Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:10:15.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scientific Explanation and the Sense of Understanding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

J. D. Trout
J. D. Trout*
Affiliation:
Philosophy Department and the Parmly Hearing Institute, Loyola University Chicago
*
Send requests for reprints to the author, Philosophy Department and the Parmly Hearing Institute, Loyola University Chicago, 6525 North Sheridan Road, Chicago, IL 60626; [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scientists and laypeople alike use the sense of understanding that an explanation conveys as a cue to good or correct explanation. Although the occurrence of this sense or feeling of understanding is neither necessary nor sufficient for good explanation, it does drive judgments of the plausibility and, ultimately, the acceptability, of an explanation. This paper presents evidence that the sense of understanding is in part the routine consequence of two well-documented biases in cognitive psychology: overconfidence and hindsight. In light of the prevalence of counterfeit understanding in the history of science, I argue that many forms of cognitive achievement do not involve a sense of understanding, and that only the truth or accuracy of an explanation make the sense of understanding a valid cue to genuine understanding.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 69 , Issue 2 , June 2002 , pp. 212 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

‡

Thanks are due to Paul Abela, Michael Bishop, Richard Farr, Robert Klee, and Joseph Mendola for very helpful comments on this paper. I especially want to thank Dwayne Mulder for early conversations and arguments with me about the nature and function of explanation.

References

Achinstein, Peter (1983), The Nature of Explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arkes Hal, C. Christensen, Lai, C., and Blumer, C. (1987), “Two Methods of Reducing Overconfidence”, Two Methods of Reducing Overconfidence 39:133–144.Google Scholar
Baddeley, Alan (1996), Human Memory: Theory and Practice, 2nd edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Bishop, Michael, and Trout, J. D. (2002), “50 Years of Successful Predictive Modeling Should be Enough: Lessons for the Philosophy of Science”, 50 Years of Successful Predictive Modeling Should be Enough: Lessons for the Philosophy of Science 68 (Proceedings), forthcoming.Google Scholar
Bloom, R. F., and Brundage, E. G. (1947), “Predictions of Success in Elementary School for Enlisted Personnel”, in Stuit, D. B. (ed.), Personnel Research and Test Development in the Naval Bureau of Personnel. Princeton University Press; Princeton, 233–261.Google Scholar
Brewer William, C. Chinn, and Samarapungavan, A. (1998), “Explanation in Scientists and Children”, Explanation in Scientists and Children 8:119–136.Google Scholar
Church, Barbara, and Schacter, D. (1994), “Perceptual Specificity of Auditory Priming: Implicit Memory for Voice Intonation and Fundamental Frequency”, Perceptual Specificity of Auditory Priming: Implicit Memory for Voice Intonation and Fundamental Frequency 20:521–533.Google ScholarPubMed
Copernicus, Nicholas. (1952), Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres, Book I, Section 4, in Adler, M. (ed.), Great Books of the Western World, volume 16 (translated by Charles Glenn Wallis). Chicago: William Benton Publishers, 513–514.Google Scholar
Darley, John, and Latane, B. (1968), “Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility”, Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility 8:377–383.Google ScholarPubMed
Darwin, Charles (1859), The Origin of Species, 6th ed., reprinted in 1962. New York: Collier.Google Scholar
Dawes, Robyn (1999), “A Message from Psychologists to Economists: Mere Predictability Doesn't Matter Like It Should (Without a Good Story Appended to It)”, A Message from Psychologists to Economists: Mere Predictability Doesn't Matter Like It Should (Without a Good Story Appended to It) 39, 29–40.Google Scholar
Dawes, Robyn (2001), Everyday Irrationality. Boulder CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Dawes Robyn, D. Faust, and Meehl, P. (1989), “Clinical Versus Actuarial Judgment”, Clinical Versus Actuarial Judgment 243:1668–1674.Google Scholar
DeVaul, R. A., Jervey, F., Chappell, J. A., Carver, P., Short, B., and O’Keefe, S. (1957), “Medical School Performance of Initially Rejected Students”, Medical School Performance of Initially Rejected Students 257:47–51.Google Scholar
Fischhoff Baruch, P. Slovic, and Lichtenstein, S. (1977), “Knowing with Certainty: The Appropriateness of Extreme Confidence”, Knowing with Certainty: The Appropriateness of Extreme Confidence 3:552–564.Google Scholar
Fischhoff, Baruch, and Beyth, R. (1975), “‘I Knew It Would Happen’: Remembered Probabilities of Once-Future Things”, ‘I Knew It Would Happen’: Remembered Probabilities of Once-Future Things 13:1–16.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael (1988), “Explanation and Scientific Understanding”, in Pitt, J. C. (ed.) Theories of Explanation, New York: Oxford University Press, 188–198. Originally published in Journal of Philosophy 71:5–19.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald (1988), Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd, Todd, P., and the ABC Group (1999), Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldinger, Stephen (1996), “Words and Voices: Episodic Traces in Spoken Word Identification and Recognition Memory”, Words and Voices: Episodic Traces in Spoken Word Identification and Recognition Memory 22 (5): 1166–1183..Google ScholarPubMed
Gopnik, Allison (1998), “Explanation as Orgasm”, Explanation as Orgasm 8:101–118.Google Scholar
Hardwig, John (1985), “Epistemic Dependence”, Epistemic Dependence 82:335–349.Google Scholar
Hardwig, John (1991), “The Role of Trust in Knowledge”, The Role of Trust in Knowledge 88:693–708.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl (1965), Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Henrion, M., and Fischoff, B. (1986), “Assessing Uncertainty in Physical Constants”, Assessing Uncertainty in Physical Constants 54:791–798.Google Scholar
Humphreys, Paul (1989). Chances of Explanation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Humphreys, Paul (2000), “Explanation vs. Understanding”. in Fetzer, J., (ed.), Science, Explanation, and Rationality: The Philosophy of Carl G. Hempel. New York: Oxford University Press, 267–286.Google Scholar
James, William ([1890] 1981). Principles of Psychology, vol 2. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Chapter 26 (Will).Google Scholar
Kepler, Johannes ([1619] 1997), The Harmony of the World, trans. by Aiton, E. J., Duncan, A.M., and Field, J. V.. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1988), “Explanatory Unification”, in Pitt, J. C. (ed.), Theories of Explanation, New York: Oxford University Press, 167–187. Originally published in Philosophy of Science 48:507–531.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1989), “Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World”, in Kitcher, Philip and Salmon, Wesley (eds.), Scientific Explanation: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 13. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 410–505.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1990), “The Division of Cognitive Labor”, The Division of Cognitive Labor 87:5–21.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1993), The Advancement of Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koriat, Asher (1993), “How Do We Know that We Know? The Accessibility Model of the Feeling of Knowing”, How Do We Know that We Know? The Accessibility Model of the Feeling of Knowing 100(4): 609–639.Google ScholarPubMed
Koriat, Asher (1995), “Dissociating Knowing and the Feeling of Knowing: Further Evidence for the Accessibility Model”, Dissociating Knowing and the Feeling of Knowing: Further Evidence for the Accessibility Model 124(3): 311–333.Google Scholar
Lewis, David (1993), “Causal Explanation”, in Ruben, David–Hillel (ed.) Explanation, New York: Oxford University Press, 182–206. Originally published in In Philosophical Papers, II. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 214–240.Google Scholar
Lipton, Peter (1993), “Contrastive Explanation”, in Ruben, David-Hillel (ed.), Explanation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 207–227. Originally published in D. Knowles (ed.) Explanation and Its Limits. Cambridge University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Miller, Richard W. (1987), Fact and Method. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Milstein, R. M., Wildkinson, L., Burrow, G. N., and Kessen, W. (1981), “Admission Decisions and Performance During Medical School”, Admission Decisions and Performance During Medical School 56:77–82.Google ScholarPubMed
Newton-Smith, William H. (2000), “Explanation”, in Newton-Smith, W. H. (ed.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Science. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 127–133.Google Scholar
Nisbett, Richard, and Wilson, T. (1977), “Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes”, Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes 84(3): 231–259.Google Scholar
Nygaard, Lynne C., Sommers, M. S., and Pisoni, D. B. (1994), “Speech Perception as a Talker-Contingent Process”, Speech Perception as a Talker-Contingent Process 5(1): 42–46.Google ScholarPubMed
Oskamp, S. (1965), “Overconfidence in Case Study Judgments”, Overconfidence in Case Study Judgments 63, 81–97.Google Scholar
Paracelsus, Theophrastus (1665), Of the Tincture of the Philosophers, trans. by Oxon, J. H.. London: J. H. Oxon. Chapter VII: Concerning the Renovation of Men.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. ([1878] 1982), “Doctrine of Chances”, in Peirce, Charles S., Writings of Charles Sanders Peirce: A Chronological Edition, Vol. 3. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 276–289.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. (1908), “A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God”, A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God 7:90–112.Google Scholar
Perrin, Jean (1913), Les Atomes. Paris: Alcan.Google Scholar
Ptolemy, Claudius. (1984), Almagest, trans. by Toomer, G. J.. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Railton, Peter (1993), “Probability, Explanation, and Information”, in Ruben, David–Hillel (ed.) Explanation, New York: Oxford University Press, 160–181. Originally published in Synthese 48:233–256.Google Scholar
Rothenberg, Albert (1993), “Creative Homospatial and Janusian Processes in Kekule's Discovery of the Structure of the Benzene Molecule”, in Wotiz, John H. (ed.) The Kekule Riddle, Clearwater, FL: Cache River Press, 286–309. (Translation of Kekule quotations by Francis R. Japp).Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley (1992), “Scientific Explanation”, in Salmon, Merrilee et. al, Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 7–41.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley (1984), Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley (1989), “Four Decades of Explanation”, in Kitcher, Philip and Salmon, Wesley, (eds.), Scientific Explanation: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 13. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 3–219.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley (1998), “The Importance of Scientific Understanding”, in Salmon, W., Causality and Explanation, New York: Oxford University Press, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scriven, M. (1962), “Explanation, Predictions, and Laws”, in Feigl, Herbert and Maxwell, Grover (eds.) Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 170–230.Google Scholar
Solomon, Miriam (1992), “Scientific Rationality and Human Reasoning”, Scientific Rationality and Human Reasoning 59:439–455.Google Scholar
Thagard, Paul (1989), “Explanatory Coherence”, Explanatory Coherence 12:435–467.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen (1961), Foresight and Understanding. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Trout, J. D. (1992), “Theory Conjunction and Mercenary Reliance”, Theory Conjunction and Mercenary Reliance 59:231–245.Google Scholar
Trout, J. D. (1998), Measuring the Intentional World: Realism, Naturalism, and Quantitative Methods in the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, James D. (1968), The Double Helix. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
Woodward, James (1993), “A Theory of Singular Causal Explanation”, in Ruben, David–Hillel (ed.), Explanation, New York: Oxford University Press, 246–274. Originally published in Erkenntnis 21:231–262.Google Scholar