Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Knowledge and Understanding

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Virtue Epistemology Naturalized

Part of the book series: Synthese Library ((SYLI,volume 366))

Abstract

A standard account of understanding—one that is especially prevalent in the philosophy of science—treats understanding as essentially a type of knowledge—viz., knowledge of causes. Unfortunately, this proposal is untenable, in that there are cases of genuine understanding where the relevant knowledge is lacking, and cases where the relevant knowledge is present but understanding is lacking. In light of these problems, I propose an alternative view which treats understanding as a kind of cognitive achievement. In recent work, however, Stephen Grimm has argued for an adapted version of the view that understanding is constituted by knowledge of causes, one that appeals to a kind of knowledge of causes which is non-propositional. I argue that Grimm’s proposal, while admittedly ingenious, does not stand up to close scrutiny.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
EUR 85.59
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
EUR 106.99
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
EUR 106.99
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

') var buybox = document.querySelector("[data-id=id_"+ timestamp +"]").parentNode var buyingOptions = buybox.querySelectorAll(".buying-option") ;[].slice.call(buyingOptions).forEach(initCollapsibles) var buyboxMaxSingleColumnWidth = 480 function initCollapsibles(subscription, index) { var toggle = subscription.querySelector(".buying-option-price") subscription.classList.remove("expanded") var form = subscription.querySelector(".buying-option-form") var priceInfo = subscription.querySelector(".price-info") var buyingOption = toggle.parentElement if (toggle && form && priceInfo) { toggle.setAttribute("role", "button") toggle.setAttribute("tabindex", "0") toggle.addEventListener("click", function (event) { var expandedBuyingOptions = buybox.querySelectorAll(".buying-option.expanded") var buyboxWidth = buybox.offsetWidth ;[].slice.call(expandedBuyingOptions).forEach(function(option) { if (buyboxWidth buyboxMaxSingleColumnWidth) { toggle.click() } else { if (index === 0) { toggle.click() } else { toggle.setAttribute("aria-expanded", "false") form.hidden = "hidden" priceInfo.hidden = "hidden" } } }) } initialStateOpen() if (window.buyboxInitialised) return window.buyboxInitialised = true initKeyControls() })()

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note that we are here implicitly focussing on a particular kind of understanding, one which concerns understanding why something quite specific is the case. Typically, this will involve knowing why a specific event occurred. This kind of understanding is sometimes contrasted with a more general kind of understanding which concerns, say, an entire subject matter (e.g., ‘S understands quantum physics’). While there are connections between the two kinds of understanding, and while one would clearly desire an account of understanding which could accommodate both types, it would take us too far from the main thread to consider this more general notion of understanding here. For further discussion of these two types of understanding, see Brogaard (2007) and Kvanvig (2009).

  2. 2.

    Consider the following remark made by Lipton, for example:

    Understanding is not some sort of super-knowledge, but simply more knowledge: knowledge of causes. (Lipton 2004, 30)

    Grimm (2014) also attributes the knowledge account, broadly conceived anyway, to Aristotle, Lewis (1986), Miller (1987), Strevens (2008) and Greco (2014).

  3. 3.

    It is specifically environmental epistemic luck which is at issue in the famous ‘barn façade’ case, or so I have argued anyway. See, for example, Pritchard (2009) for more on this point.

  4. 4.

    For further discussion of the claim that a luckily true belief cannot amount to knowledge, see Pritchard (2013). For a critical response to this claim, see Hetherington (2013).

  5. 5.

    Interestingly, Kvanvig (2003) argues that understanding, unlike knowledge, is compatible with the kind of epistemic luck at issue in standard Gettier-style cases too. As I claim in Pritchard (2009), however, I think he reaches this conclusion because he fails to make the distinction between standard Gettier-style epistemic luck and environmental epistemic luck.

  6. 6.

    For further discussion of the nature of achievements, see Pritchard et al. (2010, chs. 2 & 4) and Pritchard (2010).

  7. 7.

    For the main proponents of a view of this general form (though often not expressed in quite these terms), see Sosa (1988, 1991, 2007, 2009), Zagzebski (1996, 1999) and Greco (2003, 2007, 2008, 2009a, b, c).

  8. 8.

    It is an interesting question why knowledge should be such that it marks out an epistemic standing distinct from cognitive achievements, though it is not one that I can usefully engage with her. For further discussion of this issue, see Pritchard et al. (2010, ch. 3) and Pritchard (2011).

  9. 9.

    Drawing on my work on this topic, Hills (2009, 2010) has developed her own variant of the view that I am here calling the cognitive achievement account, though her focus is specifically on moral knowledge and understanding.

  10. 10.

    I think that what is muddying the waters here is that the example that Grimm focuses on—found in earlier work by myself (see, e.g., Pritchard 2009)—concerns a child who gains knowledge of the cause of an event while nonetheless lacking the corresponding understanding. As such, it is perhaps natural to wonder, as Grimm does, whether this child really does have knowledge of the cause that is being credited to her. As the case of ‘Kate*’ here illustrates, however, it is entirely incidental to this objection to the knowledge account that the agent concerned is a child.

  11. 11.

    Note that I am here setting to one side the potential complication that might be posed by a priori knowledge of contingent propositions, a possibility defended by Evans (1979) and Kripke (1980), amongst others.

  12. 12.

    The foremost exponent of this particular way of thinking about a priori knowledge is Bonjour (2001, 2005, cf. Bonjour 1998).

References

  • Achinstein, P. 1983. The nature of explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • BonJour, L. 1998. In defense of pure reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • BonJour, L. 2001. Replies. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63: 673–698.

    Google Scholar 

  • BonJour, L. 2005. In defense of the a priori. In Contemporary debates in epistemology, ed. M. Steup and E. Sosa, 98–105. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brogaard, B. 2007. I know. Therefore, I understand. typescript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, G. 1979. Reference and contingency. The Monist 52: 161–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greco, J. 2003. Knowledge as credit for true belief. In Intellectual virtue: Perspectives from ethics and epistemology, ed. M. DePaul and L. Zagzebski, 111–134. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Greco, J. 2007. The nature of ability and the purpose of knowledge. Philosophical Issues 17: 57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greco, J. 2008. What’s wrong with contextualism? Philosophical Quarterly 58: 416–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greco, J. 2009a. Achieving knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greco, J. 2009b. The value problem. In Epistemic value, ed. A. Haddock, A. Millar, and D.H. Pritchard, 313–321. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greco, J. 2009c. Knowledge and success from ability. Philosophical Studies 142: 17–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greco, J. 2014. Chapter 13 – Episteme: Knowledge and understanding. In Virtues and their vices, ed. Kevin Timpe and Craig Boyd. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, S. 2006. Is understanding a species of knowledge? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57: 515–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, S. 2010. Understanding. In The routledge companion to epistemology, ed. S. Bernecker and D.H. Pritchard, 84–94. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, S. 2014. Understanding as knowledge of causes. In Virtue scientia, ed. A. Fairweather. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hetherington, S. 2013. There can be lucky knowledge. In Contemporary debates in epistemology, 2nd ed, ed. M. Steup and J. Turri. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hills, A. 2009. Moral testimony and moral epistemology. Ethics 120: 94–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hills, A. 2010. The beloved self: Morality and the challenge from egoism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. 2002. Scientific knowledge. In Oxford handbook of epistemology, ed. P. Moser. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kripke, S. 1980. Naming and necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvanvig, J. 2003. The value of knowledge and the pursuit of understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kvanvig, J. 2009. The value of understanding. In Epistemic value, ed. A. Haddock, A. Millar, and D.H. Pritchard, 95–112. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. 1986. Causal explanation. In his Philosophical papers (vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipton, P. 2004. Inference to the best explanation. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. 1987. Fact and method. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, D.H. 2009. Knowledge, understanding and epistemic value. In Epistemology, Royal institute of philosophy lectures, ed. A. O’Hear, 19–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, D.H. 2010. Achievements, luck and value. Think 25: 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, D.H. 2012. Anti-luck virtue epistemology. Journal of Philosophy 109: 247–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, D.H. 2013. There cannot be lucky knowledge. In Contemporary debates in epistemology, 2nd ed, ed. M. Steup and J. Turri. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, D.H., A. Millar, and A. Haddock. 2010. The nature and value of knowledge: Three investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, W. 1989. Four decades of scientific explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sosa, E. 1988. Beyond skepticism, to the best of our knowledge. Mind 97: 153–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sosa, E. 1991. Knowledge in perspective: Selected essays in epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sosa, E. 2007. A virtue epistemology: Apt belief and reflective knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sosa, E. 2009. Reflective knowledge: Apt belief and reflective knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Strevens, M. 2008. Depth: An account of scientific explanation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, J. 2003. Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zagzebski, L. 1996. Virtues of the mind: An inquiry into the nature of virtue and the ethical foundations of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zagzebski, L. 1999. What is knowledge? In The Blackwell guide to epistemology, ed. J. Greco and E. Sosa, 92–116. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was written while I was in receipt of a Phillip Leverhulme Prize, and I am grateful to them for their support. Thanks also to Abrol Fairweather, Georgi Gardiner, Emma Gordon, Allan Hazlett, Alison Hills, Andrew Mason and Lani Watson for helpful discussions of topics related to this paper. Special thanks to Stephen Grimm and Dory Scaltsas.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Duncan Pritchard

Authors
  1. Duncan Pritchard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Duncan Pritchard .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Abrol Fairweather

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pritchard, D. (2014). Knowledge and Understanding. In: Fairweather, A. (eds) Virtue Epistemology Naturalized. Synthese Library, vol 366. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04672-3_18

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics