green numbers give full details | back to texts | unexpand these ideas
| 14369 | Understanding is a precondition, comes in degrees, is active, and holistic - unlike explanation |
| Full Idea: Objectors to the idea that understanding requires explanation say that understanding is a precondition for explanation, that understanding comes in degrees, that understanding is active, and that it is holistic - all unlike explanations. | |||
| From: Michael Strevens (No Understanding without Explanation [2011], 4) | |||
| A reaction: He works through these four objections and replies to them, in defence of the thesis in Idea 14365. I agree with Strevens on this. |
| 14365 | Scientific understanding is always the grasping of a correct explanation |
| Full Idea: I defend what I call the 'simple view', that scientific understanding is that state produced, and only produced, by grasping a correct explanation. | |||
| From: Michael Strevens (No Understanding without Explanation [2011], Intro) | |||
| A reaction: I like this because it clearly states what I take to be the view of Aristotle, and the key to understanding the whole of that philosopher's system. I take the view to be correct. |
| 14368 | We may 'understand that' the cat is on the mat, but not at all 'understand why' it is there |
| Full Idea: 'Understanding why' is quite separate from 'understanding that': you might be exquisitely, incandescently aware of the cat's being on the mat without having the slightest clue how it got there. My topic is understanding why. | |||
| From: Michael Strevens (No Understanding without Explanation [2011], 2) | |||
| A reaction: Can't we separate 'understand how' from 'understand why'? I may know that someone dropped a cat through my letterbox, but more understanding would still be required. (He later adds understanding 'with' a theory). |