The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Scientific Explanation and the Sense of Understanding
Abstract
Scientists and laypeople alike use the sense of understanding that an explanation conveys as a cue to good or correct explanation. Although the occurrence of this sense or feeling of understanding is neither necessary nor sufficient for good explanation, it does drive judgments of the plausibility and, ultimately, the acceptability, of an explanation. This paper presents evidence that the sense of understanding is in part the routine consequence of two well-documented biases in cognitive psychology: overconfidence and hindsight. In light of the prevalence of counterfeit understanding in the history of science, I argue that many forms of cognitive achievement do not involve a sense of understanding, and that only the truth or accuracy of an explanation make the sense of understanding a valid cue to genuine 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
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.3.231 · Cited by 11,317
Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility.
Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0025589 · Cited by 3,083
“Clinical versus Actuarial Judgment.”
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2648573 · Cited by 2,298
Explanation and Scientific Understanding
Friedman, M. (1974) · The Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.2307/2024924 · Cited by 1,386
Cited by
Explanation and abductive inference
Lombrozo, T. (2012) · The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734689.013.0014 · Cited by 242
In Conversation with Artificial Intelligence: Aligning language Models with Human Values
Kasirzadeh, A., & Gabriel, I. (2023) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-023-00606-x · Cited by 127
The Instrumental Value of Explanations
Lombrozo, T. (2011) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00413.x · Cited by 118
Mechanistic explanation at the limit
Waskan, J. (2011) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-010-9869-1 · Cited by 32
In conversation with Artificial Intelligence: aligning language models with human values
Kasirzadeh, A., & Gabriel, I. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.00731 · Cited by 128
“Scientists pursue different goals in advancing scientific knowledge: they use science to explain or understand things about the world [87, 97], such as the formation of clouds; to predict phenomena [88], such as the structure of proteins; or to control the world around us [68] via, for example, the development of medi…”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Trout, J. D.
- Venue
- Philosophy of Science
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2002-06
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 212-233
- ISSN
- 0031-8248 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-767X
- OpenAlex
- W2175012891
- Cited by
- 330
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 64.19
- Type
- journal article
- 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
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.