of intervening epistemic luck, nothing actually goes awry, and the fact that the belief could easily have been false is owed entirely to the agents being in a bad environment, one with faades nearby. Riaz (2015), Rohwer (2014) and Morris (2012) have continued to uphold this line on understandings compatibility with epistemic luck and defend this line against some of the objections that are examined below. An epistemological shift: from evidence-based medicine to epistemological responsibility J Eval Clin Pract. Zagzebskis weak approach to a factivity constraint aligns with her broadly internalist thinking about what understanding actually does involvenamely, on her view, internal consistency and what she calls transparency. A theoretical advantage to a weak factivity constraint is that it neatly separates propositional knowledge and objectual understanding as interestingly different. epistemological shift pros and cons. If Pritchard is right to claim that understanding is always a strong cognitive achievement, then understanding is always finally valuable if cognitive achievement is also always finally valuable, and moreover, valuable in a way that knowledge is not. Khalifas indispensability argumentwhich he calls the Grasping Argument runs as follows: Khalifa is, in this argument stipulating that (1) is a ground rule for discussion (2013b: 5). Section 2 explores the connection between understanding and truth, with an eye to assessing in virtue of what understanding might be defended as factive. 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. Pritchard, D. Knowledge, Understanding and Epistemic Value In A. OHear (ed. Goldman, A. 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. Where is the Understanding? Synthese, 2015. There is a common and plausible intuition that understanding might be at least as epistemically valuable as knowledgeif not more soand relatedly that it demands more intellectual sophistication than other closely related epistemic states. ), Fictions in Science: Essays on Idealization and Modeling. Alston, W. Beyond Justification: Dimensions of Epistemic Evaluation. 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. (2007: 37-8). A useful taxonomising question is the following: how strong a link does understanding demand between the beliefs we have about a given subject matter and the propositions that are true of that subject matter? bella vista catholic charities housing; wills point tx funeral homes; ptvi triathlon distance; is frankie beverly in the hospital; birria tacos long branch; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Kvanvig, J. For example, you read many of your books on screens and e-readers today. Another significant paper endorsing the claim that knowledge of explanations should play a vital role in our theories of understanding. The underlying idea in play here is that, in short, thinking about how things would be if it were true is an efficacious way to get to further truths; an insight has attracted endorsement in the philosophy of science (for example, Batterman 2009). One point that could potentially invite criticism is the move from (1) and (2) to (3). 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? 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). Considers some of the ramifications that active externalist approaches might have for epistemology. 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. Such a constraint would preserve the intuition that understanding is a particularly desirable epistemic good and would accordingly be untroubled by the issues highlighted for the weakest view outlined at the start of the section. Consider, on this point, that a conspiracy theorist might very well grasp* the connection between (false) propositions so as to achieve a coherent, intelligible, though wildly off-base, picture. Moral Testimony and Moral Epistemology. Ethics 120 (2009): 94-127. Curiosity and a Response-Dependent Account of the Value of Understanding. In T. Henning and D. Schweikard (eds. A. and Pritchard, D. Knowledge-How and Epistemic Luck. Nos (2013). While his view fits well with understanding-why, it is less obvious that objectual understanding involves grasping how things came to be. Owing to Kvanvigs use of the words perceived achievement, Grimm thinks that the curiosity account of understandings value suggests that subjective understanding (or what is referred to as intelligibility above) can satisfy the desire to make sense of the world or really marks the legitimate end of inquiry.. Put generally, according to the coherentist family of proposals of the structure of justified belief, a belief or set of beliefs is justified, or justifiably held, just in case the belief coheres with a set of beliefs, the set forms a coherent system, or some variation on these themes (Olsson 2012: 1). How should we distinguish between peripheral beliefs about a subject matter and beliefs that are not properly, Understanding entails true beliefs of the form. endangered species in the boreal forest; etown high school basketball roster. The epistemological shift in the present in the study - Course Hero In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Hardback) (Vol. Argues that a type of understanding might be the norm that warrants assertion in a restricted class of cases. That said, the question of whether, and if so to what extent, understanding is compatible with epistemic luck, lacks any contemporary consensus, though this is an aspect of understanding that is receiving increased attention. Emma C. Gordon Some focus on understanding-why while others focus on objectual understanding. In a given context, then, one understands some subject matter P only if one approximates fully comprehensive and maximally well-connected knowledge of P closely enough that one is sufficiently likely to successfully perform any task relating to P that is determined by the context, assuming that one has the skills needed to do so and to exercise them in suitably favorable conditions. On the one hand, we have manipulationists, who think understanding involves an ability (or abilities) to manipulate certain representations or concepts. Kvanvig, J. al 2014), have for understanding? Looks at understandings role in recent debates about epistemic value and contains key arguments against Elgins non-factive view of understanding. Secondly, one might wonder if Wilkenfelds account of understanding as representation manipulation is too inclusivethat it rules in, as cases of bona fide understanding, representations that are based on inaccurate but internally consistent beliefs. This is not so obvious, and at least, not as obvious as it is in the case of knowledge. Resists the alleged similarity between understanding and knowing-how. Consider here an analogy: a false belief can be subjectively indistinguishable from knowledge. Section 4 examines the relationship between understanding and types of epistemic luck that are typically thought to undermine knowledge. Making such an epistemological shift can then open up the possibility of communication with other-than-human persons in ways that few educational researchers seem able (or willing) to acknowledge (see Harvey, 2003). So too does the fact that one would rather have a success involving an achievement than a mere success, even when this difference has no pragmatic consequences. What kind of historical enterprise is historical epistemology? ), The Routledge Companion to Epistemology. Positivism follows an identical approach as the study of natural sciences in the testing of a theory. London: Continuum, 2012. The thought is that, in cases of achievement, the relevant success must be primarily creditable to the exercise of the agents abilities, rather than to some other factor (for example, luck). In other words, S knows that p only if p is 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. Whitcomb, D. Epistemic Value In A. Cullison (ed. Utilize at least 2 credible sources to support the arguments presented in the paper. View Shift in Epistemology.docx from SOCIOLOGY 1010 at Columbia Southern University. According to Grimm, cases like Kvanvig admit of a more general characterisation, depending on how the details are filled in. In practice, individuals' epistemological beliefs determine how they think knowledge or truth can be comprehended, what problems - if any - are associated with various views of pursuing and presenting knowledge and what role researchers play in its discovery (Robson, 2002). Some of Pritchards (for example, 2009) earlier work on understanding uses the terminology atomistic understanding as synonymous with understanding-why and indeed his more recent work shifts to using the latter term. ), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology (2nd Edition). Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Pritchard, D. The Value of Knowledge: Understanding. In A. Haddock, A. Millar and D. Pritchard (eds. and (ii) what qualifies a group of beliefs as a system in the sense that is at issue when it is claimed that understanding involves grasping relationships or connections within a system of beliefs? Consider here two cases she offers to this effect: EVOLUTION: A second graders understanding of human evolution might include as a central strand the proposition that human beings descended from apes. Zagzebski does not mean to say that to understand X, one must also understand ones own understanding of X (as this threatens a psychologically implausible regress), but rather, that to understand X one must also understand that one understands X. This view, embraced by DePaul and Grimm (2009), implies that to the extent that understanding and knowledge come apart, it is not with respect to a difference in susceptibility to being undermined by epistemic luck. What is it to have this ability to modify some mental representation? More generally, though, it is important to note that Khalifa, via his grasping argument, is defending reliable explanatory evaluation as merely a necessarythough not sufficientcomponent of grasping. It focuses on means of human knowledge acquisition and how to differentiate the truth knowledge claims from the false one. Grimm (2014) also notes that his modal view of understanding fits well with the idea that understanding involves a kind of ability or know-how, as one who sees or grasps how certain propositions are modally related has the ability to answer a wide variety of questions about how things could have been different. Outlines a view on which understanding something requires making reasonable sense of it. ), The Stanford Enclopedia of Philosophy. While the matter of how to think about the incompatibility of knowledge with epistemic luck remains a contentious pointfor instance, here modal accounts (for example, Pritchard 2005) are at odds with lack-of-control accounts (for example, Riggs 2007), few contemporary epistemologists dissent from the comparatively less controversial claim that knowledge excludes luck in a way that true beliefs and sometimes even justified true beliefs do not (see Hetherington (2013) for a dissenting position). Looks at the increasing dissatisfaction with ever-more complicated attempts to generate a theory of knowledge immune to counterexamples. An overview of wisdom, including its potential relationship to understanding. Though her work on understanding is not limited to scientific understanding (for example, Elgin 2004), one notable argument she has made is framed to show that a factive conception cannot do justice to the cognitive contributions of science and that a more flexible conception can (2007: 32). Such discussions, though they can be initially helpful, raise a nest of further questions. 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. In particular, how we might define expertise and who has it. A central component of Kvanvigs argument is negative; he regards knowledge as ill-suited to play the role of satisfying curiosity, and in particular, by rejecting three arguments from Whitcomb to this effect. Proponents of weak factivity must address both of these potentially problematic results. 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). Make sure you cite them appropriately within your paper and list them in APA format on your Reference page. A novel interpretation of the traditional view according to which understanding-why can be explained in terms of knowledge of causes. A Brief Reflection On Epistemological Shifts (Essay Sample) The distinctive aspects can be identified as human abilities to engage in mathematics and intellectual reasoning. A view on which the psychics epistemic position in this case qualifies as understanding-why would be unsatisfactorily inclusive. In order to illustrate this point, Kvanvig invites us to imagine a case where an individual reads a book on the Comanche tribe, and she thereby acquires a belief set about the Comanche. Lucky Understanding Without Knowledge. Synthese 191 (2014): 945-959. Having abandoned the commitment to absolute space, current astronomers can no longer say that the Earth travels around the sun simpliciter, but must talk about how the Earth and the sun move relative to each other.
Rush University Human Resources,
What Happened To Trader Joe's Soy Creamer,
Life Size Wooden Coffin,
How To Get Clients As An Independent Provider,
Summer Clinical Internships For Undergraduates Interested In Medicine 2022,
Articles E
epistemological shift pros and cons