Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:24:08.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TESTIFYING UNDERSTANDING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2015

Kenneth Boyd
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While it is widely acknowledged that knowledge can be acquired via testimony, it has been argued that understanding cannot. While there is no consensus about what the epistemic relationship of understanding consists in, I argue here that regardless of how understanding is conceived there are kinds of understanding that can be acquired through testimony: easy understanding (e.g. understanding simple and mundane information) and easysunderstanding (e.g. understanding information that might be complex, but is nevertheless easy for an expert S). I address a number of aspects of understanding that might stand in the way of being able to acquire understanding through testimony, focusing on understanding's paradigmatic form and what it means to say that in order to understand something you need to “grasp” some information or the relationship between bits of information. I argue that in cases of both easy and easys understanding, no aspect of understanding stands in the way of it being able to acquire it through testimony. As a result, while not all understanding can be acquired through testimony in all instances and for all subjects, this failure of acquisition is only a product of the complexity of the relevant information or one's unfamiliarity with it, and not a product of the epistemic relationship of understanding.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 103 - 127
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Audi, R. 1997. ‘The Place of Testimony in the Fabric of Knowledge and Justification.’ American Philosophical Quarterly, 34(4): 405–22.Google Scholar
Brogaard, B. 2009. ‘Why Mary Did Yesterday: Reflections on Knowledge-Wh.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 78(2): 439–67.Google Scholar
de Regt, H. and Dieks, D. 2005. ‘A Contextual Approach to Scientific Understanding.’ Synthese, 144(1): 137–70.Google Scholar
Elgin, C. 2007. ‘Understanding and the Facts.’ Philosophical Studies, 132: 33–42.Google Scholar
Elgin, C. 2009. ‘Is Understanding Factive?’ In Pritchard, D., Millar, A., and Haddock, A. (eds), Epistemic Value, pp. 322–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fricker, E. 1994. ‘Against Gullibility.’ In Matilal, B. K. and Chakrabarti, A. (eds), Knowing from Words, pp. 125–61. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Gettier, E. 1963. ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’ Analysis, 23: 121–23.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. and Henderson, D. 2006. ‘Monitoring and Anti-Reductionism in the Epistemology of Testimony.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 72: 600–17.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 1976. ‘Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge.’ Journal of Philosophy, 73(20): 771–91.Google Scholar
Grimm, S. 2006. ‘Is Understanding a Species of Knowledge? ’ British Journal of the Philosophy of Science, 57: 515–35.Google Scholar
Grimm, S. Forthcoming. ‘How Understanding People Differs from Understanding the Natural World.’ Philosophical Issues.Google Scholar
Hawley, K. 2010. ‘Testimony and Knowing How.’ Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 41(4): 397–404.Google Scholar
Hills, A. 2009. ‘Moral Testimony and Moral Epistemology.’ Ethics, 120(1): 94–127.Google Scholar
Hills, A. Forthcoming. ‘Understanding Why.’ Noûs, 49(2).Google Scholar
Hopkins, R. 2007. ‘What is Wrong With Moral Testimony?’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74(3): 611–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelp, C. Forthcoming. ‘Understanding Phenomena.’ Synthese.Google Scholar
Khalifa, K. 2013. ‘Understanding, Grasping and Luck.’ Episteme, 10(1): 1–17.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1989. ‘Scientific Understanding and the Causal Structure of the World.’ In Kitcher, P. and Salmon, W. (eds), Scientific Explanation, pp. 410–505. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Kvanvig, J. 2003. The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lackey, J. 2006. ‘Knowing from Testimony.’ Philosophy Compass, 1(5): 432–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackey, J. 2007. ‘Why We Don't Deserve Credit for Everything We Know.’ Synthese, 158(3): 345–61.Google Scholar
Lackey, J. 2008. Learning from Words: Testimony as a Source of Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lenhard, J. 2009. ‘The Great Deluge: Simulation Modelling and Scientific Understanding’. In de Regt, H., Leonelli, S., and Eigner, K. (eds), Scientific Understanding: Philosophical Perspectives, pp. 169–88. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Lipton, P. 2004. Inference to the Best Explanation. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Morris, K. 2012. ‘A Defense of Lucky Understanding.’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63: 357–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D., Millar, A., and Haddock, A. 2010. The Nature and Value of Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Riggs, W. 2008. ‘The Value Turn in Epistemology.’ In Hendricks, V. (ed.), New Waves in Epistemology, pp. 300–23. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. and Williamson, T. 2001. ‘Knowing How.’ Journal of Philosophy, 98(8): 411–44.Google Scholar
Wilkenfeld, D. 2013. ‘Understanding as Representation Manipulability.’ Synthese, 190: 997–1016.Google Scholar
Wilkenfeld, D., Plunkett, D. and Lombrozo, T. Forthcoming. ‘Depth and Deference: When and Why We Attribute Understanding.’ Philosophical Studies.Google Scholar
Ylikoski, P. and Kuorikoski, J. 2010. ‘Dissecting Explanatory Power.’ Philosophical Studies, 148(2): 201–19.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, L. 2008. On Epistemology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar