Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Carter, J. Adam; Gordon, Emma C. (2016)
Publisher: De Gruyter
Languages: English
Types: Part of book or chapter of book
Subjects: B1
Should we regard Jennifer Lackey’s (2007) ‘Creationist Teacher’ as understanding evolution, even though she does not, given her religious convictions, believe its central claims? We think this question raises a range of important and unexplored questions about the relationship between understanding, factivity and belief. Our aim will be to diagnose this case in a principled way, and in doing so, to make some progress toward appreciating what objectual understanding—i.e., understanding a subject matter or body of information—demands of us. Here is the plan. After some ground clearing in §1, §2 outlines and motivates a plausible working model—moderate factivity—for characterising the sense in which objectual understanding should be regarded as factive. §3 shows how the datum that we can understand false theories can, despite initial suggestions to the contrary, be assimilated straightforwardly within the moderate factivity model. §4 highlights how the inverse kind of case to that explored in §3—viz., a variant of Lackey’s creationist teacher case—poses special problems for moderate factivity. With reference to recent work on moral understanding by Hills (2009), §5 proposes a solution to the problem, and §6 attempts to diagnose why it is that we might originally have been led to draw the wrong conclusion.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Carter, J. A. (2014). Relativism, Knowledge and Understanding. Episteme 11 (1): 35 - 52.
    • Carter, J. A. and Gordon, E. C. (2011). Norms of Assertion: The Quantity and Quality of Epistemic Support. Philosophia 39 (4):615 - 635.
    • Carter, J. A. and Nickel, P. J. (2014). On Testimony and Transmission. Episteme 11 (02):145 - 155.
    • Grimm, S. (2014). Understanding as Knowledge of Causes. In A. Fairweather (ed.), Virtue Epistemology Naturalized: Bridges Between Virtue Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Springer.
    • Hazlett, A. (2010). The Myth of Factive Verbs. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 80 (3): 497 - 522.
    • Hills, A. (2009). Moral Testimony and Moral Epistemology. Ethics 120 (1): 94 - 127.
    • Kletzl, S. (2011). Somebody Has to Know: Jennifer Lackey on the Transmission of Epistemic Properties. In C. Löffler and W. Jäger (eds), Erkenntnistheorie: Kontexte, Werte, Dissens.
    • Kvanvig, J. (2003). The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    • Kvanvig, J. (2009). The Value of Understanding. In D. Pritchard, A. Haddock and A. Millar (eds.), Epistemic Value. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Lackey, J.(2007). Norms of Assertion. Noûs 41 (4):594 - 626.
    • Lackey, J. (2008). Learning From Words: Testimony as a Source of Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Myers-Schulz, B. and Schwitzgebel, E. (2013). Knowing That P without Believing That P. Noûs 47 (2):371 - 384.
    • Pritchard, D. (2009). Knowledge, Understanding and Epistemic Value. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 64, 19 - 43.
    • Riggs, W. (2003). Understanding Virtue and the Virtue of Understanding. In M. DePaul and L. Zagzebski (eds.), Intellectual Virtue: Perspectives from Ethics and Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Whitcomb, D. (2012). Epistemic Value. In A. Cullison (ed.), The Continuum Companion to Epistemology. London: Continuum.
    • Wilkenfeld, D. (2015). The Contextual Quasi-Factivity of Objectual Understanding. Manuscript.
    • Zagzebski, L. (2001). Recovering Understanding. In M. Steup (ed.), Knowledge, Truth and Duty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article