Epistemology of Science: Understanding
PHILOS 270: The Epistemology of Science
Special Topic: Understanding
Winter 2024
Instructor: Kareem Khalifa
Office: Dodd Hall, Room 334
Office Hours: Thursdays, 1PM-3PM and by appointment
Day/Time: Tuesdays, 2:00 PM-4:50PM
Location: Dodd Hall, Room 325
Required Text(s):
Course Description: At the end of the 20th century, philosophical discussions of understanding were undeveloped, guided by a ‘received view’ that took understanding to be nothing more than knowledge of an explanation. More recently, this view has been criticized by both epistemologists and philosophers of science. This raises several questions. Can there be understanding without explanation? Is understanding a species of knowledge? Can falsehoods provide understanding? What kinds of cognitive abilities contribute to understanding? What is the value of understanding? How does understanding in science differ from other kinds of understanding (e.g., moral or aesthetic understanding)?
Learning Objectives: By the end of this course, you should be able to:
Evaluation: We will meet our objectives through the following assignments and activities:
Discussion Leading: Each student is expected to be the discussion leader of at least one reading. This involves:
Philosophy Brief: Each discussion leader will write a “philosophy brief” on their reading. This should be in between 1000-2000 words and should do the following:
Questions: All other students who are not leading discussion are responsible for posting questions to the course website 24 hours in advance of the class to which they are assigned. Once the class enrollment is established, I will split up students so that some are responsible for asking questions about the week’s philosophy brief(s) (“brief interrogators”) and others are “interrogators-at-large,” i.e., responsible for asking questions about the artciles, book sections, etc. assigned for the week. Each student is responsible for reading all of the questions and coming up with tentative answers to at least three of these questions prior to class. Tentative answers need not be written.
Lightning Talk: On Saturday, February 17, there will be a workshop at my home. The workshop will feature three keynote speakers—Alexander Belak (University of Zurich), Federica Malfatti (University of Innsbruck), and Collin Rice (Colorado State). I may also present a paper. Additionally, each of you will have to do “lightning talks.” Please reserve this date. If you cannot attend, please let me know as early as possible, as we will have to work out an alternative way for you to do your lightning talk. (Bonus: this event will be followed by a party.)
Lightning talks are concise 3-5-minute oral presentations that tell the big picture story of your research. A good rule of thumb for an oral presentation is that it takes about a minute to discuss a slide, so your talk should have no more than ~5 slides. Each lightning talk will be followed by brief Q&A sessions. While the preceding explains lightning talks’ structure and function, their content can assume one of three forms:
Extended Abstract (Due March 8): You will be expected to write an extended abstract for your final paper (see below). This should be 750-1,500 words. Please follow the rubric for “prospective extended abstracts” outlined here. I will provide feedback on these abstracts. You are strongly encouraged to meet with me to discuss that feedback prior to the submission of your final paper. For those of you who choose to co-author their final paper (see below), the abstract should be 1,000-2,000 words. Both co-authors receive the same grade for the abstract. Alternatively, individual students can each write their own abstracts (750-1,500 words), and subsequently decide to co-author. In this case, they will be graded individually. (I will make relevant students aware of unrecognized possibilities for collaboration, though this does not compel you to co-author a paper.)
Final Paper: For your final paper, you can write on any topic related to the seminar. You may find it useful to structure your paper using the following guide. Your final paper can assume one of two forms. First, you may single-author a 4,000-to-5,000-word paper. For some useful templates, I encourage you to look at critical notices and discussion notes in journals from which we’ve read. Additionally, some journals, such as Analysis or Philosophy of Science’s biennial issue featuring the Philosophy of Science Association’s conference proceedings, only accept essays of this length. Second, you may co-author a paper with one other student in the seminar and write an 8,000-10,000-word paper. This should look like a more standard journal article. I encourage you to use articles we’ve read as templates. Both co-authors receive the same grade for the final paper.
Participation: At root, many of the other assignments are in place so that we can have good discussions about the readings. Discussions are good insofar as they allow everyone to both understand, critically evaluate, and creatively extend the ideas found in the week’s readings. Your participation grade reflects your track record in both performing these tasks and helping your peers perform these tasks. Preparation, showing up on time, attendance, active participation, and academic integrity are expected, and will also be reflected in your participation grade.
Technological Proficiency and Software Required: You should be proficient in using at least one kind of presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint, Keynote, or Beamer). Google Slides is freely available. There are many good books on how to best use this software. It is also strongly recommended that you have citation management software, such as EndNote or JabRef. Zotero is freeware and there is ample online documentation for learning how to use it.
January 9
Pritchard, D. (2010). Knowledge. Palgrave. (Ch. 1-4)
WEEKS 1-2: From Knowledge to Understanding?
January 16
Pritchard, D. (2010). Knowledge. Palgrave. (Ch. 7)
UESK, Ch. 1
Recommended Further Reading:
De Regt, H., & Baumberger, C. (2019). What is Scientific Understanding and How Can It Be Achieved? In K. McKain & K. Kampourakis (Eds.), What Is Scientific Knowledge? An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science (pp. 66-81)
Grimm, S. R. (2021). Understanding. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.
Hannon, M. (2021). Recent work in the epistemology of understanding. American philosophical quarterly, 58(3), 269-290.
January 23
UESK, Ch. 2
The De Regt-Khalifa exchange in Lawler, I., Khalifa, K., & Shech, E. (Eds.). (2024). Scientific Understanding and Representation: Modeling in the Physical Sciences. Routledge. (Ch. 2-5)
WEEKS 3-4: Understanding and Explanation
January 30
Carter, J. A., & Gordon, E. C. (2014). Objectual understanding and the value problem. American philosophical quarterly, 51(1), 1-13.
UESK, Ch. 4
Kelp, C. (2021). Inquiry, knowledge, and understanding. Oxford University Press. (Chapter 4)
Recommended Further Reading:
Kvanvig, J. L. (2009). The value of understanding. In A. Haddock, A. Millar, & D. Pritchard (Eds.), Epistemic value (pp. 95-111). Oxford University Press.
Baumberger, C. (2019). Explicating Objectual Understanding: Taking Degrees Seriously. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 50(3), 367-388.
February 6
Lipton, P. (2009). Understanding without explanation. In H. W. De Regt, S. Leonelli, & K. Eigner (Eds.), Scientific understanding: philosophical perspectives (pp. 43-63). University of Pittsburgh Press
UESK, Ch. 5
Dellsén, F. (2020). Beyond Explanation: Understanding as Dependency Modelling. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 71(4), 1261-1286.
Come with any questions you have about your lightning talks.
Recommended Further Reading:
Verreault-Julien, P. (2019). Understanding does not depend on (causal) explanation. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 9(2), 18
Hunt, J. (2021). Understanding and Equivalent Reformulations. Philosophy of Science, 88(5), 810-823.
--(2024). Epistemic dependence and understanding: reformulating through symmetry. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
WEEK 5: Understanding and Truth
February 13
Elgin, C. Z. (2004). True enough. Philosophical issues, 14(1), 113-131.
UESK, Ch. 6
Le Bihan, S. (2017). Enlightening falsehoods: a modal view of scientific understanding. In Explaining understanding: New perspectives from epistemology and philosophy of science (pp. 111-136)
Recommended Further Reading:
Cornelissen, M. D., & de Regt, H. W. (2022). Understanding in synthetic chemistry: the case of periplanone B. Synthese, 200(6), 461.
Doyle, Y., Egan, S., Graham, N., & Khalifa, K. (2019). Non-factive Understanding: A Statement and Defense. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 50(3), 345-365.
De Regt, H. W., & Gijsbers, V. (2016). How false theories can yield genuine understanding. In S. R. Grimm, C. Baumberger, & S. Ammon (Eds.), Explaining understanding: New perspectives from epistemology and philosophy of science (pp. 50-75). Routledge.
Lawler, I., & Sullivan, E. (2021). Model Explanation Versus Model-Induced Explanation. Foundations of Science, 26(4), 1049-1074.
Lawler, I. (2021). Scientific understanding and felicitous legitimate falsehoods. Synthese, 198(7), 6859-6887.
Mizrahi, M. (2012). Idealizations and scientific understanding. Philosophical studies, 160(2), 237-252.
Rice, C. (2017). Models Don’t Decompose That Way: A Holistic View of Idealized Models. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 70(1), 179-208.
Rice, C. (2021). Leveraging distortions: explanation, idealization, and universality in science. The MIT Press.
Ross, L. (2023). The Truth About Better Understanding? Erkenntnis, 88, 747–770.
Sullivan, E., & Khalifa, K. (2019). Idealizations and Understanding: Much Ado About Nothing? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 97(4), 673-689.
February 15
Submit PowerPoints for Lightning Talks (6-slide maximum) 11:59PM.
February 17 (Precise time TBD)
Understanding Workshop (Party to Follow)
You will present your lightning talks.
Special Guests!
Alexander Belak (Zurich)
Federica Malfatti (Innsbruck)
Collin Rice (Colorado State)
WEEK 6: Understanding, Ability, and Skills
February 20
Grimm, S. R. (2014). Understanding as knowledge of causes. In A. Fairweather (Ed.), Virtue epistemology naturalized (Vol. 366, pp. 329-345). Springer International Publishing.
UESK, Ch. 3
Malfatti, F. I. (2020). Can Testimony Transmit Understanding? Theoria, 86(1), 54-72.
Special Guest!! Federica Malfatti (Innsbruck)
Recommended Further Reading:
Hills, A. (2015). Understanding why. Noûs, 49(2), 661-688.
Gilbertson, E. (2020). Understanding by Testimony: A Reply to Malfatti. Theoria, 86(4), 528-534.
Hu, X. (2019). Is knowledge of causes sufficient for understanding? Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 49(3), 291-313.
Pritchard, D. (2014). Knowledge and understanding. In A. Fairweather (Ed.), Virtue epistemology naturalized (Vol. 366, pp. 315-327). Springer International Publishing.
Sullivan, E. (2018). Understanding: not know-how. Philosophical studies, 175(1), 221-240.
WEEK 7: The Value of Understanding
February 27
Pritchard, D. (2010). Knowledge and understanding. In D. Pritchard, A. Millar, & A. Haddock (Eds.), The nature and value of knowledge: three investigations (pp. 3-24, 66-90). Oxford University Press.
UESK, Ch. 8
Recommended Further Reading:
Ahlstrom-Vij, K., & Grimm, S. R. (2013). Getting it right. Philosophical studies, 166(2), 329-347
De Regt, H. W. (2020). Understanding, Values, and the Aims of Science. Philosophy of Science, 87(5), 921-932.
Hu, Xingming. 2024. The epistemic value of understanding-why. Episteme 20 (1): 125-141.
Khalifa, K. (2020). Understanding, Truth, and Epistemic Goals. Philosophy of Science, 87(5), 944-956.
Khalifa, K., & Millson, J. (2020). Perspectives, Questions, and Epistemic Value. In A.-M. Crețu & M. Massimi (Eds.), Knowledge from a Human Point of View (pp. 87-106). Springer International Publishing.
Potochnik, A. (2020).Idealization and Many Aims. Philosophy of Science, 87(5), 933-943.
WEEK 8: Understanding and Epistemic Luck
March 5
Pritchard, D. (2008). Knowing the answer, understanding, and epistemic value. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 77, 325-339.
UESK, Ch. 7
Roush, S. (2017). The Difference Between Knowledge and Understanding. In Explaining Knowledge: New Essays on the Gettier Problem (pp. 384-407).
Special Guest!! Sherri Roush
Recommended Further Reading:
Belkoniene, M. (2022). Reassessing Lucky Understanding. Episteme, 1-15.
Rohwer, Y. (2014). Lucky understanding without knowledge. Synthese, 191(5), 945-959.
Morris, K. (2012). A defense of lucky understanding. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63(2), 357-371.
Sliwa, P. (2015). Understanding and Knowing. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 115(1), 57-74.
March 8
Extended Abstracts Due at 11:59PM (Submit via BruinLearn)
WEEK 9: Talking About Your Finals
March 12
Meetings to Discuss Extended Abstracts
Catch-up/further explorations
March 20
Final Papers Due at 11:59PM (Submit via BruinLearn)
Special Topic: Understanding
Winter 2024
Instructor: Kareem Khalifa
Office: Dodd Hall, Room 334
Office Hours: Thursdays, 1PM-3PM and by appointment
Day/Time: Tuesdays, 2:00 PM-4:50PM
Location: Dodd Hall, Room 325
Required Text(s):
- Khalifa, K. 2017. Understanding, Explanation, and Scientific Knowledge. Cambridge University Press. [UESK]
- All other readings and homework will be posted to the course website.
Course Description: At the end of the 20th century, philosophical discussions of understanding were undeveloped, guided by a ‘received view’ that took understanding to be nothing more than knowledge of an explanation. More recently, this view has been criticized by both epistemologists and philosophers of science. This raises several questions. Can there be understanding without explanation? Is understanding a species of knowledge? Can falsehoods provide understanding? What kinds of cognitive abilities contribute to understanding? What is the value of understanding? How does understanding in science differ from other kinds of understanding (e.g., moral or aesthetic understanding)?
Learning Objectives: By the end of this course, you should be able to:
- Recognize, analyze, and criticize the central arguments offered in the relevant literatures.
- Generate novel arguments of your own that fruitfully interact with the relevant literatures.
- Present the work of other philosophers at a level that approaches professional standards.
- Present your early paper ideas in a succinct manner to a philosophical audience.
- Write a paper that is a promising basis for a publication in a top field journal.
Evaluation: We will meet our objectives through the following assignments and activities:
- Discussion Leading 5%
- Extended Abstract 15%
- Philosophy Brief 20%
- Final Paper 35%
- Questions 5%
- Participation 15%
- Lightning Talk 5%
- Total 100%
Discussion Leading: Each student is expected to be the discussion leader of at least one reading. This involves:
- Reading peers’ questions (see below) in advance of the seminar.
- Writing a “philosophy brief” (see below).
- Using these materials to spark discussion. (Think creatively of how best to do this. It is good practice for teaching. Search the internet, as there are many excellent resources for discussion-leading.)
Philosophy Brief: Each discussion leader will write a “philosophy brief” on their reading. This should be in between 1000-2000 words and should do the following:
- Reconstruct the author’s central argument in conformity with the guidelines offered here.
- Critically evaluate the argument by either:
- Offering one or more reasons for rejecting one or more of its premises or
- Offering one or more reasons to reject its conclusion.
Questions: All other students who are not leading discussion are responsible for posting questions to the course website 24 hours in advance of the class to which they are assigned. Once the class enrollment is established, I will split up students so that some are responsible for asking questions about the week’s philosophy brief(s) (“brief interrogators”) and others are “interrogators-at-large,” i.e., responsible for asking questions about the artciles, book sections, etc. assigned for the week. Each student is responsible for reading all of the questions and coming up with tentative answers to at least three of these questions prior to class. Tentative answers need not be written.
Lightning Talk: On Saturday, February 17, there will be a workshop at my home. The workshop will feature three keynote speakers—Alexander Belak (University of Zurich), Federica Malfatti (University of Innsbruck), and Collin Rice (Colorado State). I may also present a paper. Additionally, each of you will have to do “lightning talks.” Please reserve this date. If you cannot attend, please let me know as early as possible, as we will have to work out an alternative way for you to do your lightning talk. (Bonus: this event will be followed by a party.)
Lightning talks are concise 3-5-minute oral presentations that tell the big picture story of your research. A good rule of thumb for an oral presentation is that it takes about a minute to discuss a slide, so your talk should have no more than ~5 slides. Each lightning talk will be followed by brief Q&A sessions. While the preceding explains lightning talks’ structure and function, their content can assume one of three forms:
- If you’ve already presented your philosophy brief, you may give a talk that develops/extends an idea in that brief. At a minimum, this should show some evidence of having done additional reading since you presented your brief.
- If you haven’t already presented your philosophy brief, then you may present an early version of that brief. However, when you subsequently present your brief in class, then you will need to develop/extend the ideas in your lightning talk. At a minimum, your brief should show some evidence of having done additional reading since your lightning talk.
- Finally, you may do a lightning talk that is an early pass at your final paper.
Extended Abstract (Due March 8): You will be expected to write an extended abstract for your final paper (see below). This should be 750-1,500 words. Please follow the rubric for “prospective extended abstracts” outlined here. I will provide feedback on these abstracts. You are strongly encouraged to meet with me to discuss that feedback prior to the submission of your final paper. For those of you who choose to co-author their final paper (see below), the abstract should be 1,000-2,000 words. Both co-authors receive the same grade for the abstract. Alternatively, individual students can each write their own abstracts (750-1,500 words), and subsequently decide to co-author. In this case, they will be graded individually. (I will make relevant students aware of unrecognized possibilities for collaboration, though this does not compel you to co-author a paper.)
Final Paper: For your final paper, you can write on any topic related to the seminar. You may find it useful to structure your paper using the following guide. Your final paper can assume one of two forms. First, you may single-author a 4,000-to-5,000-word paper. For some useful templates, I encourage you to look at critical notices and discussion notes in journals from which we’ve read. Additionally, some journals, such as Analysis or Philosophy of Science’s biennial issue featuring the Philosophy of Science Association’s conference proceedings, only accept essays of this length. Second, you may co-author a paper with one other student in the seminar and write an 8,000-10,000-word paper. This should look like a more standard journal article. I encourage you to use articles we’ve read as templates. Both co-authors receive the same grade for the final paper.
Participation: At root, many of the other assignments are in place so that we can have good discussions about the readings. Discussions are good insofar as they allow everyone to both understand, critically evaluate, and creatively extend the ideas found in the week’s readings. Your participation grade reflects your track record in both performing these tasks and helping your peers perform these tasks. Preparation, showing up on time, attendance, active participation, and academic integrity are expected, and will also be reflected in your participation grade.
Technological Proficiency and Software Required: You should be proficient in using at least one kind of presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint, Keynote, or Beamer). Google Slides is freely available. There are many good books on how to best use this software. It is also strongly recommended that you have citation management software, such as EndNote or JabRef. Zotero is freeware and there is ample online documentation for learning how to use it.
January 9
Pritchard, D. (2010). Knowledge. Palgrave. (Ch. 1-4)
WEEKS 1-2: From Knowledge to Understanding?
January 16
Pritchard, D. (2010). Knowledge. Palgrave. (Ch. 7)
UESK, Ch. 1
Recommended Further Reading:
De Regt, H., & Baumberger, C. (2019). What is Scientific Understanding and How Can It Be Achieved? In K. McKain & K. Kampourakis (Eds.), What Is Scientific Knowledge? An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science (pp. 66-81)
Grimm, S. R. (2021). Understanding. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.
Hannon, M. (2021). Recent work in the epistemology of understanding. American philosophical quarterly, 58(3), 269-290.
January 23
UESK, Ch. 2
The De Regt-Khalifa exchange in Lawler, I., Khalifa, K., & Shech, E. (Eds.). (2024). Scientific Understanding and Representation: Modeling in the Physical Sciences. Routledge. (Ch. 2-5)
WEEKS 3-4: Understanding and Explanation
January 30
Carter, J. A., & Gordon, E. C. (2014). Objectual understanding and the value problem. American philosophical quarterly, 51(1), 1-13.
UESK, Ch. 4
Kelp, C. (2021). Inquiry, knowledge, and understanding. Oxford University Press. (Chapter 4)
Recommended Further Reading:
Kvanvig, J. L. (2009). The value of understanding. In A. Haddock, A. Millar, & D. Pritchard (Eds.), Epistemic value (pp. 95-111). Oxford University Press.
Baumberger, C. (2019). Explicating Objectual Understanding: Taking Degrees Seriously. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 50(3), 367-388.
February 6
Lipton, P. (2009). Understanding without explanation. In H. W. De Regt, S. Leonelli, & K. Eigner (Eds.), Scientific understanding: philosophical perspectives (pp. 43-63). University of Pittsburgh Press
UESK, Ch. 5
Dellsén, F. (2020). Beyond Explanation: Understanding as Dependency Modelling. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 71(4), 1261-1286.
Come with any questions you have about your lightning talks.
Recommended Further Reading:
Verreault-Julien, P. (2019). Understanding does not depend on (causal) explanation. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 9(2), 18
Hunt, J. (2021). Understanding and Equivalent Reformulations. Philosophy of Science, 88(5), 810-823.
--(2024). Epistemic dependence and understanding: reformulating through symmetry. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
WEEK 5: Understanding and Truth
February 13
Elgin, C. Z. (2004). True enough. Philosophical issues, 14(1), 113-131.
UESK, Ch. 6
Le Bihan, S. (2017). Enlightening falsehoods: a modal view of scientific understanding. In Explaining understanding: New perspectives from epistemology and philosophy of science (pp. 111-136)
Recommended Further Reading:
Cornelissen, M. D., & de Regt, H. W. (2022). Understanding in synthetic chemistry: the case of periplanone B. Synthese, 200(6), 461.
Doyle, Y., Egan, S., Graham, N., & Khalifa, K. (2019). Non-factive Understanding: A Statement and Defense. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 50(3), 345-365.
De Regt, H. W., & Gijsbers, V. (2016). How false theories can yield genuine understanding. In S. R. Grimm, C. Baumberger, & S. Ammon (Eds.), Explaining understanding: New perspectives from epistemology and philosophy of science (pp. 50-75). Routledge.
Lawler, I., & Sullivan, E. (2021). Model Explanation Versus Model-Induced Explanation. Foundations of Science, 26(4), 1049-1074.
Lawler, I. (2021). Scientific understanding and felicitous legitimate falsehoods. Synthese, 198(7), 6859-6887.
Mizrahi, M. (2012). Idealizations and scientific understanding. Philosophical studies, 160(2), 237-252.
Rice, C. (2017). Models Don’t Decompose That Way: A Holistic View of Idealized Models. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 70(1), 179-208.
Rice, C. (2021). Leveraging distortions: explanation, idealization, and universality in science. The MIT Press.
Ross, L. (2023). The Truth About Better Understanding? Erkenntnis, 88, 747–770.
Sullivan, E., & Khalifa, K. (2019). Idealizations and Understanding: Much Ado About Nothing? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 97(4), 673-689.
February 15
Submit PowerPoints for Lightning Talks (6-slide maximum) 11:59PM.
February 17 (Precise time TBD)
Understanding Workshop (Party to Follow)
You will present your lightning talks.
Special Guests!
Alexander Belak (Zurich)
Federica Malfatti (Innsbruck)
Collin Rice (Colorado State)
WEEK 6: Understanding, Ability, and Skills
February 20
Grimm, S. R. (2014). Understanding as knowledge of causes. In A. Fairweather (Ed.), Virtue epistemology naturalized (Vol. 366, pp. 329-345). Springer International Publishing.
UESK, Ch. 3
Malfatti, F. I. (2020). Can Testimony Transmit Understanding? Theoria, 86(1), 54-72.
Special Guest!! Federica Malfatti (Innsbruck)
Recommended Further Reading:
Hills, A. (2015). Understanding why. Noûs, 49(2), 661-688.
Gilbertson, E. (2020). Understanding by Testimony: A Reply to Malfatti. Theoria, 86(4), 528-534.
Hu, X. (2019). Is knowledge of causes sufficient for understanding? Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 49(3), 291-313.
Pritchard, D. (2014). Knowledge and understanding. In A. Fairweather (Ed.), Virtue epistemology naturalized (Vol. 366, pp. 315-327). Springer International Publishing.
Sullivan, E. (2018). Understanding: not know-how. Philosophical studies, 175(1), 221-240.
WEEK 7: The Value of Understanding
February 27
Pritchard, D. (2010). Knowledge and understanding. In D. Pritchard, A. Millar, & A. Haddock (Eds.), The nature and value of knowledge: three investigations (pp. 3-24, 66-90). Oxford University Press.
UESK, Ch. 8
Recommended Further Reading:
Ahlstrom-Vij, K., & Grimm, S. R. (2013). Getting it right. Philosophical studies, 166(2), 329-347
De Regt, H. W. (2020). Understanding, Values, and the Aims of Science. Philosophy of Science, 87(5), 921-932.
Hu, Xingming. 2024. The epistemic value of understanding-why. Episteme 20 (1): 125-141.
Khalifa, K. (2020). Understanding, Truth, and Epistemic Goals. Philosophy of Science, 87(5), 944-956.
Khalifa, K., & Millson, J. (2020). Perspectives, Questions, and Epistemic Value. In A.-M. Crețu & M. Massimi (Eds.), Knowledge from a Human Point of View (pp. 87-106). Springer International Publishing.
Potochnik, A. (2020).
WEEK 8: Understanding and Epistemic Luck
March 5
Pritchard, D. (2008). Knowing the answer, understanding, and epistemic value. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 77, 325-339.
UESK, Ch. 7
Roush, S. (2017). The Difference Between Knowledge and Understanding. In Explaining Knowledge: New Essays on the Gettier Problem (pp. 384-407).
Special Guest!! Sherri Roush
Recommended Further Reading:
Belkoniene, M. (2022). Reassessing Lucky Understanding. Episteme, 1-15.
Rohwer, Y. (2014). Lucky understanding without knowledge. Synthese, 191(5), 945-959.
Morris, K. (2012). A defense of lucky understanding. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63(2), 357-371.
Sliwa, P. (2015). Understanding and Knowing. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 115(1), 57-74.
March 8
Extended Abstracts Due at 11:59PM (Submit via BruinLearn)
WEEK 9: Talking About Your Finals
March 12
Meetings to Discuss Extended Abstracts
Catch-up/further explorations
March 20
Final Papers Due at 11:59PM (Submit via BruinLearn)