Literature in epistemology tends to suppose that there are three main types of understanding – propositional, atomistic, and objectual. By showing that all apparent instances of propositional understanding can be more plausibly explained as featuring one of several other epistemic states, this paper argues that talk of propositional understanding is unhelpful and misleading. The upshot is that epistemologists can do without the notion of propositional understanding.

This entry offers a critical overview of the contemporary literature on understanding, especially in epistemology and the philosophy of science.

My principal aims are to question the conventional wisdom on two points. First, it argues that cognitive understanding is neither identical with nor reducible to knowledge?why, and that it is a multiform capacity which adds value to knowledge, true belief, and human creative activity. Essential to understanding is epistemic ascent, the rising above bare knowledge, to assess, appraise, compare, contrast, emphasize, connect and so on. Different modes of understanding are distinguished and an accompanying vocabulary of mode?indicators (expressing Fregean ?colour'). Second, (...) I argue for the unity and continuity of understanding and reject any Diltheyesque idea of a great divide between so?called ?explanation? and ?understanding?, a divide which has sometimes been used to make a sharp demarcation between the natural sciences and the humane studies and sciences. A connection between humane and natural?scientific understanding is established through the Linkage Principle. The idea that there is in every case a uniquely right understanding is rejected and the role of multiple descriptions in both the natural sciences and humane understanding is emphasized. (shrink)

Truth is standardly considered a requirement on epistemic acceptability. But science and philosophy deploy models, idealizations and thought experiments that prescind from truth to achieve other cognitive ends. I argue that such felicitous falsehoods function as cognitively useful fictions. They are cognitively useful because they exemplify and afford epistemic access to features they share with the relevant facts. They are falsehoods in that they diverge from the facts. Nonetheless, they are true enough to serve their epistemic purposes. Theories that contain (...) them have testable consequences, hence are factually defeasible. (shrink)

If understanding is factive, the propositions that express an understanding are true. I argue that a factive conception of understanding is unduly restrictive. It neither reflects our practices in ascribing understanding nor does justice to contemporary science. For science uses idealizations and models that do not mirror the facts. Strictly speaking, they are false. By appeal to exemplification, I devise a more generous, flexible conception of understanding that accommodates science, reflects our practices, and shows a sufficient but not slavish sensitivity (...) to the facts. (shrink)

Achieving understanding of nature is one of the aims of science. In this paper we offer an analysis of the nature of scientific understanding that accords with actual scientific practice and accommodates the historical diversity of conceptions of understanding. Its core idea is a general criterion for the intelligibility of scientific theories that is essentially contextual: which theories conform to this criterion depends on contextual factors, and can change in the course of time. Our analysis provides a general account of (...) how understanding is provided by scientific explanations of diverse types. In this way, it reconciles conflicting views of explanatory understanding, such as the causal-mechanical and the unificationist conceptions. (shrink)

Epistemology has for a long time focused on the concept of knowledge and tried to answer questions such as whether knowledge is possible and how much of it there is. Often missing from this inquiry, however, is a discussion on the value of knowledge. In The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding Jonathan Kvanvig argues that epistemology properly conceived cannot ignore the question of the value of knowledge. He also questions one of the most fundamental assumptions in epistemology, (...) namely that knowledge is always more valuable than the value of its subparts. Taking Platos' Meno as a starting point of his discussion, Kvanvig tackles the different arguments about the value of knowledge and comes to the conclusion that knowledge is less valuable than generally assumed. Clearly written and well argued, this 2003 book will appeal to students and professionals in epistemology. (shrink)

The so-called Meno problem is one of the recent trendy topics in epistemology.1 In a nutshell, the Meno problem is that of explaining why we value knowledge more than true belief. In his recent book The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding Jon Kvanvig argues quite convincingly that no existing account of knowledge can accommodate the intuition that the value of knowledge exceeds the value of true belief.

Science relies on models and idealizations that are known not to be true. Even so, science is epistemically reputable. To accommodate science, epistemology should focus on understanding rather than knowledge and should recognize that the understanding of a topic need not be factive. This requires reconfiguring the norms of epistemic acceptability. If epistemology has the resources to accommodate science, it will also have the resources to show that art too advances understanding.

SummaryIt is shown that the concept of understanding cannot be reduced to a combination of knowing that, knowing how, and knowledge by acquaintence. First, it is shown that understanding and knowledge have different objects. Then “understanding what” is analyzed along Aristotelian lines. In the central part of the paper it is shown that understanding objects defined by constitutive rules involves a non‐propositional component. This notion of “understanding” is shown to cut across the humanist‐scientist dichotomy.

Is understanding the same as or at least a species of knowledge? This question has to be answered with respect to each of three types of understanding and of knowledge. I argue that understanding-why and objectual understanding are not reducible to one another and neither identical with nor a species of the corresponding or any other type of knowledge. My discussion reveals important characteristics of these two types of understanding and has consequences for propositional understanding.

Kontextualistische Wissenstheorien wurden bisher hauptsächlich zur Auseinandersetzung mit dem Skeptiker entwickelt. Meines Erachtens sind sie dabei wenig erfolgreich, bieten aber einen vielversprechenden Ansatz zur Auflösung des bekannten Gettier-Problems. In diesem Aufsatz setze ich mich vor allem mit einer Überlegung Stewart Cohens auseinander, die zu zeigen scheint, dass auch der Kontextualist eine vom Wissenszuschreiber unabhängige „anti-Gettier-Bedingung“ braucht. Hätte er damit recht, so wäre vom Kontextualismus kein Fortschritt bei der traditionellen Wissensanalyse zu erwarten. Zur Widerlegung seines Arguments schlage ich zunächst eine Wissensdefinition (...) vor, die als „radikal kontextualistisch“ bezeichnet werden kann, insofern darin allein Faktoren, die dem Kontext des Wissenszuschreibers zuzurechnen sind, eine Rolle spielen. Indem ich deutlich mache, wie ich zu meinem radikalen Kontextualismus komme, zeige ich, wie man Cohens Argument entgeht. Bei dieser Überlegung spielt allerdings die enge Verbindung zwischen dem Begriff des Wissens und dem des guten Informanten, gegen die vor allem Ansgar Beckermann argumentiert hat, eine entscheidende Rolle. Auch mit Beckermanns Argumenten setzte ich mich daher auseinander. (shrink)