maría del rosario martínez-ordaz1 - maria martinez-ordaz

María del Rosario Martínez-Ordaz1

1 Institute for Philosophical Research-UNAMWith support of UNAM-PAPIIT projects

PAPIIT IN 403719 “Intensionalidad hasta el final: un nuevo plan para la relevancia lógica” and PAPIIT IG400219 “Conciencia y normatividad”

[email protected]

June 3, 2019UNAM

Can we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understanding? A response to Batens

Can we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?

María del Rosario Martínez-Ordaz

Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Aim

Can we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understanding?

Yes.

What is the role of scientific understanding when explaining the tolerance of defectiveness in the

sciences?

It could be explanatory as to why and how scientists tolerate certain defects in their day-to-day practice



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Plan

Scientific Understanding

(Batens-ian) Preliminaries

Knowledge & Understanding

Understanding defectiveness: contradictions

Final remarks



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

(1991)Can we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Hierarchical models

… to hierarchical models of science, ourscientific knowledge (…) forms aknowledge system that has twoproperties: (i) it is stratified, and (ii) theitems of some layer are or should bejustified in terms of items of a higherlayer.

(Batens, 1991: 1999)



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Hierarchical models

(Jeanne Dalya, Karen Willisb, Rhonda Smalla, JulieGreenc, Nicky Welchd, Michelle Kealya, EmmaHughes; 2006: 45)

(i) it is stratifiedCan we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Examples

(Jeanne Dalya, Karen Willisb, Rhonda Smalla, JulieGreenc, Nicky Welchd, Michelle Kealya, EmmaHughes; 2006: 45)



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Examples

Belief

Knowledge

True Belief

Justified True Belief

Preliminaries

ScUnderstanding

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks



Examples

Discovery

Justification Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks



Pursuit

Discovery

Justification

(Laudan, 1980)

Examples



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Hierarchical models

… to hierarchical models of science, ourscientific knowledge (…) forms aknowledge system that has twoproperties: (i) it is stratified, and (ii) theitems of some layer are or should bejustified in terms of items of a higherlayer.

(Batens, 1991: 1999)



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Hierarchical modelsCan we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Decisions at the lower level derive directly from the items at the higher level.

Hierarchical models

• Scientific disciplines• Types of knowledge• Types of justification• Emp. Adequacy• Accuracy• Truth• (…)



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Hierarchical models

Cumulative (?)

Certainty (?)

Mp foundations (?)

Emp. Adequacy

Accuracy

Truth

(…)



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Hierarchical models: problemsCan we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Justificatory relations (ad infinitum)

Absolute certainties

Instrumental justificationHighest level

Humans cannot do it



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks




Not possible(Disagreement)



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks




Science | Prob. Solving

Scientific knowledge is, most of the time, incomplete.



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks Scientific knowledge is, most of the time, incomplete.

Contextual Problem Solving

{ , , , ( , ), }A A A A A Aproblem participants certainties Rel x problem meth

{ , , , ( , ), }B B B B B Bproblem participants certainties Rel x problem meth



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Contextual Problem SolvingCan we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Context vs contex


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks



“Even so, the idea that such anomalies aresomething that gravity research ought to bepursuing did not come fully to the forefront in theliterature until after the discovery of Neptune.”(Smith, 2014: 84)

And after that they were positively pursued as theywere regarded as extremely informative.

The resultCan we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Context vs contex


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks



contradiction

Exp. gap

Scientific KnowledgeCan we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Do we need a hierarchical model of Scientific Knowledge?



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Do we need a hierarchical model of Scientific Knowledge?

No.



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Can we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Knowledge?



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Can we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Knowledge?

No (if we want it to be descriptive and explanatory)

Understanding Can we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks




Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

However, while many different ways to attain and assess scientificunderstanding have been put forward by epistemologists of science, thereis still no unanimous view on how to characterize it and so, depending onthe particularities of the cases of understanding that are studied, differentphilosophical approaches have been presented.



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Understanding

Grasping



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Understanding

GraspingPutting together

Fine grained V +objects V Truth

Understanding (I)

Non-Explanatory Explanatory

(Khalifa, 2017: 2)Can we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Understanding (I)

(Khalifa, 2017: 2)Can we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Hierarchical models of understanding Can we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Explanatory

Non-Explanatory



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Factive

Moderately-Factive

Non-factive



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Factive

Moderately-Factive

Non-factive

If Explanatory Factivity req.

Explanatory

But…?Can we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks


{ , , , ( , ), }B B B B B Bproblem participants certainties Rel x problem meth

Expertise (contextual)Can we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks(Ammon, 2017)

More understanding & tasksCan we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

(Recognizing): Identifying salient features of a particular object of study and generating an exemplar of such object guided only by the features previously selected.

(Providing): Presenting an exemplar of a particular object and explaining how the salient features of such an object are present in the provided exemplar.

(Afterlightining): Evaluating the soundness of the provided exemplar as well as the relevance of the elements previously identified as salient.

Elgin (2017), Martínez-Ordaz (2019)



It has been claimed that the value of understanding seems to surpassthat of knowledge; concretely, that “knowledge may easily beacquired through the testimony of experts; understanding, bycontrast, seems more demanding and requires that an epistemicagent herself puts together several pieces of information, graspsconnections, can reason about causes, and this too suggests anadded value” (Baumberger, Beisbart & Brun, 2017: 3).

Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Knowledge & understandingCan we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Knowledge

understanding

Explanatory

(factive condition)

Non-Explanatory

How to integrate?Can we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Explanatory

Non-Explanatory

Objectual Modal

Non-Explanatory

Hierarchical model of ScUnderstandingCan we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Possitiveidentification

Maximal understanding (Kelp, 2016)

Possitive+Negidentification

Afterlightening

Contextual (expertise)

(…)

Hierarchical model of ScUnderstandingCan we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks




Afterlightening


(…)

Coherence: consistency, compatibility, reinforcement. (Elsamahi, 2005)

What is it hierarchical about?Can we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Cumulative (?)

Certainty (?)

Mp foundations (?)

Emp. Adequacy

Accuracy

Truth

(…)

Neutrinos caseCan we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

1960-1970

Standard Solar Model (SSM)

Measuring Solar Neutrino’s flux

John Bahcall&Ray Davis’ Experiment

Prediction _ Observational outcome:+ 60% diff.



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

1960-1970

Standard Solar Model (SSM)

Measuring Solar Neutrino’s flux

John Bahcall&Ray Davis’ Experiment

Prediction _ Observational outcome:+ 60% diff.

Contradiction betweentheory and observation

What was causing this?



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks


Contextual Certainties:

• Neutrinos have no mass

• Neutrinos are of just one type

• Ar37 + Cl37 Neutrinos

• (…)

The problem(s)…Can we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Lack of understanding of

• What neutrinos are (they have mass and are of different types)• Cross sections Ar37 and Cl37• (…)

What happens to what scientists (thought to have) known and understood before?

Understanding neutrinos (I)Can we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

To understand• What neutrinos are (they have mass and are of different types)• Cross sections Ar37 and Cl37

Made a case of contradiction a case of incomplete information

What happens to what scientists knew and understood before?

Contradiction betweentheory and observation

Partial information about:



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

To understand• What neutrinos are (they have mass and are of different types)• Cross sections Ar37 and Cl37

Scientists stopped knowing what they thought to have been the properties of neutrinos…

What happens to what scientists knew and understood before?

Understanding neutrinos (II)

But, did they stop understanding their previous theory about solar neutrinos?

Understanding the caseCan we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks



Afterlightening


(…)


E NE NEO M

“Cumulative” Can we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Even when we discover that the theories that we previously knew andunderstood are false, we still ‘understand’ them (at least in the sense of stillbeing able to navigate some of the possibility space associated to the theoryin question)* (which does not happen with knowledge).

This is, what we, initially, thought to be objectual understanding becomesmodal understanding.

*A similar view can be found in [Le Bihan, 2017: 111-136]

Explanatory

Non-Explanatory

Objectual Modal

Non- Explanatory



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks


Yes (very likely).

What is the role of scientific understanding when explaining the tolerance of defectiveness in the

sciences?

It could be explanatory as to why and how scientists tolerate certain defects in their day-to-day practice

Even if Knowledge…Can we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

Understanding can accommodate KCan we have a hierarchical model of Scientific Understandng?


Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarksE

NE NEO M

and the loss of K (when discovering that something that was

thought to be the case, is false)…

Gracias!



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks



Preliminaries

ScUnderstandng

Knowledg &Un

Defectiveness

Final remarks

María del Rosario Martínez-Ordaz1

1 Institute for Philosophical Research-UNAMWith support of UNAM-PAPIIT projects

PAPIIT IN 403719 “Intensionalidad hasta el final: un nuevo plan para la relevancia lógica” and PAPIIT IG400219 “Conciencia y normatividad”

[email protected]

June 3, 2019UNAM


A response to Batens

maría del rosario martínez-ordaz1 - maria martinez-ordaz

Documents