S. Sloman, Jeffrey C. Zemla, D. Lagnado, C. Bechlivanidis, Babak Hemmatian
{"title":"Are Humans Intuitive Philosophers?","authors":"S. Sloman, Jeffrey C. Zemla, D. Lagnado, C. Bechlivanidis, Babak Hemmatian","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190860974.003.0012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190860974.003.0012","url":null,"abstract":"What are the criteria that people use to evaluate everyday explanations? We focus on simplicity, coherence, and unification. We consider various operationalizations of each construct within the context of explanations to measure how people respond to them. With regard to simplicity, some of the psychological literature suggests that people do have a preference for simple explanations that have few causes, but we find that a more complete assessment shows that this preference is moderated by a number of factors when evaluating everyday explanations. For one, people prefer explanations that elaborate on causal mechanisms and provide a greater sense of understanding, even if this increases complexity. Measures of coherence are highly predictive of explanation quality. Moreover, people prefer explanations that cohere with the evidence. But the meaning of coherence remains mysterious; it seems to be a placeholder for a complex system of evaluation. There is surprisingly little evidence that people value unification in the form of abstract explanation. Indeed, people often respond positively to extraneous detail. Detail may enhance our understanding of particular events and might help us better visualize mechanisms. We also find that people prefer explanations that use words entrenched in a community even if the explanation offers no real information. We conclude that people are not merely intuitive philosophers. How a person evaluates an explanation depends on what that person is trying to achieve.","PeriodicalId":156980,"journal":{"name":"Varieties of Understanding","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132345538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Toward a Theory of Understanding","authors":"L. Zagzebski","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190860974.003.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190860974.003.0007","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter proposes that understanding is the grasp of structure. The structure of an object gives it unity and lets us see it as a single object. When we grasp an object’s structure, we understand the object. Understanding must simplify what it grasps, and the larger and more complex the object of understanding, the more we must simplify and leave out of the phenomenon components that may be important at different times or for different purposes. The object of understanding can be anything that has structure: a living organism, an event, a narrative, a piece of music, a philosophical argument, a causal relation, a human intentional act, etc.","PeriodicalId":156980,"journal":{"name":"Varieties of Understanding","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125086250","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Varieties of Understanding","authors":"Stephen R. Grimm","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190860974.003.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190860974.003.0001","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter has two roles: (a) to introduce some of the key themes and questions in the volume, and (b) to indicate where several of the essays stand on these questions. One of the main questions asked is whether understanding human actions differs in important ways from understanding events in the natural world, and a contrast is drawn between how the “humanistic tradition” answers this question, as opposed to the “naturalistic tradition.” A further central question is why we desire firsthand understanding in areas such as philosophy, morality, and aesthetics, and whether this firsthand understanding is compatible with deferring to the testimony of others on these matters.","PeriodicalId":156980,"journal":{"name":"Varieties of Understanding","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127647151","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：