No understanding without explanation
By Michael Strevens. 2013
248 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, History and Philosophy of Science, Molecular Biology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d368fc537db12e28858a69aea1392a9f05b49d32
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Global and Planetary Change
In History and Philosophy of Science
In Molecular Biology
Citations in the corpus
- The debate over understanding in AI’s large language models (2022, background): “It has been argued that understanding of this kind may enable abilities not possible for purely statistical models: learning new concepts from limited examples, being able to generalize that knowledge to novel instances of those concepts, being able to flexibly transfer one’s knowledge to new situat”
- Explanation, understanding, and control (2014, unknown): “Similarly, Strevens (2013) distinguishes between understanding that X, and understanding why X.”
- The explanation game: a formal framework for interpretable machine learning (2020, unknown): “Strevens (2013) differentiates between three modes of understanding: that, why, and with.4 Understanding that some proposition p is true is simply to be aware that p. Understanding why p is true requires some causal explanation for p. Strevens’s third kind of understanding, however, applies only to…”
- Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research (2024, unknown): “Because explanatory knowledge is foundational to scientific understanding 110 , scientists, like others in knowledge communities, are prone to the illusion of explanatory depth, overestimating the detail, coherence and depth of their scientific understanding 111 .”
- Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) 2.0: A Manifesto of Open Challenges and Interdisciplinary Research Directions (2023, background): “The more traditional view asserts that understanding logically depends on explanation: only true explanations can provide understanding [185,186].”