Beyond Explanation: Understanding as Dependency Modelling

Abstract

This paper presents and argues for an account of objectual understanding that aims to do justice to the full range of cases of scientic understanding, including cases in which one does not have an explanation of the understood phenomenon. According to the proposed account, one understands a phenomenon just in case one grasps a suciently accurate and comprehensive model of the ways in which it or its features are situated within a network of dependence relations; one's degree of understanding is proportional to the comprehensiveness and accuracy of such a model. I compare this account with accounts of scientic understanding that explicate understanding in terms of having an explanation of the understood phenomenon. I discuss three distinct types of cases in which scientic understanding does not amount to possessing an explanation of any kind, and argue that the proposed model-based account can accommodate these cases while still retaining a strong link between understanding and explanation.

Understanding scientific progress: the noetic account

“…What has this got to do with understanding? Well, on the view of scientific understanding I favor (Dellsén 2020 ), the latter can be defined in terms of the former: an agent S understands X if and only if S grasps a sufficiently accurate and comprehensive dependency model of X ; and S ’s degree of understanding of X is proportional to the accuracy and comprehensiveness of their dependency model of X . I note immediately that the target of this type of understanding, X , is some part of our world; not a mere representation thereof, such as a theory, concept, or explanation.…”

“… 7 For arguments that it is superior, see Dellsén ( 2020 ). Rival accounts are provided by, among others, Strevens ( 2013 ), Wilkenfeld ( 2013 ), Grimm ( 2014 ), Bengson ( 2015 ), Elgin ( 2017 ), de Regt ( 2017 ), and Khalifa ( 2017 ), although many of these accounts have important similarities with mine.…”

IsVerstehenScientific Understanding?

“…Thus far, we have focused on understanding why, or explanatory understanding. This is frequently contrasted with objectual understanding (Baumberger and Brun 2017; Carter and Gordon 2014; Dellsén 2018; Elgin 2017; Kelp 2015; Kvanvig 2003). The clearest difference between explanatory and objectual understanding occurs at the level of grammar.…”

Descriptive understanding and prediction in COVID-19 modelling

“…Our observation is at odds with views that define understanding as consisting in having an explanation (de Regt, 2017 ; Hills, 2016 ; Khalifa, 2017 ). In contrast, our case study favours those accounts according to which understanding is a very specific skill of the members of a scientific community that can be realised through a plurality of cognitive pathways (Dellsén, 2020 ; Verreault-Julien, 2019 ).…”

“…We highlighted the epistemic value of non-causal, but descriptive models, and their relevance for contemporary scientific research. This suggests that understanding cannot merely consist in having an explanation (de Regt, 2017 ; Grimm, 2010 ; Hills, 2016 ; Khalifa, 2017 ), but it is a scientific skill that can be realised through multiple types of cognitive achievements (Dellsén, 2020 ; Verreault-Julien, 2019 ) (for a summary see Grimm et al, 2016 ; Grimm, 2021 ). Furthermore, we shed light on how these models evolve over time, and how they are generally responsive to evidence.…”