Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-sl7kg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-10T18:22:50.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discussion Note: Making Sense of Understanding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Henk W. de Regt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

J.D. Trout (2002) presents a challenge to all theorists of scientific explanation who appeal to the notion of understanding. Trout denounces understanding as irrelevant, if not dangerous, from an epistemic perspective and he endorses a radically objectivist view of explanation instead. In this note I accept Trout's challenge. I criticize his argument and defend a non-objectivist, pragmatic conception of understanding that is epistemically relevant.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , January 2004 , pp. 98 - 109
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

‡

I wish to thank Peter Kirschenmann, Sabina Leonelli, Hans Radder, and two anonymous referees, for their comments on earlier versions. This research was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).

References

Beller, Mara (1999), Quantum Dialogue. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Regt, Henk W. (1997), “Erwin Schrödinger, Anschaulichkeit, and Quantum Theory”, Erwin Schrödinger, Anschaulichkeit, and Quantum Theory 28B:461–481.Google Scholar
De Regt, Henk W. (2001), “Space-time Visualisation and the Intelligibility of Physical Theories”, Space-time Visualisation and the Intelligibility of Physical Theories 32B:243–265.Google Scholar
De Regt, Henk W., and Dieks, Dennis (2004), “A Contextual Approach to Scientific Understanding”, Synthese, forthcoming. Preprint available at Pittsburgh PhilSci Archive, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001354.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. (1965), Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1977), “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice”, in Kuhn, Thomas S., The Essential Tension, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 320–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipton, Peter (1991), Inference to the Best Explanation. London: Routlegde.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen (1990), Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllister, James W. (1996), Beauty and Revolution in Science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan (1983), “Values in Science”, in Asquith, P. D. and Nickles, T. (eds.), PSA 1982, Vol. 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 3–28.Google Scholar
Rouse, Joseph (2003), “Kuhn's Philosophy of Scientific Practice”, in Nickles, Thomas (ed.), Thomas Kuhn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 101–121.Google Scholar
Trout, J. D. (2002), “Scientific Explanation and the Sense of Understanding”, Scientific Explanation and the Sense of Understanding 69:212–233.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1953), Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar