The Degrees of Understanding and the Inferential Component of Understanding

IF 0.3 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Organon F Pub Date : 2021-11-29 DOI:10.31577/orgf.2021.28401
S. Petkov
{"title":"The Degrees of Understanding and the Inferential Component of Understanding","authors":"S. Petkov","doi":"10.31577/orgf.2021.28401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Current debates on the nature of explanatory understanding have converged on the idea that at least one of the core components of understanding is inferential. Philosophers have characterized the inferential dimension of understanding as consisting of several related cognitive abilities to grasp a given explanation and the nexus of complementing explanations to which it belongs. Whilst analyses of both the subjective epistemic abilities related to grasping and objective features of the inferential links within explanations have received much attention, both within theories of explanation and in the literature on understanding, the criteria for evaluating the specific structure and organization of explanatory clusters or nexuses has received much less attention. Nevertheless, two notable exceptions stand out—Khalifa’s characterization of an explanatory nexus, and theories of explanatory unification. I take Khalifa’s ideas, together with the basic criteria of successful explanatory unification, as my starting point. To both I make some corrections and additions, in order to arrive at a more robust notion of an explanatory nexus and ultimately show that its structural properties and the inter-explanatory relations it contains are relevant to the resulting understanding. The Degrees of Understanding and the Inferential Component of Understanding 747 Organon F 28 (4) 2021: 746–776 I propose to represent such nexuses as directed graph trees and show that some of their properties can be related to the degree of understanding that such nested explanatory structures can offer. I will further illustrate these ideas by a case study on an ecological theory of predation.","PeriodicalId":43025,"journal":{"name":"Organon F","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organon F","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31577/orgf.2021.28401","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Current debates on the nature of explanatory understanding have converged on the idea that at least one of the core components of understanding is inferential. Philosophers have characterized the inferential dimension of understanding as consisting of several related cognitive abilities to grasp a given explanation and the nexus of complementing explanations to which it belongs. Whilst analyses of both the subjective epistemic abilities related to grasping and objective features of the inferential links within explanations have received much attention, both within theories of explanation and in the literature on understanding, the criteria for evaluating the specific structure and organization of explanatory clusters or nexuses has received much less attention. Nevertheless, two notable exceptions stand out—Khalifa’s characterization of an explanatory nexus, and theories of explanatory unification. I take Khalifa’s ideas, together with the basic criteria of successful explanatory unification, as my starting point. To both I make some corrections and additions, in order to arrive at a more robust notion of an explanatory nexus and ultimately show that its structural properties and the inter-explanatory relations it contains are relevant to the resulting understanding. The Degrees of Understanding and the Inferential Component of Understanding 747 Organon F 28 (4) 2021: 746–776 I propose to represent such nexuses as directed graph trees and show that some of their properties can be related to the degree of understanding that such nested explanatory structures can offer. I will further illustrate these ideas by a case study on an ecological theory of predation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
理解的程度与理解的推理成分
目前关于解释性理解本质的争论集中在这样一个观点上,即理解的核心组成部分中至少有一个是推理的。哲学家们将理解的推理维度描述为由掌握给定解释的几种相关认知能力及其所属的补充解释的关系组成。虽然在解释理论和理解文献中,对解释中与把握有关的主观认识能力和推理环节的客观特征的分析都受到了很大的关注,但评估解释簇或连接的具体结构和组织的标准却很少受到关注。然而,有两个明显的例外——哈利法对解释关系的描述,以及解释统一的理论。我以哈利法的思想,以及成功解释统一的基本标准为出发点。对此,我进行了一些更正和补充,以得出一个更有力的解释关系概念,并最终表明其结构性质及其所包含的解释间关系与由此产生的理解相关。理解度和理解的推断成分747 Organon F 28(4)2021:746–776我建议将这些nextuse表示为有向图树,并表明它们的一些性质可以与这种嵌套解释结构所能提供的理解度有关。我将通过一个关于捕食生态学理论的案例研究来进一步说明这些观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Organon F
Organon F PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
20.00%
发文量
19
审稿时长
38 weeks
期刊介绍: Organon F publishes high-quality articles on the entire range of topics discussed in contemporary analytic philosophy. Accordingly, we invite authors to submit articles that address issues that belong, but are not limited, to philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, epistemology, metaphysics and philosophical logic. We also consider analytically written articles on ethics, aesthetics, social philosophy, political philosophy and history of philosophy. The principal aim is to publish original articles that meet the standards typical of analytic philosophy, primarily those of conceptual clarity, precision and soundness of argumentation.
期刊最新文献
Causal Capabilities of Teleology and Teleonomy in Life and Evolution Perfect Thinkers, Perfect Speakers and Internalism about Thought Content Does Deep Moral Disagreement Exist in Real Life? On Everything Is Necessarily What It Is On Historical Context of Leszek Nowak’s Idealizational Conception of Science
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1