Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–22 | Cite as

Group understanding

  • Kenneth BoydEmail author
Article
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

While social epistemologists have recently begun addressing questions about whether groups can possess beliefs or knowledge, little has yet been said about whether groups can properly be said to possess understanding. Here I want to make some progress on this question by considering two possible accounts of group understanding, modeled on accounts of group belief and knowledge: a deflationary account, according to which a group understands just in case most or all of its members understand, and an inflationary account, according to which a group’s understanding does not depend solely on whether its members understand. I argue that both accounts face problems. The deflationary account has two such problems: aggregation problems that are familiar from discussions of group belief, and the problem of different bases, wherein members possess understanding for different but consistent reasons. The inflationary account faces what I call the problem of distributed grasping: while it is widely accepted that understanding requires a kind of “grasping”, it is hard to make sense of how this requirement could be met at the group level while not necessarily being met by any individual member. Despite its problems, I make a case for the inflationary account. This will require addressing the problem of distributed grasping: to do this, I propose a different way of thinking about the grasping relation at the group level, such that it is constituted by a dependency relationship between members.

Keywords

Understanding Groups Group knowledge Grasping 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I’d like to thank Mikkel Gerken, Uwe Peters, and Niklaas Tepelmann for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper, as well as two anonymous reviewers for their very useful suggestions during the review process. Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond (Grant no. 8018-00053B).

References

  1. Bird, A. (2010). Social knowing: The social sense of ‘scientific knowledge’. Philosophical Perspectives, 24(1), 23–56.Google Scholar
  2. Bird, A. (2014). When is there a group that knows? Distributed cognition, scientific knowledge, and the social epistemic subject. In J. Lackey (Ed.), Essays in collective epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bourget, D. (2017). The role of consciousness in grasping and understanding. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 95(2), 285–318.Google Scholar
  4. Boyd, K. (2017). Testifying understanding. Episteme,14(1), 103–127.Google Scholar
  5. Bruner, J. S. (1974). From communication to language—A psychological perspective. Cognition,3(3), 255–287.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. de Regt, H. (2017). Understanding scientific understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. de Regt, H., & Dieks, D. (2005). A Contextual Approach to scientific understanding. Synthese,144(1), 137–170.Google Scholar
  9. Dunn, J. (Forthcoming). “Reliable group belief.” Synthese: 1–25.Google Scholar
  10. Gilbert, M. (1987). Modeling collective belief. Synthese,73(1), 185–204.Google Scholar
  11. Gilbert, M. (1994). Remarks on collective belief. In F. F. Schmitt (Ed.), Socializing epistemology: the social dimensions of knowledge (pp. 235–256). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  12. Goldman, A. (2014). Social process reliabilism: Solving justification problems in collective epistemology. In J. Lackey (Ed.), Essays in collective epistemology (pp. 11–41). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Goldman, A. I. (2004). Group knowledge versus group rationality: Two approaches to social epistemology. Episteme,1(1), 11–22.Google Scholar
  14. Grimm, S. (2006). Is understanding a species of knowledge? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science,57(3), 515–535.Google Scholar
  15. Grimm, S. (2012). The value of understanding. Philosophy Compass, 7(2), 103–117.Google Scholar
  16. Hakli, R. (2006). Group beliefs and the distinction between belief and acceptance. Cognitive Systems Research,7(2–3), 286–297.Google Scholar
  17. Hakli, R. (2007). On the possibility of group knowledge without belief. Social Epistemology, 21(3), 249–266.Google Scholar
  18. Hakli, R. (2011). On dialectical justification of group beliefs. In H. B. Schmid, D. Sirtes, & M. Weber (Eds.), Collective epistemology (pp. 119–153). Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Hills, A. (2015). Understanding Why. Noûs,50(2), 1–28.Google Scholar
  20. Humphreys, P. (2000). Analytic versus synthetic understanding. In J. H. Fetzer (Ed.), Science, explanation and rationality: The philosophy of Carl G. Hempel (pp. 267–286). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, K. (2007). Tacit and accessible understanding of language. Synthese,156(2), 253–279.Google Scholar
  23. Kelp, C. (2015). Understanding phenomena. Synthese,192(12), 3799–3816.Google Scholar
  24. Khalifa, K. (2013). Understanding, grasping and luck. Episteme,10(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  25. Khalifa, K. (2017). Understanding, explanation, and scientific knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kvanvig, J. L. (2003). The value of knowledge and the pursuit of understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lackey, J. (2014). Socially extended knowledge. Philosophical Issues, 24(1), 282–298.Google Scholar
  28. Lackey, J. (2016). What is justified group belief? The Philosophical Review,125(3), 341–396.Google Scholar
  29. List, C. (2005). Group knowledge and group rationality: A judgment aggregation perspective. Episteme,2, 25–38.Google Scholar
  30. List, C., & Pettit, P. (2002). Aggregating sets of judgments: An impossibility result. Economics and Philosophy,18, 89–110.Google Scholar
  31. List, C., & Pettit, P. (2011). Group agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mathiesen, K. (2006). The epistemic features of group belief. Episteme,2(3), 161–175.Google Scholar
  33. Meijers, A. (2003). Why accept collective beliefs? Reply to Gilbert. Protosociology,18(19), 377–388.Google Scholar
  34. Pettit, P. (2003). Groups with minds of their own. In F. F. Schmitt (Ed.), Socializing metaphysics: The nature of social reality (pp. 167–193). Rowman and Littlefield: Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
  35. Pritchard, D., Millar, A., & Haddock, A. (2010). The nature and value of knowledge: Three investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Reardon, S. (2019). “Big changes needed to fight harassment, group tells US biomedical agency.” Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01886-0.
  37. Schmitt, F. F. (Ed.). (1994). The justification of group beliefs. In Socializing epistemology: The social dimensions of knowledge (pp. 257–287). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  38. Tuomela, R. (1992). Group beliefs. Synthese,91(3), 285–318.Google Scholar
  39. Tuomela, R. (2004). Group knowledge analyzed. Episteme, 1(2), 109–127.Google Scholar
  40. Wilkenfeld, D. (2013). Understanding as representation manipulability. Synthese,190(6), 997–1016.Google Scholar
  41. Wilkenfeld, D. A., Plunkett, D., & Lombrozo, T. (2016). Depth and deference: When and why we attribute understanding. Philosophical Studies,173(2), 373–393.Google Scholar
  42. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Zagzebski, L. (2008). On epistemology. Wadsworth: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department for the Study of CultureUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations