Philosophy of Science 71 (1):98-109 (2004)
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)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
The Goal of Explanation.Stephen R. Grimm - 2010 - Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 41 (4):337-344.
In Defence of Activities.Phyllis Illari & Jon Williamson - 2013 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 44 (1):69-83.
Understanding, Explanation, and Unification.Victor Gijsbers - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (3):516-522.
Similar books and articles
Ludwig Boltzmann's Bildtheorie and Scientific Understanding.Henk W. de Regt - 1999 - Synthese 119 (1-2):113-134.
Simulation and the Sense of Understanding.Jaakko Kuorikoski - 2011 - In Paul Humphreys & Cyrille Imbert (eds.), Models, Simulations, and Representations. Routledge.
Paying the Price for a Theory of Explanation: De Regt's Discussion of Trout.J. D. Trout - 2005 - Philosophy of Science 72 (1):198-208.
No Understanding Without Explanation.Michael Strevens - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (3):510-515.
Scientific Explanation and the Sense of Understanding.J. D. Trout - 2002 - Philosophy of Science 69 (2):212-233.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads99 ( #52,046 of 2,178,112 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #112,599 of 2,178,112 )
How can I increase my downloads?