The DOI matches its Crossref record; 116 of the 116 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding, Explanation, and Scientific Knowledge
Abstract
From antiquity to the end of the twentieth century, philosophical discussions of understanding remained undeveloped, guided by a 'received view' that takes understanding to be nothing more than knowledge of an explanation. More recently, however, this received view has been criticized, and bold new philosophical proposals about understanding have emerged in its place. In this book, Kareem Khalifa argues that the received view should be revised but not abandoned. In doing so, he clarifies and answers the most central questions in this burgeoning field of philosophical research: what kinds of cognitive abilities are involved in understanding? What is the relationship between the understanding that explanations provide and the understanding that experts have of broader subject matters? Can there be understanding without explanation? How can one understand something on the basis of falsehoods? Is understanding a species of knowledge? What is the value of understanding?
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(2002) · Cited by 13,211
POLANYI, M. (1997) · Knowledge in Organisations · doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-9718-7.50010-x · Cited by 12,408
Unidentified curved bacilli in the stomach of patients with gastritis and peptic ulceration
Marshall, B., & Warren, J. R. (1984) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(84)91816-6 · Cited by 5,509
Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge.
Hutchison, T. W., & Popper, K. R. (1964) · Economica · doi:10.2307/2551371 · Cited by 4,197
Making things happen: a theory of causal explanation
(2004) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.41-5840 · Cited by 3,371
Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/392759 · Cited by 3,179
Williamson, T. (2002) · doi:10.1093/019925656x.001.0001 · Cited by 2,788
Making it explicit : reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment
Brandom, R. B. (1994) · Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association · Cited by 2,620
Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge
Zagzebski, L. T. (1996) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174763 · Cited by 2,211
Inference to the Best Explanation
Lipton, P. (2003) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203470855 · Cited by 2,130
Cited by
ChatGPT, Education, and Understanding
Malfatti, F. I. (2025) · Social Epistemology · doi:10.1080/02691728.2025.2449599 · Cited by 21
“Explanationists believe that understanding a phenomenon is essentially a matter of being in the position to explain it correctly, or in a way that is acceptable in the given epistemic circumstances (Khalifa 2012, 2017; Strevens 2008, 2013).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Khalifa, K.
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2017-10-05
- OpenAlex
- W2764050945
- Cited by
- 331
- References
- 116
- FWCI
- 15.05
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Understanding, Explanation, and Scientific Knowledge. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/9781108164276
- The paper
- Khalifa, K. (2017). Understanding, Explanation, and Scientific Knowledge. Cambridge University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108164276
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.