Re: WHAT IS UNDERSTANDING?

[Ludwik Kowalski <KowalskiL@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

John Denker wrote:

> > To understand is to find a satisfactory causal relation.
>
> Strongly disagree in principle.  To understand is to find the correct
> relation.

It often happens that we find correct relations in books but we still
do not understand them.

That was only the nitpicker's kind of reply. Yes, I know that
your "to find" is referring to the logical act of inference or
derivation. What about a compromise? Suppose we say:

To understand is to find a satisfactory causal relation which is
objectively correct.

I this acceptable? I think that the subjective feeling of satisfaction
must be part of the definition of understanding. I suppose you are
trying to make a clear distinction between the use of the word in
science and its use in other areas. You can always do this by
adding an adjective, such as "scientific", "emotional", "practical",
etc., but having a generic word understanding is probably desirable
in a language. That is why it is there already.

Your understanding may differ from my understanding but we may
both be partially correct, as confirmed by further investigations. The
confirmation can be experimental (checking the facts) or theoretical
(checking the logic). What is wrong with saying that understanding
is a subjective feeling of intellectual satisfaction?

Ludwik Kowalski

To understand is to find a satisfactory causal  relation which is
objectively correct. To explain is to express that understanding.
To teach is to promote understanding.