2012
DOI: 10.1086/663235
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inaugurating Understanding or Repackaging Explanation?

Abstract: Recently, several authors have argued that scientific understanding should be a new topic of philosophical research. In this article, I argue that the three most developed accounts of understanding—Grimm's, de Regt's, and de Regt and Dieks's—can be replaced by earlier ideas about scientific explanation without loss. Indeed, in some cases, such replacements have clear benefits.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
52
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 79 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
1
52
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Now, there are two main accounts of understanding in the philosophy of science literature. According to explanationists, understanding is in essence knowledge of correct explanations (Hempel 1965;Salmon 1984;Khalifa 2012Khalifa , 2013. Manipulationists, on the other hand, claim that understanding is essentially a specific kind of ability, roughly, an ability to perform (certain kinds of) manipulations of (certain kinds of) representations of the phenomena understood (de Regt and Dieks 2005;de Regt 2009a, b;Grimm 2006Grimm , 2014Wilkenfeld 2013.…”
Section: Understanding: the True Accountmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Now, there are two main accounts of understanding in the philosophy of science literature. According to explanationists, understanding is in essence knowledge of correct explanations (Hempel 1965;Salmon 1984;Khalifa 2012Khalifa , 2013. Manipulationists, on the other hand, claim that understanding is essentially a specific kind of ability, roughly, an ability to perform (certain kinds of) manipulations of (certain kinds of) representations of the phenomena understood (de Regt and Dieks 2005;de Regt 2009a, b;Grimm 2006Grimm , 2014Wilkenfeld 2013.…”
Section: Understanding: the True Accountmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…for having understanding, and that explanations are factive, i.e., they give an account of the explanandum that corresponds to the facts (Trout 2007;de Regt 2009;Khalifa 2012;Strevens 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, there are what I will call 'explanationists', who claim that understanding in essence involves knowledge of correct explanations [Hempel 1965, Salmon 1984, Khalifa 2012. To take a popular example, to understand why planes fly involves knowing a correct explanation of why planes fly, for instance, in terms of Bernoulli's principle.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%