epistemological shift pros and cons

On the basis of considerations Pritchard argues for in various places (2010; 2012; 2013; 2014), relating to cognitive achievements presence in the absence of knowledge (for example. Moral Testimony and Moral Epistemology. Ethics 120 (2009): 94-127. To what extent do the advantages and disadvantages of, for example, sensitive invariantist, contextualist, insensitive invariantist and relativist approaches to knowledge attributions find parallels in the case of understanding attributions. 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. Regarding factivity, then, it seems there is room for a view that occupies the middle ground here. Discusses the connection between curiosity and true belief. 13. View Shift in Epistemology.docx from SOCIOLOGY 1010 at Columbia Southern University. Specifically, he points out that an omniscient agent who knows everything and intuitively therefore understands every phenomenon might do so while being entirely passivenot drawing interferences, making predictions or manipulating representations (in spite of knowing, for example, which propositions can be inferred from others). This paper proposes a revisionist view of epistemic value and an outline of different types of understanding. 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). al 2014), have for understanding? Firstly, grasping is often used in such a way such that it is not clear whether it should be understood metaphorically or literally. It is clearly cognitively better than the belief that humans did not evolve. In the first version, we are to imagine that the agent gets her beliefs from a faux-academic book filled with mere rumors that turn out to be luckily true. 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). 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). 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. For example, Kvanvig (2003: 206) observes that we have an ordinary conception that understanding is a milestone to be achieved by long and sustained efforts at knowledge acquisition and Whitcomb (2012: 8) reflects that understanding is widely taken to be a higher epistemic good: a state that is like knowledge and true belief, but even better, epistemically speaking. Yet, these observations do not fit with the weak views commitment to, for example, the claim that understanding is achievable in cases of delusional hallucinations that are disconnected from the facts about how the world is. So, understanding is compatible with a kind of epistemic luck that knowledge excludes. 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? Philip Kitcher and Wesley Salmon. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1975. 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. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. CA: Wadsworth, 2009. For example, you read many of your books on screens and e-readers today. That is, there is something defective about a scientists would-be understanding of gas behavior were that scientist, unlike all other competent scientists, to reject that the ideal gas law is an idealization and instead embraced it as a fact. Proposes a framework for reducing objectual understanding to what he calls explanatory understanding. 115, No. The Nature of Ability and the Purpose of Knowledge. Philosophical Issues 17 (2007): 57-69. For one thing, abstract objects, such as mathematical truths and other atemporal phenomena, can plausibly be understood even though our understanding of them does not seem to require an appreciation of their coming to existence. endangered species in the boreal forest; etown high school basketball roster. These similar states share some of the features we typically think understanding requires, but which are not bona fide understanding specifically because a plausible factivity condition is not satisfied. An overview of coherentism that can be useful when considering how theories of coherence might be used to flesh out the grasping condition on understanding. In particular, one might be tempted to suggest that some of the objections raised to Grimms non-propositional knowledge-of-causes model could be recast as objections to Khalifas own explanation-based view. Pritchard maintains that it is intuitive that in the case just described understanding is attainedyou have consulted a genuine fire officer and have received all the true beliefs required for understanding why your house burned down, and acquire this understanding in the right way. Bradford, G. The Value of Achievements. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 94(2) (2013): 204-224. This is the idea that one has shifted, or changed, the way he or she takes in knowledge. Longworth, G. Linguistic Understanding and Knowledge. Nous 42 (2008): 50-79. Goldman, A. Call these, for short, the relation question and the object question. The Psychology of Scientific Explanation. Philosophy Compass 2(3) (2007): 564-591. More specifically, Kvanvig aims to support the contention that objectual understanding has a special value knowledge lacks by arguing that the nature of curiositythe motivational element that drives cognitive machinery (2013: 152)underwrites a way of vindicating understandings final value. Given that the instrumental value is the same, our reaction to the two contrasting bypass cases seems to count in favor of the final value of successes because of abilityachievements. ), The Nature and Value of Knowledge: Three Investigations. Make sure you cite them appropriately within your paper and list them in APA format on your Reference page. Since what Grimm is calling subjective understanding (that is, Riggss intelligibility) is by stipulation essentially not factive, the question of the factivity of subjective understanding simply does not arise. With each step in the sequence, we understand the motion of the planets better than we did before. Goldman, A. He concedes, though, that sometimes curiosity on a smaller scale can be sated by epistemic justification, and that what seems like understanding, but is actually just intelligibility, can sate the appetite when one is deceived. Utilize at least 2 credible sources to support the arguments presented in the paper. However, Pritchard (2014) responds to Grimms latest proposal with a number of criticisms. ), Epistemic Value. That said, Hills adds some qualifications. 1pt1): pp. For example, in Whitcomb (2011) we find the suggestion that theoretical wisdom is a form of particularly deep understanding. The next section considers some of the most prominent examples of attempts to expand on or replace a grasping condition on understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. One issue worth bringing into sharper focus is whether knowing a good and correct explanation is really the ideal form of understanding-why. Riggs, W. Why Epistemologists Are So Down on Their Luck. Synthese 158 (3) (2007): 329-344. A potential worry then is that the achievement one attains when one understands chemistry need not involve the subject working the subject matterin this case, chemistryscause. For example, you read many of your books on screens and e-readers today. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2005. Grasping also allows the understander to anticipate what would happen if things were relevantly differentnamely, to make correct inferences about the ways in which relevant differences to the truth-values of the involved propositions would influence the inferences that obtain in the actual world. Defends views that hold explanation as indispensable for account of understanding and discusses what a non-factive account of grasping would look like. ), Justification and Knowledge. Consider here an analogy: a false belief can be subjectively indistinguishable from knowledge. 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. ), The Continuum Companion to Epistemology. Autore dell'articolo: Articolo pubblicato: 16/06/2022 Categoria dell'articolo: fixed gantry vs moving gantry cnc Commenti dell'articolo: andy's dopey transposition cipher andy's dopey transposition cipher 1. 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? Early defence of explanations key role in understanding. Emma C. Gordon For example, we might suppose an agent has a maximally complete explanation of how Michelangelos David came into existence between 1501 and 1504, what methods were used to craft it, what Michelangelos motivating reasons were at the time, how much clay was used, and so on. Resists Pritchards claim that there can be weak achievements, that is, ones that do not necessarily involve great effort. He considers that grasping might be a modal sense or ability that allows the understander to, over and above registering how things are. Proponents of weak factivity must address both of these potentially problematic results. Epistemological assumptions are those that focus on what can be known and how knowledge can be acquired (Bell, 8). ), Scientific Understanding: Philosophical Perspectives. Scotland, U.K. A Weak Factivity Constraint on Objectual Understanding, Moderate Views of Objectual Understandings Factivity, Understanding as Representation Manipulability, Understanding as Well-Connected Knowledge, Understanding as (Partially) Compatible with Epistemic Luck, Newer Defenses of Understandings Compatibility with Epistemic Luck. In other words, they claim that one cannot always tell that one understands. This is a change from the past. This is because Stella lacks beliefs on the matter, even though the students can gain understanding from her. This skeptical argument is worth engaging with, presumably with the goal of showing that understanding does not turn out to be internally indistinguishable from mere intelligibility. However, it is less clear at least initially that retreating from causal dependence to more general dependence will be of use in the kinds of objectual understanding cases noted above. That said, Grimms more recent work (2014) expands on these earlier observations to form the basis of a view that spells out grasping in terms of a modal relationship between properties, objects or entitiesa theory on which what is grasped when one has understanding-why will be how changes in one would lead (or fail to lead) to changes in the other. In terms of parallels with the understanding debate, it is important to note that the knowledge of causes formula is not limited to the traditional propositional reading. Epistemology is a way of framing knowledge, it defines how it can be produced and augmented. Pros and cons of epistemology shift Changes in epistemology even though they have received several criticisms they have significantly played a critical role in the advancement of technology. For example, in Whitcomb (2010: 8), we find the observation that understanding is widely taken to be a higher epistemic good: a state that is like knowledge and true belief, but even better, epistemically speaking. Meanwhile, Pritchard (2009: 11) notes as we might be tempted to put the point, we would surely rather understand than merely know. A helpful clarification here comes from Grimm (2012: 105), who in surveying the literature on the value of understanding points out that the suggestion seems to be that understanding (of a complex of some kind) is better than the corresponding item of propositional knowledge. The proponent of moderate factivity owes an explanation. Rationalism is an epistemological theory, so rationalism can be interpreted the distinct aspects or parts of the mind that are separate senses. Kvanvig, J. 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. Includes further discussion of the role of acceptance and belief in her view of understanding. A restatement of Grimms view might accordingly be: understanding is knowledge of dependence relations. 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. Assume that the surgeon is suffering from the onset of some degenerative mental disease and the first symptom is his forgetting which blood vessel he should be using to bypass the narrowed section of the coronary artery. Relation question: What is the grasping relationship? 824 Words. The cons of the epistemology shift that is a major concern to philosophers are the loss of, reading and communications since the student do not interact physically, these skills be instilled EPISTEMOLOGY SHIFT 5 by the teachers and through the help of physical environments. It will accordingly be helpful to narrow our focus to the varieties of understanding that feature most prominently in the epistemological literature. This type of a view is a revisionist theory of epistemic value (see, for example, Pritchard 2010), which suggests that one would be warranted in turning more attention to an epistemic state other than propositional knowledgespecifically, according to Pritchardunderstanding. Section 2 explores the connection between understanding and truth, with an eye to assessing in virtue of what understanding might be defended as factive. It is not only unnecessary, but moreover, contentious, that a credible scientist would consider the ideal gas law true. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. south east england accent; spend billionaires money game; kaplan data entry work from home. Khalifas (2013) view of understanding is a form of explanatory idealism. 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? Likewise, just as all understanding will presumably involve achieving intelligibility even though intelligibility does not entail understanding, so too will all grasping involve grasping* even though grasping* does not entail grasping. On the other hand, there are explanationists, who argue that it is knowledge or evaluation of explanations that is doing the relevant work. NY: Cambridge University Press, 2003. On this basis Pritchard insists that Grimms analogy breaks down. 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. This is the idea that one has shifted, or changed, the way he or she takes in knowledge. For one thing, she admits that these abilities can be possessed by degrees. Khalifa, K. Inaugurating understanding or repackaging explanation. Elgin, C. Exemplification, Idealization, and Understanding in M. Surez (ed. Elgin, C. Understanding and the Facts. Philosophical Studies 132 (2007): 33-42. For example, while it is easy to imagine a person who knows a lot yet seems to understand very little, think of the student who merely memorizes a stack of facts from a textbook; it is considerably harder to imagine someone who understands plenty yet knows hardly anything at all. Questions about when and what type of understanding is required for permissible assertion connect with issues related to expertise. ), Virtue Epistemology Naturalized: Bridges Between Virtue Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. Khalifa, K. Is Understanding Explanatory or Objectual? Synthese 190(6) (2013a): 1153-1171. Grimm thinks the metaphor involves something like apprehending how things stand in modal space (that is, that there are no possible worlds in which the necessary truth is false). What is the grasping relation? 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). In such a case, Kvanvig says, this individual acquires an historical understanding of the Comanche dominance of the Southern plains of North America from the late 17th until the late 19th century (2003: 197). 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. Consider a student saying, I thought I understood this subject, but my recent grade suggests I dont understand it after all. He takes his account to be roughly in line with the laymans concept of curiosity. Argues that requiring knowledge of an explanation is too strong a condition on understanding-why. An important question is whether there are philosophical considerations beyond simply intuition to adjudicate in a principled way why we should think about unifying understanding cases in one way rather than the other. 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). Secondly, she concedes that it is possible that in some cases additional abilities must be added before the set of abilities will be jointly sufficient. For example, by trusting someone I should not have trusted, or even worse, by reading tea leaves which happened to afford me true beliefs about chemistry. Description Recall that epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. To borrow a case from Riggs, stealing an Olympic medal or otherwise cheating to attain it lacks the kind of value one associates with earning the medal, through ones own skill. Grimm (2011) also advocates for a fairly straightforward manipulationist approach in earlier work. Stephen P. Stitch: The Fragmentation of Reason. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 51(1) (1991): 189-193. However, advocates of moderate approaches to the factivity of understanding are left with some difficult questions to answer. The topic of epistemic value has only relatively recently received sustained attention in mainstream epistemology. Argues that we should replace the main developed accounts of understanding with earlier accounts of scientific explanation. Discuss the pros and cons of the epistemological shift in an essay. Strevens (2013) focuses on scientific understanding in his discussion of grasping. He leaves grasping at the level of metaphor or uses it them literally but never develops it. Ginet, C. Knowledge, Perception and Memory. Since it is central to her take on human evolution, factivists like Kvanvig must conclude that her take on human evolution does not qualify as understanding. The root of the recent resurgence of interest in understanding in epistemology. Trout, J.D. For the purposes of thinking about understanding, some of the most important will include: (i) what makes a system of beliefs coherent? The advances are clearly cognitive advances. Bradford, G. Achievement. 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.. Such a theory raises questions of its own, such as precisely what answering reliably, in the relevant sense, demands. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1979. It should be noted that Hills 2009: 7 is also sympathetic to a similar thought, suggesting that the threshold for understanding might be contextually determined. Putting this all together, a scientist who embraces the ideal gas law, as an idealization, would not necessarily have any relevant false beliefs. An influential discussion of understanding is Kvanvigs (2003). Explores the epistemological role of exemplification and aims to illuminate the relationship between understanding and scientific idealizations construed as fictions. London: Continuum, 2003. . Endorses the idea that when we consider how things would be if something was true, we increase our access to further truths. Keplers theory is a further advance in understanding, and the current theory is yet a further advance. Argues that the concerns plaguing theories of knowledge do not cause problems for a theory of understanding. Elgin (2007), like Zagzebski, is sympathetic to a weak factivity constraint on objectual understanding, where the object of understanding is construed as a fairly comprehensive, coherent body of information (2007: 35). An overview of wisdom, including its potential relationship to understanding. Some focus on understanding-why while others focus on objectual understanding. An earlier paper defending the intellectualist view of know-how. Your paper should be 3-4 pages in length, not counting the Title page and Reference . Includes criticism of Kvanvigs line on epistemic luck and understanding. But it is not strictly true. 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. Hetherington, S. There Can be Lucky Knowledge in M. Steup, J. Turri and E. Sosa (eds. Rohwer, Y. Criticizes the claim that understanding-why should be identified with strong cognitive achievement. To defend the claim that possessing the kinds of abilities Hills draws attention to is not a matter of simply having extra items of knowledgeshe notes that one could have the extra items of knowledge and still lack the good judgment that allows you to form new, related true beliefs. Summary This chapter contains sections titled: Abstract Introduction Arguments Con Arguments Pro Ambivalence Concerning Relativism? Philosophy of Science, 79(1) (2012): 15-37. and claims that this goes along with a shift away from studying the cognitive subject's conceptual grasp of objects towards a "reflection on the . For example: Although a moderate view of understandings factivity may look promising in comparison with competitor accounts, many important details remain left to be spelled out. . His conception of mental representations defines these representations as computational structures with content that are susceptible to mental transformations. Wilkenfeld constructs a necessary condition on objectual understanding around this definition. 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. bella vista catholic charities housing; wills point tx funeral homes; ptvi triathlon distance; is frankie beverly in the hospital; birria tacos long branch; Such discussions, though they can be initially helpful, raise a nest of further questions. Another seemingly promising lineone that engages with the relation question discussed aboveviews grasping as intimately connected with a certain set of abilities. 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. But in this version of the case, suppose that, although the book is entirely authoritative, genuine and reliable, it is the only trustworthy book on the Comanche on the shelvesevery book on the shelves nearby, which she easily could have grabbed rather than the genuine authoritative book, was filled with rumors and ungrounded suppositions. 4 Pages. As Zagzebski (2009: 141) remarks, different uses of understanding seem to mean so many different things that it is hard to identify the state that has been ignored (italics added). Understanding entails that such beliefs must be the result of exercising reliable cognitive abilities. 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). 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? ), Epistemology (Royal Institute of Philosophy Lectures). But most knowledge is not metaknowledge, and epistemology is therefore a relatively insignificant source of knowledge. Attempts to explain away the intuitions suggesting that lucky understanding is incompatible with epistemic luck. Uses the concept of understanding to underwrite a theory of explanation. It is just dumb luck the genuine sheep happened to be in the field. The childs opinion displays some grasp of evolution. Epistemology is a branch in philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge. Strevens, M. No Understanding Without Explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44 (2013): 510-515. Wilkenfeld (2013) offers the account that most clearly falls under Kelps characterization of manipulationist approaches to understanding. Riggs (2003: 21-22) asks whether an explanation has to be true to provide understanding, and Strevens thinks that it is implied that grasping is factive. Although the analysis of the value of epistemic states has roots in Plato and Aristotle, this renewed and more intense interest was initially inspired by two coinciding trends in epistemology. But is understanding factive? Cases of intervening luck taketo use a simple examplethe familiar pattern of Chisholms sheep in a field case, where an agent sees a sheep-shaped rock which looks just like a sheep, and forms the belief There is a sheep. Baker, L. R. Third Person Understanding in A. Sanford (ed. London: Routledge, 2009. 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). Kvanvig 2003; Zagzebski 2001; Riggs 2003; Pritchard 2010), Grimms view is rooted in a view that comes from the philosophy of science and traces originally to Aristotle. How should we distinguish between peripheral beliefs about a subject matter and beliefs that are not properly, Understanding entails true beliefs of the form. For example, you read many of your books on screens and e-readers today. For example, you read many of your books on screens and e-readers today. In looking at moral understanding-why, outlines some key abilities that may be necessary to the grasping component of understanding. Essentially, this view traditionally holds that understanding why X is the case is equivalent to knowing why X is the case (which is in turn supposed to be equivalent to knowing that X is the case because of Y). Claims that understanding is entirely compatible with both intervening and environmental forms of veritic luck. This aside, can we consider extending Grimms conception of understanding as non-propositional knowledge of causes to the domain of objectual understanding? According to Goldman (1991) curiosity is a desire for true belief; by contrast, Williamson views curiosity as a desire for knowledge. Epistemology is the study of sources of knowledge. An overview of the background, development and recent issues in epistemology, including a chapter on understanding as an epistemic good. Lucky Understanding Without Knowledge. Synthese 191 (2014): 945-959. Whitcomb also cites Alston (2005) as endorsing a stronger view, according to which true belief or knowledge gets at least some of its epistemic value from its connection to, and satisfaction of, curiosity.

Does Blocking Someone On Tiktok Deleted Messages, Burton Balaclava Over Helmet, 1972 Marshall Football Team Roster, Christine Dunford Husband, Pitt Community College Registration, Articles E