Abstract
Among philosophers of science there seems to be a general consensus that understanding represents a species of knowledge, but virtually every major epistemologist who has thought seriously about understanding has come to deny this claim. Against this prevailing tide in epistemology, I argue that understanding is, in fact, a species of knowledge: just like knowledge, for example, understanding is not transparent and can be Gettiered. I then consider how the psychological act of "grasping" that seems to be characteristic of understanding differs from the sort of psychological act that often characterizes knowledge. © The Author (2006). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for the Philosophy of Science. All rights reserved.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 515-535 |
| Journal | British Journal for the Philosophy of Science |
| Volume | 57 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2006 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Is understanding a species of knowledge?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver