Philosophy of Science

"understanding" in humanities and natural sciences, with a look at Stephen Grimm's point of view

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Parisa Saatchi Fard 1
Keyvan Alasti 2

1 Masters Degrees in Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Science Department, Department of Management, Science and Technology, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran

2 Assistant Professor at the Scientific Policy Research Center of the country

https://doi.org/10.30465/ps.2023.45109.1668
Abstract
In all periods of history, human has been trying to "understand". In order to understanding the natural world, scientists first observe samples and then classify them based on similarity. To figure out the actions of people, the matter seems different. To achieve this, we need to understand the intentions of people. Because intention has psychological nature, there is always a concern from empiricists that it may not be perceptible by third-person people. To some extent, many human actions are perceptible from a third-person point of view, and this causes them to be the subject of scientific investigations (with common scientific methods). However, there are cases that show the understanding of human activities from the third person of view has limitations.
Stephen Grimm introduces a type of understanding and believes that by realising the specific goals of the person being understood as a desired action, we will achieve a deeper understanding. In this article, an attempt has been made to clarify the discussed issue first by proposing and interpreting Stephen Grimm's point of view, and then by proposing the problems and explaining the ambiguities of Grimm's idea, as an alternative formulation, we will show that the agent's decision for understanding or not understanding the actions of others, plays an important role. Empathy is known as a psychological capacity that can be understood in a different way by simulating the structure.
Investigating and looking deeper into this issue will help us to judge it better as a method or an idea in social and human sciences.

Keywords

Understanding
intention
action: psychological
methodological
social sciences
humanities
Alvarez, Maria. (2017). Reasons for Action: Justification, Motivation, Explanation, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/reasons-just-vs-expl/
Carbonell, F. M. (2021). On understanding people, structure, desires, and ourselves. Cinta de Moebio: Revista Electrónica de Epistemología de Ciencias Sociales, (72), 2.
Dilthey, W. (1883). Introduction to the human sciences. (Vol. 1). Princeton University Press.
Gordon, Robert. (2000). Simulation and the Explanation of Action. In Empathy and Agency: The Problem of Understanding in the Human Sciences. Eds. Hans, Kogler and Karsten, Stueber. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Grimm, S.R.(2016).  How Understanding People Differs From Understanding the Natural World. Philosophical Issues.
Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford University Press.‏Michlemayr, M. (2002). Simulation Theory versus Theory Theory.
 
Lemos, N. (2007). An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge, Contents.
 
Ricoeur, P. (1990). Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, Trans. By John Thompson, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rickert, H.(1902). The limits of concept formation in natural science: A logical introduction to the historical sciences in in The Neo-Kantian Reader chapter22, edited by Sebastian Luft,  Routledge, Year: 2015 (2015),
 
Schmidt, Lawrence. K. (2014). Understanding Hermeneutics. Routledge.
Weber, M. (1949). Methodology of social sciences. Routledge.
Windelband, W. (1894). History and natural science. in The Neo-Kantian Reader, edited by Luft, S., & trans. Duncan, A. )2015(

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us