Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-npwhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-27T05:48:36.638Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inaugurating Understanding or Repackaging Explanation?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Kareem Khalifa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 79 , Issue 1 , January 2012 , pp. 15 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

‡

This article was written at the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Philosophy of Science during a sabbatical funded by Middlebury College. I thank both institutions for their support. This article has also benefited from conversations with Pierluigi Barrotta, Jim Bogen, Henk de Regt, Heather Douglas, Benny Goldberg, Hylarie Kochiras, Bert Leuridan, P. D. Magnus, Ken Manders, Sandy Mitchell, John Norton, Richard Samuels, Samuel Schindler, Susan Sterrett, J. D. Trout, Peter Vickers, Ioannis Votsis, and Jim Woodward.

References

Achinstein, Peter. 1983. The Nature of Explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bechtel, William, ed. 1986. Integrating Scientific Disciplines. Dordrecht: Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogen, Jim. 2005. “Regularities and Causality: Generalizations and Causal Explanations.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36 (2): 397–420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cartwright, Nancy. 1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 2004. “From Causation to Explanation and Back.” In The Future for Philosophy, ed. Leiter, Brian, 230–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., and Glaser, R.. 1981. “Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices.” Cognitive Science 5 (2): 121–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craver, Carl F. 2007. Explaining the Brain: Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of Neuroscience. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, Lindley, and Maull, Nancy. 1977. “Interfield Theories.” Philosophy of Science 44 (1): 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Regt, Henk W. 2004. “Discussion Note: Making Sense of Understanding.” Philosophy of Science 71:98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Regt, Henk W.. 2009a. “The Epistemic Value of Understanding.” Philosophy of Science 76 (5): 585–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Regt, Henk W.. 2009b. “Understanding and Scientific Explanation.” In Regt, Leonelli, and Eigner 2009, 21–42.Google Scholar
de Regt, Henk W., and Dieks, Dennis. 2005. “A Contextual Approach to Scientific Understanding.” Synthese 144 (1): 137–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Regt, Henk W., Leonelli, Sabina, and Eigner, Kai, eds. 2009. Scientific Understanding: Philosophical Perspectives. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather E. 2009. “Reintroducing Prediction to Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 76 (4): 444–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., ed. 2006. The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feynman, Richard P., Leighton, R. B., and Sands, M. L.. 1965. The Feynman Lectures on Physics. vol. 2. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Galison, Peter L. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grimm, Stephen R. 2006. “Is Understanding a Species of Knowledge?” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (3): 515–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Stephen R.. 2008. “Explanatory Inquiry and the Need for Explanation.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (3): 481–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Stephen R.. 2009. “Reliability and the Sense of Understanding.” In Regt, Leonelli, and Eigner 2009, 83–99.Google Scholar
Grimm, Stephen R.. 2010. “The Goal of Understanding.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 41 (4): 337–44.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert. 1973. Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert. 1986. Change in View: Principles of Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hazen, T. C., et al. 2010. “Deep-Sea Oil Plume Enriches Indigenous Oil-Degrading Bacteria.” Science 330 (6001): 204–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heisenberg, Werner. 1927. “Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik.” Zeitschrift fur Physik 43:172–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. 1965. Aspects of Scientific Explanation, and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Khalifa, Kareem. 2010. “Contrastive Explanations as Social Accounts.” Social Epistemology 24 (4): 265–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalifa, Kareem. 2011. “Understanding, Knowledge, and Scientific Antirealism.” Grazer Philosophische Studien 83:93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1989. “Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World.” In Scientific Explanation, ed. Kitcher, Philip and Salmon, Wesley C., 410–506. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1977. “Objectivity, Value Judgement, and Theory Choice.” In The Essential Tension, ed. Kuhn, Thomas S., 320–39. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvanvig, Jonathan L. 2003. The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvanvig, Jonathan L.. 2009a. “Responses to Critics.” In Epistemic Value, ed. Haddock, Adrian, Millar, Alan, and Pritchard, Duncan, 339–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kvanvig, Jonathan L.. 2009b. “The Value of Understanding.” In Epistemic Value, ed. Haddock, Adrian, Millar, Alan, and Pritchard, Duncan, 95–111. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacey, Hugh. 1999. Is Science Value Free? Values and Scientific Understanding. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., and Simon, H. A.. 1980. “Expert and Novice Performance in Solving Physics Problems.” Science 208 (4450): 1335–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lipton, Peter. 2004. Inference to the Best Explanation. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lipton, Peter. 2009. “Understanding without Explanation.” In Regt, Leonelli, and Eigner 2009, 43–63.Google Scholar
Lycan, William G. 1988. Judgement and Justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lycan, William G.. 2002. “Explanation and Epistemology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology, ed. Moser, Paul K., 408–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Machamer, Peter, Darden, Lindley, and Craver, Carl. 2000. “Thinking about Mechanisms.” Philosophy of Science 67:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Andrew. 1984. Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Risjord, Mark. 2000. Woodcutters and Witchcraft: Rationality and Interpretive Change in the Social Sciences. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Jay F. 1980. One World and Our Knowledge of It: The Problematic of Realism in Post-Kantian Perspective. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Wesley. 1984. Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley. 1989. “Four Decades of Scientific Explanation.” In Scientific Explanation, ed. Kitcher, Philip and Salmon, Wesley C., 3–219. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Schrödinger, Erwin. 1954. Nature and the Greeks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schurz, Gerhard, and Lambert, Karel. 1994. “Outline of a Theory of Scientific Understanding.” Synthese 101 (1): 65–120.Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid. 1963. Science, Perception and Reality. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Thagard, Paul. 1978. “The Best Explanation: Criteria for Theory Choice.” Journal of Philosophy 75:76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, Paul. 1989. “Explanatory Coherence.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12 (3): 435–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, Paul. 1992. Conceptual Revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thalos, Miriam. 2002. “Explanation Is a Genus: An Essay on the Varieties of Scientific Explanation.” Synthese 130 (3): 317–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trout, J. D. 2002. “Scientific Explanation and the Sense of Understanding.” Philosophy of Science 69:212–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trout, J. D.. 2005. “Paying the Price for a Theory of Explanation: De Regt's Discussion of Trout.” Philosophy of Science 72:198–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trout, J. D.. 2007. “The Psychology of Scientific Explanation.” Philosophy Compass 2–3:564–91.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. 1980. The Scientific Image. New York: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilczek, Frank, and Devine, Betsy. 1987. Longing for the Harmonies: Themes and Variations from Modern Physics. 1st ed. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Woodward, James. 2002. “Explanation.” In Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Science, ed. Machamer, Peter and Silberstein, Michael, 37–54. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Woodward, James. 2003. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar