Many have argued that the human sciences feature a unique form of understanding ( Verstehen) that is absent from the natural sciences. However, in the last decade or so, epistemologists and philosophers of natural science have been proffering analyses of a kind of natural-scientific understanding. Using examples from educational psychology and anthropology, I argue that there are prima facie reasons to think these recent accounts of natural-scientific understanding impose necessary conditions on Verstehen. This suggests that any claim about Verstehen’s distinctiveness faces hitherto-unappreciated burdens of proof.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kareem Khalifa (2019) studied this question.