Abstract

This talk has three goals. First, I’ll argue that the popular distinction between explanatory, objectual and pragmatic understanding is currently ambiguous concerning whether it refers to a distinction between states, modes or objects of understanding. I argue that this distinction is most fruitfully characterized as one between epistemic states, rather than modes or objects.

Second, I address the question of fundamentality. What do we mean when we say that one of these kinds of understanding is more fundamental than the others? I distinguish between several possibilities, and focus on “humble reductionism” – where one kind of understanding is necessary but not sufficient for another kind (or kinds) of understanding. Then, I’ll argue that pragmatic understanding is the most fundamental kind of understanding, in this sense.

Third, I’ll sketch an account of pragmatic understanding. Roughly, an agent S has pragmatic understanding of X when S has, and is responsible for having, the ability to reliably and successfully manipulate X, where those abilities come with the right dispositions; exist in the majority of nearby possible worlds; and are robust. I close by considering how this account informs the debate about scientific progress. Specifically, it allows us to capture what seems right about both the so-called noetic (understanding-based) and functional (ability-based) accounts of scientific progress, combining them into a single account of scientific progress.