No Understanding without Explanation Michael Strevens Studies in History and Philosophy of Science fZh Scientic understanding this paper argues can be analyzed entirely in terms of a mental act of - PDF document

No Understanding without Explanation Michael Strevens Studies in History and Philosophy of Science    fZh Scientic understanding this paper argues can be analyzed entirely in terms of a mental act of
No Understanding without Explanation Michael Strevens Studies in History and Philosophy of Science    fZh Scientic understanding this paper argues can be analyzed entirely in terms of a mental act of

Embed / Share - No Understanding without Explanation Michael Strevens Studies in History and Philosophy of Science fZh Scientic understanding this paper argues can be analyzed entirely in terms of a mental act of


Presentation on theme: "No Understanding without Explanation Michael Strevens Studies in History and Philosophy of Science fZh Scientic understanding this paper argues can be analyzed entirely in terms of a mental act of "— Presentation transcript


doeshavetheimplicationpromisedinthetitle,thatexplanationisessentiallyinvolvedinscienticunderstanding,andthatthenormsofcorrectscienticexplanationlogicallyprecedeandparticipateindeterminingthenatureandnormsofunderstanding.Doesthesimpleviewneedadefense?Somethinglikeitcanbefoundinmanydišerentphilosophicalworksonunderstanding(deRegtandDieksóþþ¢;Grimmóþþä;KhalifaóþÕó),althoughsomeofthesewriterswouldliketocomplicatetherecipewithadditionalingredients(seesection¦).YetIdonotthinkthatthefundamentalpiecesoftheviewhavebeenlaidoutinsu›cientdetailÐbesideswhich,ifthetitleofthiscollection,ªUnderstandingwithoutExplanationºisanyguide,thesimpleviewishardlyoutofdanger.AlthoughIadvocatethesimpleview,Iwillarguethatitoughttoberegardedasonepartofabiggerpicture.ebiggerpicturewillbuildonthecentralideaofthesimpleview,thatscienticunderstandingisamatterofhavingtherightepistemicrelationtoanexplanationorexplanationsÐandsothatinscience,thereisnounderstandingwithoutexplanation.Õ.ExplanationGraspingacorrectexplanation.Whatisanexplanation,suchthatitcanbegrasped?Itcanbeassumed,Ithinkwithoutanylossofgenerality,thatanexplana-tionisasetofpropositionswithacertainstructure.Suchacharacterizationiswellsuited,ofcourse,tocaptureHempel'sdeductive-nomologicalandinductive-statisticalaccountsofexplanation(HempelandOppenheimÕɦ˜;HempelÕÉä¢),alongwithotheraccountsaccordingtowhichexplanationshavetheformofarguments,whethertheargumentsareexplanatoryendsinthemselvesorwhethertheyrepresentstructuralelementsofreality,suchastheinstantiationofunifyingpatterns(KitcherÕɘÕ)orcausalprocesses(Strevensóþþ˜).Butalmostanyviewofexplanationcanbeputintheseterms.OnSalmon's(ÕÉßþ)statisticalrelevanceview,forexample,anexplanationisatableofó fromªunderstandingthatº:youmightbeexquisitely,incandescentlyawareofthecat'sbeingonthematwithouthavingtheslightestcluehowitgotthere.íesimpleviewisananalysisofunderstandingwhy,aviewthatiscouchedintermsofgraspingpropositions,whichisamatterofunderstandingthat.Ihavenoaccountofunderstandingthat,buttovoidthechargeofcircularity,itisenoughtoobservethatitisentirelydistinctfromunderstandingwhy.–Letmetrytosayalittlemore,however,aboutthisunderstandingthat,thisgrasping.Isgraspingthatastateofašairsholdsthesamethingasknowingthatitholds?erearevariousdimensionsalongwhichthisquestionmightbeexplored.Youmight,forexample,askwhethertograspthatastateofašairsholdsyoumustbejustiedinbelievingthatitholds,andifso,whetherthisjusticationcanbeªGettier-izedº.Iwillnotattemptaninvestigationofsuchquestions;Žletmerathergiveonereasonthatgraspingmustbesomethingoverandaboveknowledge(therebydissentingfromtheviewofKhalifa(óþÕó),whootherwisepresentssomethingmuchlikethesimpleview).Someonewithrelativelylittleunderstandingofchemistrycan,Ithink,knowthatwaterismadeupofHóO,orthatmercuryisametal.Buttheydonottherebygraspthatthesestatesofašairsholdinthesenserequiredforunderstandingthechemicalpropertiesofwaterormercury.Inthesamewaythatunderstandingthatthecatisonthematrequiresanappreciationofthe ì.Bestnottotreatthewordªwhyºinªunderstandingwhyºasanimplicitrestriction:somekindsofunderstandingwhywouldbemoreidiomaticallyexpressedasunderstandinghow(Khalifainpress).Forexample,itisperhapsmorenaturaltospeakofunderstandinghowthedinosaurswentextinctthanunderstandingwhytheywentextinct,thoughthereisnointerestingdišerencebetweenthetwo:eitherway,whatisrequiredisacorrectexplanationoftheextinction.¦.CompareHempel's(ÕÉä¢,§¦.Õ)discussionofvarioussensesofthetermexplanation.Kvanvig(óþþì)makesabroadlysimilar,thoughnotidentical,distinctionbetweenªobjectualunderstandingºandªpropositionalunderstandingº.Hisªexplanatoryunderstandingº,aspeciesofobjectualunderstanding,ismoreorlessmyunderstandingwhy.¢.ForadiscussionofthegrowingliteratureonthistopicfromGrimm,Kvanvig,andothers,seeMorris(inpress).¦ nameforthisdirectapprehension.ØWhatisgrasping,orunderstandingthat,ordirectapprehension,then?Itisthefundamentalrelationbetweenmindandworld,invirtueofwhichthemindhaswhateverfamiliarityitdoeswiththewaytheworldis.equestionofthenatureofthisrelationisperhapsthedeepestinallphilosophy;Iwillnottrytomakeanyprogressonitinthispaper.atmeans,ofcourse,thatthispaperwillnotpretendtogiveacompleteaccountofunderstandingwhy;itsaimisrathertoshowhowsuchanaccountshoulddependonindependentaccountsofgraspingandofexplanation(thelatterofwhichwearemuchclosertohaving,Ithink,thantheformer).Letmegiveanswerstotwoshortquestionsaboutgrasping,however.First:isgraspingfactive?Mustthecatbeonthemat,ifyouaretograspthatthecatisonthemat?Factivityseemstobeimpliedbytheªgraspingthatºlocution;nevertheless,afriendofthesimpleviewmight,Isuppose,ndthisimplicationunwelcome.Letmethereforebriežydevelopanon-factivenotiontoparallelªgraspingthatº.Supposethatgraspinghastwocomponents:apurelypsychological(orªnarrowº)component,andtheobtainingofthegraspedstateofašairs.Whatiswantedisthepurelypsychologicalstate,thestatethatwouldpersistinyourmindifanevildemon,atthemomentofyourgraspingthatthecatisonthemat,destroyedthecatwhilemaintaininginyourmindtheappearanceofanenmattedcat.Callthisstategrasping*.enthesimpleviewmightbereformulatedasfollows:Anindividualhasscienticunderstandingofaphenomenonjustincasetheygrasp*acorrectscienticexplanationofthatphenomenon.Inmyview,anexplanationiscorrectonlyifitsconstitutivepropositionsaretrue,sothisreformulationisadišerencethatmakesnodišerence,butthenotionofgrasping*willndaphilosophicaluseinwhatfollows. ä.WhatIhavesaidintheseparagraphsiscompatible,note,withtheviewthatunderstand-ingthatisaspecialkindofknowledge(Grimmóþþä),hencethatknowledgeisnecessarybutnotsu›cientforunderstandingthat.ä necessaryconditionforscienticunderstanding.Andyet...considerthreereasonsforthinkingthatamorenuancedatti-tudetoexplanatorycorrectnessisrequired.First,manyexplanatorymodelsinsciencecontainidealizations;inter-pretedliterally,thesemodelsarefalse.Scientistsgainunderstanding,never-theless,bygraspingidealizedmodels.Areasontoabandonthesimpleview'srequirementofexplanatorycorrectness(Elginóþþß)?No;atmostareasontousethetermcorrectratherthan,say,trueÐasthesimpleviewalreadydoes.Why?eapparentfalsehoodofsomemodelsdoesnotstandinthewayofexplanation,butthatofothersÐastheyoungearthcreationistcaseshowsÐmostcertainlydoes.eformerclassofmodelsareªcorrectºinasensethatthelatterclassarenot.eircorrectnesscannot,ofcourse,consistintheirliteraltruth.Butifidealizingexplanationisgovernedbyanystandardatall,thereisatranslationmanualthat,foranyidealizedmodelandcontextof(re)production,picksoutasetofpropositionsthatstatethefactsabouttheworldthatmustobtainifthemodelistobeexplanatory,andinvirtueofwhichthemodelisexplanatory,iftheydoobtain.Calltheseputativefactstheexplanatorycontentofthemodel.Inthesimplestkindofidealizedmodel,ªAllFsareGºmighttranslateto,thushavetheexplanatorycontent,ªAlmostallFsareGº.OritmighthavetheexplanatorycontentªInconditionsC,allFsareGº,wheretheconditionsCaredeterminedbythecontextofproductionÐtheintentionsoftheexplainer,forexample.Myownviewofthenatureofthetranslationmanualismorecomplex(Strevensóþþ˜,chap.˜).IholdthatidealizationsthatappeartomakesomefalseassumptionabouttheworldÐforexample,theassumptionthattherearenolong-rangeintermolecularforces(intheidealgasmodel),thatbiologicalpopulationsareinnite(insomeevolutionarymodels),thathumanshaveperfectinstrumentalrationality(ineconomicmodels)Ðinfactmaketrueclaimsaboutdišerence-making.˜ SofarIhaveputthebroadandnarrowsensesofunderstandingwhyonapar.Letmenowdiscriminate:Ithinkthatoureverydayattributionsofunderstandingarealmostalwaysbroad.Forexample,Icannotthinkofanyconversationalcontextinwhichitiscorrecttosay,withoutfrantichedging,thattheyoungearthcreationistsunderstandtheformationoftheGrandCanyon,orthatthephlogistontheoristsunderstoodcombustion.(Perhapsyoucansaythatthephlogistontheoristshadawayofunderstandingcom-bustion,butthatitwasanincorrectway,andsotheydidnotachievetheunderstandingthattheysought.)Further,Idonotthinkthathavingnarrowunderstandingisthatmuchcloserthanhavingbroadunderstandingtothepurelyphenomenalªsenseofunderstandingº.Eveniftheyoungearthcreationists'explanationweretoviolatetheinternalstandardsforexplanatoriness,theymightexperienceasenseofunderstanding,apsychologicalorbrainstateÐtheringofU-bers?Ðwhichpresumablycaninpathologicalcasesbecomeuncoupledfromanyexplanatorynorm(Troutóþþß).ethirdreasontothinkthatthecorrectnessofanexplanationis(atleastsometimes)toohighastandardforunderstandingarisesinsomecaseswhenitisatheory,ratherthanaphenomenonorstateofašairs,thatisthesubjectoftheunderstandingclaim:sometimeswetalkaboutunderstandingfalsetheories.HighschoolgraduatesareexpectedtounderstandNewtonianphysics;historiansofchemistryaresupposedtounderstandphlogistontheory;andmanycosmologistsfeelthattheyunderstandtheinžationmodeloftheearlyuniverseinasensethatisindependentofwhetheritultimatelyturnsouttobecorrect.isrepresents,Isuggest,athirdsenseofªunderstandingºthatmightbecalledunderstandingwith;theobjectofthisunderstandingis,asIhavesaid,atheoryratherthanaphenomenonorstateofašairs.Likeunderstandingwhy,andunlikeunderstandingthat,understandingwithinvolvesmasteringascienticexplanation:tounderstandatheoryinthisnewsenseistobeÕÕ intheªwhyºsenseistograspacorrectexplanationofthatthing.Itfollowsthatwhateverhasnoexplanation,cannotbeunderstood.Counterexample:Asfarasweknow,generalrelativityisafundamentaltheory(putasideitsdi›cultrelationshipwithquantummechanics).Assuch,ithasnoscienticexplanation;wecanuserelativitytoexplainmanythings,butwecannotexplainrelativityitselfusingfurtherlawsofnature,orelsethoselaws,notrelativity,wouldbewhatisfundamental.‡esimpleviewimplies,then,thatgeneralrelativitycannotbeunderstoodÐaconclusionatoddswithourattributionsofunderstandingtocompetentphysicists.eresponsetotheobjectionis,ofcourse,todistinguishunderstandingwithandunderstandingwhy.Physicistsunderstandwithrelativity,andthatiswhatwemeanwhenwesaythattheyunderstandgeneralrelativity.ButtheydonotunderstandwhythetheoryofrelativityistrueÐwhy,forexample,massinteractswithspace-timeinthewaythatthetheorystipulates.Nooneunderstandsthat;perhapsnooneeverwill.¦.BriefObjectionsandRepliesObjection:Understandingisapreconditionfor,notaproductof,correctexpla-nation.Reply:Trueinmanyways.ªUnderstandingthatºandªunderstandingwithºarepreconditionsforeveryexplanation.Butunderstandingwhyaphenomenonobtainsisnotapreconditionforconstructinganexplanationofthatphe-nomenon;thetwoarriveastwins,likeproofandknowledgeinmathematics.Objection:ªUnderstandingwhyºcomesindegrees;correctlyexplainingisanallornothingmatter.Reply:First,distinctionscanbemadebetweencorrectexplanationsofthe ˜.HereIassumethatalawcanbeexplainedonlyintermsofmorefundamentallaws.isisasubstantivepremise,butIknownoaccountofexplanationthatrejectsit.Õì Objection:Understandingisactive;itinvolvesnotonlythecomprehensionofatheorybuttheabilitytoputthetheorytouse(Grimmóþþä;deRegtóþþÉ).Sounderstandingcannotbeamatterofmerelygraspingpropositions.Reply:Someunderstandingisarguablyactive,namely,understandingwith,ifitisinterpretedasinvolvinganabilitytoconstructexplanations.Insofarasunderstandingisamatterofªmerelyºgraspingpropositions,however,itisunderstandingwhy.usitispossibletohaveitbothways:acertainkindofunderstandingismatterofgraspingpropositions,andacertainkindofunderstandingisamatterofhavingaparticularability,buttheyarenotthesamekind.Whynotaddanactivecomponenttounderstandingwhy?Whynotinsist,forexample,thattounderstandaphenomenon,youmustnotonlygraspacorrectexplanationofthephenomenon,butbecapableofconstructingthatexplanationfromitsparts(deRegtandDieksóþþ¢;deRegtóþþÉ)?Sucharequirementisfartoostrongtocaptureordinaryunderstandingtalk,Ithink:wemayunderstandtidalphenomena,say,withouthavingtheabilityÐforlackofphysicalimagination,mathematicalcreativity,orwhateverÐtoputtogetheranexplanationofthetidesfromgravitationalphysics.Tohavesuchanabilityisnodoubtstrongevidenceforunderstanding,butitisnotapreconditionforunderstanding.Perhapssomethingweakercouldbeaddedinstead;say,thattounderstandaphenomenonistohavetheabilitytoseehowitsoccurrencetsacorrectexplanatorymodel?atabilityisalreadyrequiredbythesimpleview:tograspwhatIcalledinthepreviousreplyanexplanation'sstateofinterrelationistoseehowtheexplanandumfollowsfromthemodel.Objection:Lipton(óþþÉ)givesgoodreasonstothinkthatunderstandingcancomebygraspingfactsthatarenotexplanatory.Reply:IconsidertwoofLipton'sexampleshere;su›ceittosaythattheydonotexhaustthecontentofthissubtlepaper(anotheraspectofwhichIÕ¢ Casetwo.Inamatchbetweentwoboxers,MalloyandWilson,itisagreedthatMalloywilltakeafallinthetenthround,althoughheisthefarsuperiorboxer.Asithappens,WilsonfellsMalloyintheŸhroundwithaªluckyuppercutº.LiptonarguesthatsomeonewhoknowsonlythattheghtisxedinWilson'sfavorcanunderstandwhyWilsonwins,eventhoughtheexplanationofthewindependsentirelyonthefortuitouspunch,astateofašairsindependentofthematch-xing.Itseemstomequitetendentious,however,thatthereisgenuineunder-standinginthiscase.Lipton'sspectatormaythinkthattheyunderstandwhyWilsonwon,buttheydonot,becausetheygraspthewrongexplanationforthematch'sresult.(Ishouldalsoaddthatanumberofwritershavearguedthatªbackupcausesºsuchasthematch-xingarrangementdofeatureincorrectscienticexplanationsÐseeforexampleRailton(ÕɘÕ)ontheimportanceoftherobustnessofcausalprocessesinstatisticalmechanics,JacksonandPettit(ÕÉÉó)andWoodward(óþþì)ÐalthoughIdonotmyselfthinkthatthisisquitecorrect.)Objection:WhatabouttheVerstehentraditioninthesocialsciences?Reply:esubjectofthispaperisakindofunderstandingthatisfoundacrossthesciences,inphysicsandbiologyaswellasinanthropologyandsociology.equestionwhetherthereisaspecialkindofunderstandingpropertothelatterdisciplineswouldrequireanintensiveexaminationofthedišerencesbetweenthenaturalandhumansciences,somethingthatiswellbeyondthescopeofthispaper.¢.Conclusionerearethreesensesinwhichitcanbesaidthatyouun-derstandastateofašairs:youmightunderstandthatitobtains,youmightunderstandwhyitobtains,andifitisatheoryoratheorypart,youmightunderstandhowtouseittoexplainotherstatesofašairs.eseareunder- fascinatingquestionthatcannotpossiblybeadequatelytreatedhere.Õß ReferencesdeRegt,H.W.(óþþÉ).eepistemicvalueofunderstanding.PhilosophyofScienceßä:¢˜¢±¢Éß.deRegt,H.W.andD.Dieks.(óþþ¢).Acontextualapproachtoscienticunderstanding.SyntheseÕ¦¦:Õìß±Õßþ.Elgin,C.(ÕÉÉÉ).Educationandtheadvancementofunderstanding.IneProceedingsoftheTwentiethWorldCongressofPhilosophy,volumeì,pp.ÕìÕ±Õ¦þ.ÐÐÐ.(óþþß).Understandingandthefacts.PhilosophicalStudiesÕìó:ì챦ó.Grimm,S.R.(óþþä).Isunderstandingaspeciesofknowledge?BritishJournalforthePhilosophyofScience¢ß:¢Õ¢±¢ì¢.Hempel,C.G.(ÕÉä¢).Aspectsofscienticexplanation.InAspectsofScienticExplanation,chap.Õó,pp.ììÕ±¦Éä.FreePress,NewYork.Hempel,C.G.andP.Oppenheim.(Õɦ˜).Studiesinthelogicofexplanation.PhilosophyofScienceÕ¢:Õ좱Õߢ.Jackson,F.andP.Pettit.(ÕÉÉó).Indefenseofexplanatoryecumenism.Eco-nomicsandPhilosophy˜:Õ±óÕ.Khalifa,K.(óþÕó).Inauguratingunderstandingorrepackagingexplanation?PhilosophyofScienceßÉ:Õ¢±ìß.ÐÐÐ.(Inpress).Isunderstandingexplanatoryorobjectual?Synthese.Kitcher,P.(ÕɘÕ).Explanatoryunication.PhilosophyofScience¦˜:¢þß±¢ìÕ.Kvanvig,J.L.(óþþì).eValueofKnowledgeandthePursuitofUnderstanding.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.ÕÉ

By: olivia-moreira
Views: 173
Type: Public

Download Section


Download Pdf - The PPT/PDF document "No Understanding without Explanation Mic..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.

View more...

If you wait a while, download link will show on top.Please download the presentation after loading the download link.

No Understanding without Explanation Michael Strevens Studies in History and Philosophy of Science fZh Scientic understanding this paper argues can be analyzed entirely in terms of a mental act of - Description


To understand why a phenomenon occurs is to grasp a correct explanation of the phenomenon To understand a scienti57501c theory is to be able to construct or at least to grasp a range of potential explanations in which that theory accounts for other ID: 6045 Download Pdf

Related Documents