This SEP article can be seen as strongly related, but I will more go the line of logic rather than justifiability. Second, knowledge has two fundamentally different kinds: non-inferential knowledge and inferential knowledge. Most theorists claim that there must be a basis of inference, may it be atomistic Russel, sense-data theorists or that of basic holistic concepts Sellars.
But all of them say that by having a sensual experience, we have a certain kind of knowledge about these sensations that can not be justified by any instance other than our sensual experience of them. That is why they are non-inferential. Here, the things are different. This knowledge has to be justified by inference. Now, what is understanding? I will stick to virmaior 's terms episteme vs. Let's take an example of two chimpanzees having to do a certain sequence of actions in order to get their food.
Chimpanzee 1: There are two mechanisms, eventually changing. He has tried out various ways in both cases and eventually learnt what to do. He has become able of getting his food, because he learnt that for mechanism A, there is sequence A and for mechanism B there is sequence B.
He learnt techne. Chimpanzee 2: He tried out at mechanism A, too. He learnt what to do. But then something interesting happens: When confronted with mechanism B, he does not try out anymore, he just does what's right. How can we properly describe this? It may be described in terms of propositions, too: He has learnt what action causes which reaction in the mechanism and if the sequence of the mechanism is changed, these relations still hold.
But it may also be that the mechanism is not that simple or there has been added another part not known before and he did understand its nature by looking at it, not by knowing the function of each part before. Here, we say something more than propositional knowledge. Here, we have achieved the notion of episteme.
My description would be in this example that no. That means that from mB and its properties also propositional , he knows how to infer the sequence of actions necessary. And I think that this is what makes the difference between techne and episteme. It is the main problem of pragmatism, as I see it: If Dewey is correct and we only make hypotheses about these rules and try them out, there is no room for the difference between pure propositional relations and episteme.
This "something more" is questioned. Like I tried to point out there is a difference and it is crucial to be able to describe it within a theory. As understanding would be understanding of the rules of inference, it could be described as a representation by language: I have to be able to justify the inference and this includes the ability to formulate its rules in some way. It is the very difference between a teacher that can only answer "It is the way it has to be done" and a teacher that is able to make you understand by formulating the rules and backgrounds.
The former did not really understand what he's doing. I am not sure, but I think the difference as presented does strengthen the argument. A computer has propositional contents and can only compute relations between them, may it be through semantics, logic or probability. But will he ever be able to answer the question Why?
I think what will be missing is that what Sellars could call a "holistic" understanding. It is not really inferred by logic or probability, but nevertheless it includes a certainty. The move the computer will probably not be able to make is understanding the connections between things that are not correlated, merely by intuition. Humans can only share these insights between them because they all have this very faculty.
To 'understand' something is an extension of 'knowing' something. The distinction between 'knowing' and 'understanding' lies in the ability to deduce further from the initial concept. One for example could know the geometric definition of a square i. However this does not mean one can understand the definition of a square and be able to ascertain the statement that all angles in a square are, by extension of the definition, equiangular.
I argue that it is not entirely possible for humans to internalize a concept. To understand a concept relies on our own sense of intuition and thus deductive reasoning. However we rely on the scientific method to understand the universe and not our intuition or deductive reasoning. When used as verbs , know means to perceive the truth or factuality of, whereas understand means to be aware of the meaning of. Know is also noun with the meaning: knowledge.
To recognize as the same as someone or something previously encountered after an absence or change. Know as a verb transitive, archaic, Biblical :.
Know as a verb intransitive, obsolete :. Do you understand?! It is thus a superficial method of attaining knowledge wherein the person may not use their brain in an active manner to actually process and perceive the information they attained. According to some articles, there are four major levels of gaining knowledge, and knowledge is just the first part of a long process.
This is what makes it really crucial too, one should never stop learning anything only after knowing about that, it often makes the situation worse. Understanding is often the next step after knowing a fact or incident, it is a psychological process. One needs to actively use their brain to process and perceive the idea or incident. Thus it is a longer and deeper process than just knowing. The words in this book were considered modern at that time. She had a positive attitude that the arts would finally be accepted as a necessary strategy to teaching children.
Fantastic insight and very practical. YouthMUSE is loving your take on real solutions to real social issues. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.
Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser. Previous Next. What is the Difference between Knowing and Understanding? Facebook
0コメント