Disagreement and Conceptual Understanding

Abstract

Does the epistemology of disagreement have significant consequences for theories of conceptual understanding? I argue that it does. I argue that the epistemology of disagreement manifests the existence of a special kind of concept, perspectival modes of metarepresentation, a kind of concept instances of which figure in the thinking about thoughts that occurs in deep disagreement. These perspectival modes of metarepresentation are de re modes of presentation of thoughts themselves – hence de re modes of metarepresentation – in which one and the same thought is presented to higher‐order thinking about thoughts in different ways. These modes or ways are de re and perspectival because they are individuated by facts about whether the thought being thought about is the grasped or understood propositional object of one's own or another's thinking. I outline a broadly Fregean framework for theorizing conceptual understanding and draw out three significant consequences of the existence of perspectival modes of metarepresentation for theories of conceptual understanding: they (1) constitute a new philosophical motivation for a restricted fragment of what Terence Parsons calls a “libertine” hierarchy of Fregean sense; (2) provide, against David Chalmers, examples of a priori equivalences that are nevertheless cognitively significant; and (3) constitute a novel and pervasive example of Kripkean ‘Paderewski’‐type designators.

Understanding Semantic Coordination in Cognition

“…25 See Elga (2007) for this example. For further discussion, see Rattan (2017). By contrast, in a deep disagreement, because it is deep, the possibility of equivocation is already live.…”

“…By contrast, in a deep disagreement, because it is deep, the possibility of equivocation is already live. For further discussion, see Rattan (2017).…”

The Effectiveness of PBL Assisted by EBM to Increase Students' Conceptual Understanding

“…Conceptual understanding involves meaningful and in-depth learning (Farrokhnia et al, 2019). Meaningful learning can be explained as understanding content and processes by structuring students' new ideas (Rattan, 2018) which is elaborated with the previous knowledge obtained by students (Farrokhnia et al, 2019). The process of storing knowledge facts (Shapiro et al, 2017) and critical thinking (Andayani et al, 2018) is a sign of students experiencing meaningful learning.…”

On the Practical Significance of Irrelevant Factors

“… See Vavova (2018) andSher (2001, 66-67); Some have appealed to the same distinction to explain the difference between skeptical challenges and cases of peer disagreement(Rattan 2014(Rattan , 2018.18 See Avnur and Scott-Kakures (2015) and Munro (2020).Canadian Journal of Philosophy 165 https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2023.36 Published online by Cambridge University Press…”