東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back to Search results for [ null ]

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

A Critical Examination of Understand...

Becker, Christopher.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

A Critical Examination of Understanding's Characteristics: Why, in a Sense, Understanding Is Unique.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	A Critical Examination of Understanding's Characteristics: Why, in a Sense, Understanding Is Unique./
Author:	Becker, Christopher.
Published:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2018,
Description:	47 p.
Notes:	Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 57-06.
Contained By:	Masters Abstracts International57-06(E).
Subject:	Epistemology. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10813326
ISBN:	9780438067875

A Critical Examination of Understanding's Characteristics: Why, in a Sense, Understanding Is Unique.
Becker, Christopher.

A Critical Examination of Understanding's Characteristics: Why, in a Sense, Understanding Is Unique. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2018 - 47 p.

Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 57-06.

Thesis (M.A.)--The University of Mississippi, 2018.

Is understanding a unique kind of epistemic state or simply another word for knowledge? Recently, there is a dispute in the literature between those, non-reductionists, who argue that we cannot reduce understanding to knowledge. Sliwa and Khalifa, two reductionists, on the other hand, argue that understanding is basically just another word for knowledge (if we are fairly comparing the two). After considering the dialectic between non-reductionists and reductionists, undogmatically, I argue that Sliwa's arguments in favor of reductionism fail. Sliwa's analytical argument in defense of reductionism is unsuccessful because a special kind of understanding, subjective understanding , can be independent of knowledge. And, Sliwa's background argument in defense of reductionism fails because there can be epistemic asymmetries in skeptical scenarios. So, my thesis is that understanding is not necessarily reducible to knowledge. After all, a certain kind of understanding, subjective understanding, is both non-factive and compatible with certain kinds of epistemic luck, unlike knowledge. Understanding, in a sense, is unique.

ISBN: 9780438067875Subjects--Topical Terms:

896969
Epistemology.

A Critical Examination of Understanding's Characteristics: Why, in a Sense, Understanding Is Unique.
LDR:02078nmm a2200301 4500 001 2200177
005 20181214114500.5
008 201008s2018 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9780438067875
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10813326
035 $a (MiAaPQ)umiss:11686
035 $a AAI10813326
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Becker, Christopher. $3 3185583
245 1 2 $a A Critical Examination of Understanding's Characteristics: Why, in a Sense, Understanding Is Unique.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2018
300 $a 47 p.
500 $a Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 57-06.
500 $a Adviser: Robert Barnard.
502 $a Thesis (M.A.)--The University of Mississippi, 2018.
520 $a Is understanding a unique kind of epistemic state or simply another word for knowledge? Recently, there is a dispute in the literature between those, non-reductionists, who argue that we cannot reduce understanding to knowledge. Sliwa and Khalifa, two reductionists, on the other hand, argue that understanding is basically just another word for knowledge (if we are fairly comparing the two). After considering the dialectic between non-reductionists and reductionists, undogmatically, I argue that Sliwa's arguments in favor of reductionism fail. Sliwa's analytical argument in defense of reductionism is unsuccessful because a special kind of understanding, subjective understanding , can be independent of knowledge. And, Sliwa's background argument in defense of reductionism fails because there can be epistemic asymmetries in skeptical scenarios. So, my thesis is that understanding is not necessarily reducible to knowledge. After all, a certain kind of understanding, subjective understanding, is both non-factive and compatible with certain kinds of epistemic luck, unlike knowledge. Understanding, in a sense, is unique.
590 $a School code: 0131.
650 4 $a Epistemology. $3 896969
650 4 $a Philosophy of science. $2 bicssc $3 2079849
690 $a 0393
690 $a 0402
710 2 $a The University of Mississippi. $b Philosophy. $3 3188492
773 0 $t Masters Abstracts International $g 57-06(E).
790 $a 0131
791 $a M.A.
792 $a 2018
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10813326