It is also becoming an increasingly popular position to hold that understanding is more epistemically valuable than knowledge (see Kvanvig 2003; Pritchard 2010). [] To this end, the first section offers an overview of the different types of understanding discussed in the literature, though their features are gradually explored in more depth throughout later sections. Pritchard, D. Knowledge and Understanding in A. Fairweather (ed. Nevertheless, considering weakly factive construals of objective understanding draws attention to an important pointthat there are also interesting epistemic states in the neighborhood of understanding. Although a large number of epistemologists hold that understanding is not a species of knowledge (e.g. 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). In addition, it is important to make explicit differences in terminology that can sometimes confuse discussions of some types of understanding. The Pros And Cons Of Epistemology. Both are veritic types of luck on Pritchards viewthey are present when, given how one came to have ones true belief, it is a matter of luck that this belief is true (Pritchard 2005: 146). But it is not strictly true. Firstly, Wilkenfelds context-sensitive approach is in tension with a more plausible diagnosis of the example just considered: rather than to withhold attributing understanding in the case where the student is surrounded by experts, why notinsteadand in a way that is congruous with the earlier observation that understanding comes in degreesattribute understanding to the student surrounded by experts, but to a lesser degree (for example, Tim has some understanding of physics, while the professor has a much more complete understanding).
What (Good) is Historical Epistemology? | MPIWG Usually philosophical problems are overcome not by their resolution but rather by redefinition. 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. Pros and Cons of Epistemological Shift Epistemology refers to a dynamic concept that shows how humans understand knowledge, which entails how it is received, classified, justified, and transmitted in distinctive ways and at different periods in history. However, advocates of moderate approaches to the factivity of understanding are left with some difficult questions to answer.
Pros and cons of the epistemological shift - Ideal Term Papers Knowledge is almost universally taken to be to be factive (compare, Hazlett 2010). Discuss the pros and cons of the epistemological shift in an essay. For example, in Whitcomb (2011) we find the suggestion that theoretical wisdom is a form of particularly deep understanding.
PHIL 201 AIU Philosophy Pros & Cons of The Epistemological Shift Essay Goldman, A. 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. Early defence of explanations key role in understanding. Pritchard, D. Epistemic Luck. While his view fits well with understanding-why, it is less obvious that objectual understanding involves grasping how things came to be. For one thing, it is prudent to note up front that there are uses of understanding that, while important more generally in philosophy, fall outside the purview of mainstream epistemology. It is the idea that one has shifted, or changed, the way he or she takes in knowledge (Rayner, 2011).The fact that taking in knowledge has altered is evident in learning institutions today. It is just dumb luck the genuine sheep happened to be in the field. So the kind of knowledge that it provides is metaknowledgeknowledge about knowledge.
epistemological shift pros and cons - kaminokawa-shokokai.net At the other end of the spectrum, we might consider an extremely strong view of understandings factivity, according to which understanding a subject matter requires that all of ones beliefs about the subject matter in question are true. Whether wisdom might be a type of understanding or understanding might be a component of wisdom is a fascinating question that can draw on both work in virtue ethics and epistemology. However, this concern might be abated with the addition of a moderate factivity constraint (for example, the constraint discussed in section two above) that rules out cases of mere intelligibility or subjective understanding). Regarding factivity, then, it seems there is room for a view that occupies the middle ground here. 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. 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? 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). 824 Words. ), Fictions in Science: Essays on Idealization and Modeling. Van Camp, W. Explaining Understanding (or Understanding Explanation. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 4(1) (2014): 95-114. Call these, for short, the relation question and the object question. Discusses and defines ability in the sense often appealed to in work on cognitive ability and the value of knowledge. ), Knowledge, Truth and Obligation. London: Continuum, 2012. Perhaps the strongest of these is his suggestion that while the faculty of rational insight is indispensable to the grasping account of a priori, it is actually essential to knowledge of causes that it not be grasped through rational insight. 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. epistemological shift pros and cons. Meanwhile, when discussing outright (as opposed to ideal) understanding, Kelp suggests that we adopt a contextualist perspective. His central claim is that curiosity provides hope for a response-dependent or behaviour-centred explanation of the value of whatever curiosity involves or aims at. Grimm develops this original position via parity of reasoning, taking as a starting point that the debate about a priori knowledge, for example, knowledge of necessary truths, makes use of metaphors of grasping and seeing that are akin to the ones in the understanding debate. His alternative suggestion is to propose explanation as the ideal of understanding, a suggestion that has as a consequence that one should measure degrees of understanding according to how well one approximate[s] the benefits provided by knowing a good and correct explanation. Khalifa submits that this line is supported by the existence of a correct and reasonably good explanation in the background of all cases of understanding-why that does not involve knowledge of an explanationa background explanation that would, if known, provide a greater degree of understanding-why. Therefore, the need to adopt a weak factivity constraint on objectual understandingat least on the basis of cases that feature idealizationslooks at least initially to be unmotivated in the absence of a more sophisticated view about the relationship between factivity, belief and acceptance (however, see Elgin 2004). Riggs, W. Why Epistemologists Are So Down on Their Luck. Synthese 158 (3) (2007): 329-344. Salmon, W. Four Decades of Scientific Explanation. In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. His view is that understanding requires the agent to, in counterfactual situations salient to the context, be able to modify their mental representation of the subject matter. Utilize at least 2 credible sources to support your position presented in the paper. If so, then the internally consistent delusion objection typically leveled against weakly nonfactive views raises its head. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013. For that reason, these will be addressed before moving on to the more explicitly epistemological concerns. Many seem to blend manipulationism with explanations, suggesting for example that what is required for understanding is an ability associated with mentally manipulating explanations. However, Pritchards work on epistemic luck (for example, 2005) and how it is incompatible with knowledge leads him to reason that understanding is immune to some but not all forms of malignant luck (that is, luck which is incompatible with knowledge).
Pros and Cons of Epistemological Shift. Social Sciences - EssayZoo To the extent that this is right, Zagzebski is endorsing a kind of KU principle (compare: KK). An overview of wisdom, including its potential relationship to understanding. The epistemological shift in the present In the study of epistemology, philosophers are concerned with the epistemological shift. ), The Stanford Enclopedia of Philosophy. Uses the hypothesis of extended cognition to argue that understanding can be located (at least partly) outside the head. ), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology (2nd Edition). 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. The Varieties of Cognitive Success 1.1 What Kinds of Things Enjoy Cognitive Success? Kelp points out that this type of view is not so restrictive as to deny understanding to, for example, novice students and young children. As such, Khalifa is not attempting to provide an analysis of grasping. Suppose further that the agent could have easily ended up with a made-up and incorrect explanation because (unbeknownst to the agent) everyone in the vicinity of the genuine fire officer who is consulted is dressed up as fire officers and would have given the wrong story (whilst failing to disclose that they were merely in costume). Pritchard, D. The Value of Knowledge: Understanding. In A. Haddock, A. Millar and D. Pritchard (eds. Defends a lack of control account of luck. An important observation Grimm makes is that merely assenting to necessary truths is insufficient for knowing necessary truths a priorione must also grasp orsee the necessity of the necessary truth. 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.. Endorses the idea that when we consider how things would be if something was true, we increase our access to further truths. His modal model of understanding fits with the intuition that we understand not propositions but relations between parts to wholes or systems of various thoughts.. This view, he notes, can make sense of the example (see 3(b))which he utilizes against manipulationists accountsof the omniscient, omni-understanding agent who is passive (that is, an omni-understanding agent who is not actively drawing explanatory inferences) as one would likely attribute to this agent maximally well-connected knowledge in spite of that passivity. Taking curiosity to be of epistemic significance is not a new idea. This is the idea that one has shifted, or changed, the way he or she takes in knowledge. Kepler improved on Copernicus by contending that the Earths orbit is not circular, but elliptical. In this Gettier-style case, she has good reason to believe her true beliefs, but the source of these beliefs (for example, the rumor mill) is highly unreliable and this makes her beliefs only luckily true, in the sense of intervening epistemic luck.
epistemological shift pros and cons - erikapowers.com Longworth, G. Linguistic Understanding and Knowledge. Nous 42 (2008): 50-79. If a grasping condition is necessary for understanding, does one satisfy this condition only when one exercises a grasping ability to reflect how things are in the world? As Kvanvig sees it, knowing requires non-accidental links between (internal) mental states and external events in just the right way. Description Recall that epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. Fourthly, a relatively fertile area for further research concerns the semantics of understanding attribution. The Psychology of Scientific Explanation. Philosophy Compass 2(3) (2007): 564-591. This holds regardless of whether we are Platonists or nominalists about such entities. In this respect, it seems Kelps move against the manipulationist might get off the ground only if certain premises are in play which manipulationists as such would themselves be inclined to resist. Contains the famous counterexamples to the Justified True Belief account of knowledge. Epistemology is the study nature of human knowledge itself. as in testimony cases in friendly environments, where knowledge acquisition demands very little on the part of the agent), he argues that cognitive achievement is not essentially wedded to knowledge (as robust virtue epistemologists would hold). Epistemology is a branch in philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge. Zagzebski (2001), whose view maintains that at least not all cases of understanding require true beliefs, gestures to something like this view. Stephen P. Stitch: The Fragmentation of Reason. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 51(1) (1991): 189-193. In particular, how we might define expertise and who has it. Even so, and especially over the past decade, there has been agreement amongst most epistemologists working on epistemic value that that understanding is particularly valuable (though see Janvid 2012 for a rare dissenting voice). Armed with this distinction, Pritchard criticizes Kvanvigs assessment of the Comanche case by suggesting that just how we should regard understanding as being compatible or incompatible with epistemic luck depends on how we fill out the details of Kvanvigs case, which is potentially ambiguous between two kinds of readings. 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. Much of the philosophical tradition has viewed the central epistemological problems concerning perception largely and sometimes exclusively in terms of the metaphysical responses to skepticism. The advances are clearly cognitive advances.
Digital Culture and Shifting Epistemology - hybridpedagogy.org DePaul, M. Ugly Analysis and Value in A. Haddock, A. Millar and D. Pritchard (eds. 1pt1): pp. A good example here is what Riggs (2003) calls intelligibility, a close cousin of understanding that also implies a grasp of order, pattern and connection, but does not seem to require a substantial connection to truth. Kelp, C. Understanding Phenomena. Synthese (2015). Stanley, J. In short, then, Kvanvig wants to insist that the true beliefs that one attains in acquiring ones understanding can all be Gettiered, even though the Gettier-style luck which prevents these beliefs from qualifying as knowledge does not undermine the understanding this individual acquires. He suggests that the primary object of a priori knowledge is the modal reality itself that is grasped by the mind and that on this basis we go on to assent to the proposition that describes these relationships. 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. These retractions do not t seem to make sense on the weak view. Strong cognitive achievement: Cognitive success that is because of ones cognitive ability where the success in question either involves the overcoming of a significant obstacle or the exercise of a significant level of cognitive ability. What is the grasping relation? ), Epistemology (Royal Institute of Philosophy Lectures). Zagzebski notes that this easily leads to a vicious circle because neglect leads to fragmentation of meaning, which seems to justify further neglect and further fragmentation until eventually a concept can disappear entirely.. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1979. Given that the result is the same (that is, the patients heart muscle blood supply is improved) regardless of whether he successfully completes the operation by luck or by skill, the instrumental value of the action is the same. Despite the fact that Copernicuss central claim was strictly false, the theory it belongs to constitutes a major advance in understanding over the Ptolemaic theory it replaced. An in-depth exploration of different types of epistemic luck. ), The Nature and Value of Knowledge: Three Investigations. In particular, as Pritchard suggests, we might want to consider that agents working with the ideal gas law or other idealizations do not necessarily have false beliefs as a result, even if the content of the proposition expressed by the law is not strictly true. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. 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. Claims that understanding is entirely compatible with both intervening and environmental forms of veritic luck. 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-017-0863-z. Morris, K. A Defense of Lucky Understanding. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63 (2012): 357-371. To the extent that such a move is available, one has reason to resist Morriss rationale for resisting Pritchards diagnosis of Kvanvigs case. 4 Pages. In the study of epistemology, philosophers are concerned with the epistemological shift.