Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy of Science 71 (1):98-109 (2004)
|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.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ludwig Fahrbach (2005). Understanding Brute Facts. Synthese 145 (3):449 - 466.
Wayne Wright (2007). Explanation and the Hard Problem. Philosophical Studies 132 (2):301 - 330.
Henk W. de Regt (1999). Ludwig Boltzmann's Bildtheorie and Scientific Understanding. Synthese 119 (1-2):113-134.
Jaakko Kuorikoski (2011). Simulation and the Sense of Understanding. In Paul Humphreys & Cyrille Imbert (eds.), Models, Simulations, and Representations. Routledge.
J. D. Trout (2005). Paying the Price for a Theory of Explanation: De Regt's Discussion of Trout. Philosophy of Science 72 (1):198-208.
Michael Strevens (forthcoming). No Understanding Without Explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A.
J. D. Trout (2007). The Psychology of Scientific Explanation. Philosophy Compass 2 (3):564–591.
J. D. Trout (2002). Scientific Explanation and the Sense of Understanding. Philosophy of Science 69 (2):212-233.
Henk W. de Regt (2009). The Epistemic Value of Understanding. Philosophy of Science 76 (5).
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads42 ( #31,808 of 738,851 )
Recent downloads (6 months)15 ( #8,376 of 738,851 )
How can I increase my downloads?