首页 > 最新文献

Varieties of Understanding最新文献

英文 中文
Are Humans Intuitive Philosophers? 人类是直觉哲学家吗?
Pub Date : 2019-09-19 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190860974.003.0012
S. Sloman, Jeffrey C. Zemla, D. Lagnado, C. Bechlivanidis, Babak Hemmatian
What are the criteria that people use to evaluate everyday explanations? We focus on simplicity, coherence, and unification. We consider various operationalizations of each construct within the context of explanations to measure how people respond to them. With regard to simplicity, some of the psychological literature suggests that people do have a preference for simple explanations that have few causes, but we find that a more complete assessment shows that this preference is moderated by a number of factors when evaluating everyday explanations. For one, people prefer explanations that elaborate on causal mechanisms and provide a greater sense of understanding, even if this increases complexity. Measures of coherence are highly predictive of explanation quality. Moreover, people prefer explanations that cohere with the evidence. But the meaning of coherence remains mysterious; it seems to be a placeholder for a complex system of evaluation. There is surprisingly little evidence that people value unification in the form of abstract explanation. Indeed, people often respond positively to extraneous detail. Detail may enhance our understanding of particular events and might help us better visualize mechanisms. We also find that people prefer explanations that use words entrenched in a community even if the explanation offers no real information. We conclude that people are not merely intuitive philosophers. How a person evaluates an explanation depends on what that person is trying to achieve.
人们用来评价日常解释的标准是什么?我们注重简单、连贯和统一。我们在解释的背景下考虑每个结构的各种操作化,以衡量人们对它们的反应。关于简单性,一些心理学文献表明,人们确实倾向于原因很少的简单解释,但我们发现,一项更全面的评估表明,在评估日常解释时,这种偏好受到许多因素的调节。首先,人们更喜欢阐述因果机制并提供更好理解感的解释,即使这会增加复杂性。连贯性的度量对解释的质量有很高的预测性。此外,人们更喜欢与证据一致的解释。但连贯性的意义仍然是神秘的;它似乎是一个复杂的评估系统的占位符。令人惊讶的是,几乎没有证据表明人们重视抽象解释形式的统一。事实上,人们通常会对无关的细节做出积极的反应。细节可能会增强我们对特定事件的理解,并可能帮助我们更好地可视化机制。我们还发现,人们更喜欢使用在社区中根深蒂固的词汇进行解释,即使这种解释没有提供任何真实的信息。我们的结论是,人不仅仅是直觉哲学家。一个人如何评价一种解释取决于他想要达到的目标。
{"title":"Are Humans Intuitive Philosophers?","authors":"S. Sloman, Jeffrey C. Zemla, D. Lagnado, C. Bechlivanidis, Babak Hemmatian","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190860974.003.0012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190860974.003.0012","url":null,"abstract":"What are the criteria that people use to evaluate everyday explanations? We focus on simplicity, coherence, and unification. We consider various operationalizations of each construct within the context of explanations to measure how people respond to them. With regard to simplicity, some of the psychological literature suggests that people do have a preference for simple explanations that have few causes, but we find that a more complete assessment shows that this preference is moderated by a number of factors when evaluating everyday explanations. For one, people prefer explanations that elaborate on causal mechanisms and provide a greater sense of understanding, even if this increases complexity. Measures of coherence are highly predictive of explanation quality. Moreover, people prefer explanations that cohere with the evidence. But the meaning of coherence remains mysterious; it seems to be a placeholder for a complex system of evaluation. There is surprisingly little evidence that people value unification in the form of abstract explanation. Indeed, people often respond positively to extraneous detail. Detail may enhance our understanding of particular events and might help us better visualize mechanisms. We also find that people prefer explanations that use words entrenched in a community even if the explanation offers no real information. We conclude that people are not merely intuitive philosophers. How a person evaluates an explanation depends on what that person is trying to achieve.","PeriodicalId":156980,"journal":{"name":"Varieties of Understanding","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132345538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
Toward a Theory of Understanding 《走向理解理论
Pub Date : 2019-09-19 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190860974.003.0007
L. Zagzebski
This chapter proposes that understanding is the grasp of structure. The structure of an object gives it unity and lets us see it as a single object. When we grasp an object’s structure, we understand the object. Understanding must simplify what it grasps, and the larger and more complex the object of understanding, the more we must simplify and leave out of the phenomenon components that may be important at different times or for different purposes. The object of understanding can be anything that has structure: a living organism, an event, a narrative, a piece of music, a philosophical argument, a causal relation, a human intentional act, etc.
本章提出理解就是对结构的把握。一个物体的结构赋予它统一性,让我们把它看作一个单一的物体。当我们掌握了一个物体的结构,我们就理解了这个物体。理解必须简化它所掌握的东西,而且理解的对象越大、越复杂,我们就越必须简化和排除那些在不同时期或不同目的下可能很重要的现象成分。理解的对象可以是任何有结构的东西:一个活的有机体,一个事件,一个叙述,一段音乐,一个哲学论证,一个因果关系,一个人类有意的行为,等等。
{"title":"Toward a Theory of Understanding","authors":"L. Zagzebski","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190860974.003.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190860974.003.0007","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter proposes that understanding is the grasp of structure. The structure of an object gives it unity and lets us see it as a single object. When we grasp an object’s structure, we understand the object. Understanding must simplify what it grasps, and the larger and more complex the object of understanding, the more we must simplify and leave out of the phenomenon components that may be important at different times or for different purposes. The object of understanding can be anything that has structure: a living organism, an event, a narrative, a piece of music, a philosophical argument, a causal relation, a human intentional act, etc.","PeriodicalId":156980,"journal":{"name":"Varieties of Understanding","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125086250","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Varieties of Understanding 理解的多样性
Pub Date : 2019-09-19 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190860974.003.0001
Stephen R. Grimm
This chapter has two roles: (a) to introduce some of the key themes and questions in the volume, and (b) to indicate where several of the essays stand on these questions. One of the main questions asked is whether understanding human actions differs in important ways from understanding events in the natural world, and a contrast is drawn between how the “humanistic tradition” answers this question, as opposed to the “naturalistic tradition.” A further central question is why we desire firsthand understanding in areas such as philosophy, morality, and aesthetics, and whether this firsthand understanding is compatible with deferring to the testimony of others on these matters.
本章有两个作用:(a)介绍本卷中的一些关键主题和问题,(b)指出几篇文章在这些问题上的立场。其中一个主要问题是,理解人类行为是否与理解自然世界中的事件在重要方面有所不同,并在“人文主义传统”如何回答这个问题与“自然主义传统”之间进行了对比。进一步的核心问题是,为什么我们渴望在哲学、道德和美学等领域获得第一手的理解,以及这种第一手的理解是否与尊重他人在这些问题上的证词相一致。
{"title":"Varieties of Understanding","authors":"Stephen R. Grimm","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190860974.003.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190860974.003.0001","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter has two roles: (a) to introduce some of the key themes and questions in the volume, and (b) to indicate where several of the essays stand on these questions. One of the main questions asked is whether understanding human actions differs in important ways from understanding events in the natural world, and a contrast is drawn between how the “humanistic tradition” answers this question, as opposed to the “naturalistic tradition.” A further central question is why we desire firsthand understanding in areas such as philosophy, morality, and aesthetics, and whether this firsthand understanding is compatible with deferring to the testimony of others on these matters.","PeriodicalId":156980,"journal":{"name":"Varieties of Understanding","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127647151","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Varieties of Understanding
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
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
×
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
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