Scientific understanding across disciplines: in varietate concordia?
Henk W. de Regt, Milo D. Cornelissen, Vincent Coumans, Nina S. de Boer, Sebastian De Haro, Paul H. W. Disberg, Kristian González Barman, Maarten G. Kleinhans, Daniel Kostić, Ludo L. J. Schoenmakers
Abstract
Understanding is a generally acknowledged aim of science, but the way in which understanding is pursued and criteria for when it is achieved differ widely across scientific disciplines. This paper offers a comparative analysis of this disciplinary variation, aimed at revealing differences as well as commonalities in methods and criteria for achieving understanding. Starting point is the contextual theory of scientific understanding (De Regt 2017), which was developed to accommodate contextual variation in criteria for understanding. While this work focused on historical variation and used mainly case studies from the history of physics, the current paper applies the contextual theory to disciplinary variation. We present brief descriptive accounts of how understanding figures in nine scientific disciplines: mathematics, theoretical physics, astrophysics, chemistry, geoscience, biology, neuroscience, psychology, and the engineering sciences. Subsequently, we compare and evaluate these accounts in light of the contextual theory of scientific understanding.
Create a lesson
Related papers
The Bomb, the Hubris, and the Spectre
Alberto Girlando
Holography as an Information Principle in Quantum Gravity
Sebastian De Haro, Enrico Cinti, Aude Corbeel
Dark Matters of Principle: Principles in the Dark Matter Paradigm
Patrick Duerr, James Read
Does the Actuality of Life Favor Many Actual Histories?
Jonathan Baxter
Minkowski's Geometric Explanation of Lorentz Contraction
Tilman Sauer
The comets discovered from New Zealand, and the astronomers who found them
John Drummond, Wayne Orchiston, Carolyn Brown et al.