Advertisement

Scientific Understanding, Fictional Understanding, and Scientific Progress

  • Seungbae ParkEmail author
Discussion
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

The epistemic account and the noetic account hold that the essence of scientific progress is the increase in knowledge and understanding, respectively. Dellsén (J Gen Philos Sci 49(3):451–459, 2018) criticizes the epistemic account (Park in J Gen Philos Sci 48(4):569–579, 2017a) and defends the noetic account (Dellsén in Stud Hist Philos Sci 56(72):82, 2016). I argue that Dellsén’s criticisms against the epistemic account fail, and that his notion of understanding, which he claims requires neither belief nor justification, cannot explain scientific progress, although it can explain fictional progress in science-fiction.

Keywords

Cognitive episode Means-end thesis Non-cognitive episode Restriction thesis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the reviewers of journal for insightful comments. This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2018S1A5A2A01039606).

References

  1. Bird, A. (2007). What is scientific progress? Noûs, 41(1), 64–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bird, A. (2008). Scientific progress as accumulation of knowledge: A reply to rowbottom. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 39(2), 279–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, L. J. (1992). An essay on belief and acceptance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dawes, G. (2013). Belief is not the issue: A defence of inference to the best explanation. Ratio: An International Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 26(1), 62–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dellsén, F. (2016). Scientific progress: Knowledge vs. understanding. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 56, 72–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dellsén, F. (2017). Understanding without justification or belief. Ratio: An International Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 30(3), 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dellsén, F. (2018). Scientific progress, understanding, and knowledge: Reply to Park. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 49(3), 451–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hempel, C. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Moore, G. (1993). Moore’s paradox. In T. Baldwin (Ed.), G.E. Moore: Selected writings. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Niiniluoto, I. (2015). Scientific progress. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/scientific-progress/.
  11. Park, S. (2017a). Does scientific progress consist in increasing knowledge or understanding? Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 48(4), 569–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Park, S. (2017b). The uniformity principle vs. the disuniformity principle. Acta Analytica, 32(2), 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Park, S. (2017c). Understanding without Justification and Belief? Principia: An International Journal of Epistemology, 21(3), 379–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Park, S. (2018a). The grand pessimistic induction. Review of Contemporary Philosophy, 17, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Park, S. (2018b). The pessimistic induction and the golden rule. Problemos, 93, 70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Park, S. (2018c). Philosophers and scientists are social epistemic agents. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 7(6), 31–43.Google Scholar
  17. Park, S. (2019). Should scientists embrace scientific realism or antirealism? Philosophical Forum, 50(1), 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Winther, R. (2009). A dialogue. Metascience, 18(3), 370–379.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ulsan National Institute of Science and TechnologyUlsanRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations