Taking my departure from the discussion of the concept of understanding in contemporary epistemology, I will suggest that we need to fine-tune the concept of explanatory understanding in order to comprehensively describe the epistemic endeavors of the natural and social sciences. I will distinguish among the theoretical, narrative, and empathic modes of understanding. None of the sciences are exclusively characterized by one of these modes of understanding. Nevertheless, I will suggest that only the human sciences are characterized by a complex interplay of all three modes. Finally, I will argue that we can account for the explanatory autonomy of rational action explanations in light of this complex interplay.
BoeckhA.1886. Encyklopädie und Methodologie der Philologischen Wissenschaften (Encyclopedia and Methodology of the Philological Sciences). Leipzig: Teubner Verlag.
2.
CikaraM.BruneauE. G.SaxeR. R.2011. “Us and Them: Intergroup Failures of Empathy.” Current Directions in Psychological Science20:3149-53.
3.
CollingwoodR. C.1978. An Autobiography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
DavidsonD. (1976) 1980. “Hempel on Explaining Action.” In his Essays on Actions and Events, 261-76. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
5.
GadamerH.-G.1989. Truth and Method. New York: Crossroad.
6.
GallagherS.HuttoD.2008 “Understanding Others through Primary Interaction and Narrative Practice.” In The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity, edited by ZlatevJ.RacineT.SinhaC.ItkonenE., 17-38. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
7.
GrimmS.2016. “How Understanding People Differs from Understanding the Natural World.” Philosophical Issues (Noûs Supplement)26:209-25.
8.
GrimmS.2017. “Why Study History? On Its Epistemic Benefits and Relation to the Sciences.” Philosophy92:399-420.
9.
GrimmS.BaumbergerC.AmmonS.2017. Explaining Understanding: New Perspectives from Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge.
10.
HaidtJ.2012. The Righteous Mind. New York: Pantheon Press.
11.
HealJ.2003. Mind, Reason, and Imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
HempelC.1965. Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press.
13.
HendersonD.1993. Interpretation and Explanation in the Human Sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.
14.
HendersonD.2011. “Let’s Be Flexible: Our Interpretive/Explanatory Toolbox, or In Praise of Using a Range of Tools.” Journal of the Philosophy of History5:261-99.
15.
HuttoD.2008. Folk-psychological Narratives, the Sociocultural Basis of Understanding. Cambridge: MIT Press.
16.
KahnemanD.2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
17.
KhalifaK.2017. Understanding, Explanation, and Scientific Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
KöglerH.-H.StueberK.2000. Empathy and Agency: The Problem of Understanding in the Human Sciences. Boulder: Westview Press.
19.
KvanvigJ. L.2003. The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
LittleD.1990. Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science. Boulder: Westview Press.
21.
MacIntyreA.1984. After Virtue. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
22.
MinkL.1987a. “Modes of Comprehension and the Unity of Knowledge.” In Historical Understanding, edited by FayB.GolobE. O.VannR. T., 35-41. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
23.
MinkL.1987b. “Narrative Form as a Cognitive Instrument.” In Historical Understanding, edited by FayB.GolobE. O.VannR. T., 182-203. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
24.
NagelE.1979. The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. Indianapolis: Hackett.
25.
RicoeurP.1981. “The Narrative Function.” In his Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, 274-91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
RosenbergA.1985. “Davidson’s Unintended Attack on Psychology.” In Actions and Events, edited by LeporeE.MclaughlinB., 399-407. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
SalmonW. 1998. Causality and Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
StueberK.2003. “Intentional Explanation, Psychological Laws, and the Irreducibility of the First Person Perspective.” In Monism, edited by BächliA.PetrusK., 255-79. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.
30.
StueberK.2005. “Mental Causation and the Paradox of Explanation.” Philosophical Studies122:243-77.
31.
StueberK.2006. Rediscovering Empathy: Agency, Folk Psychology, and the Human Sciences. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
32.
StueberK.2008. “Reasons, Generalizations, Empathy, and Narratives: The Epistemic Structure of Action Explanation.” History and Theory47:31-43.
33.
StueberK.2012a. “Understanding vs. Explanation? How to Think about the Difference between the Human and the Natural Sciences.” Inquiry55 (2012): 17-32.
34.
StueberK.2012b. “Varieties of Empathy, Neuroscience and the Narrativist Challenge to the Contemporary Theory of Mind Debate.” Emotion Review4:55-63.
35.
StueberK.2015. “The Cognitive Function of Narratives.” Journal of the Philosophy of History9:393-409.
36.
StueberK.2017. “Understanding Individual Agency: How Empathy and Narrative Competence Cooperate.” In Philosophical Approaches to Empathy: Theoretical Approaches and Emerging Challenges, edited by MatraversD.WaldowA., 137-51. London: Routledge.
37.
WinchP.1958. The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
