'to know' and 'to understand' -- what's the difference?

M.A. who, exactly, is JLNoddy? Just kidding around.

Well, I can only respond from my own perspective. When I took any math course, high school or college, I simply memorized the formulas. That was knowing what to do. I had absolutely no understanding of what I was doing, and still don't. The only math that ever made any sense to me was Geometry because it had practical applications.

I know the data about grammar, and I understand its formulas. The only area that I can't apply "the knowing and the understanding" is in creative endeavors.

basically to know means to be able to recall the formula for example
but to understand is to be able to use it as part of a way of working out a larger problem which involves more then one formula

i agree with spawn
To know means you can repeat
To understand means you can explain the dynamics

All good points, folks. Thanks. Let me see if I can fine-tune this a little. I think that true "understanding" involves more than just an apprehension of the dynamics of something. Take history. By rote memory we can come to know all the relevant and significant dates, the names of the important people of the era under study etc. etc. But if that is all we know, then we lack an understanding of the event.

Concrete example: the American Revolution. Any smart and conscientious student can probably tell you about the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, about Paul Revere's ride the same year, identify the major battles and perhaps even the military leaders at those battles etc. etc. etc. Now, if you ask that same student, "But do you understand the relevance of this event to the rest of American history and, in fact, to world history?" the student might answer, "Well, sure. It led to the establishment of the United States, the 13 colonies becoming 13 states. It established a democratic republic as opposed to the monarchy they had been under and it was the first step in placing the USA in the world leadership position it holds today."

Does a truly intelligent answer like that indicate the student really understands? Suppose you were to go on to ask, "Does the American Revolution that we have just stiudied help you to better understand the dynamics that were at work in the French Revolution? How about the Russian Revolution of 1917? What does the American Revolution teach you about that?"

It is that kind of understanding I'm talking about. Take religion. Does a thorough knowledge of the Bible, the Torah and the Quran (including all esoteric knowledge of presumed authorship and theological commentary) mean that the student of religion understands even religion, let alone God? It would appear that he/she has mastered all there is to know about religious writing in the Western world. But isn't true understanding in this case something that has to come from within, not the written tracts of others or the opinions of discussion partners?

I welcome everyone's comments.

PS -- Letty, I meant our own JLNobody, of course. I make terrible typos, as you know, and am usually too much in a hurry to edit and correct them.

I think spawn really hit the main issue. Knowing a bit of data (a date, value or formula for example) is fine in and of itself but understanding allows you to apply that data to any of a number of different situations and derive logical results.

In my own case I had a fair understanding of Europen history but really didn't put much of it to use until I started doing my own family genealogy. Knowing what was going on in Europe at given times in history allowed me to understand why some of my ancestors came to North America and why they ended up in certain locations (depending on when they came over).

Understanding some of it lend me to read up and know more so that I could understand more.

"Knowing" is looking and memorizing just that one fact you are given.

Understanding, is seeing the fact in depth (history, effects, significance, etc), and is more than just memory.

Spawn and fishin' -- I agree with you both. It is exactly this kind of integration of data I'm talking about. And, in fact, that was part of my point in the original post. The fact is, many of us tend to say we understand something when all we really mean to say is that we know a great deal of unrelated facts about that thing. I will boast that I know quite a lot of things; in fact, I understand very little about life or much else.

Hmmmm. Andy. Perhaps we ought to change the name of this forum to Able2Understand.

I don't think so, Letty. Too many people here who are struggling to even know, let alone are able to understand much.

I sorta like, "Get it"?

Well, where is that "nobody" man. Still hanging out with Kickycan?

Oops, sorry. Didn't mean to distract everyone here from their appointed task.

Hi, Letty. I occurs to me that I, too, feel there is an important difference between mental states we call knowing and mental states we call understanding, but it is hard to find a sentence wherein "know" cannot be replaced with "understand", and vice versa. It does seem that to know is related, as some have said here, to facts, and to understand is related to complex relations between facts. I may "know" that a person did something (some told me or I saw him do it), but not "understand"(the psychological, economic, political, situational reasons) why. Can I repeat this sentence as: I may "understand" that a person did something, but not "know" why. They are almost equivalencies but not quite. Why is that? It's too late for my mind to cope with such subtleties.
JLNoddy

Re: 'to know' and 'to understand' -- what's the difference?
Andrew

But can we know something without understanding it? If I hear some words in chinese and then repeat them - not knowing chinese language - I have not the knowledge or the understanding. I am just making sounds.
Let me give you an example of my experience: once, I knew a man who had raped is mother-in-law, that had 80 years and was paralysed in bed.
I can say: I know what he did but I don't understand. In fact, what I mean is:I know and understand the action, but I don't understand - and not know - why and how could he do a thing like that.
True knowledge in my point of view always involves understanding.

Re: 'to know' and 'to understand' -- what's the difference?


My answer is yes.

As for the matter, I learned many things when I was young (not that I'm very, very old!). Then it took me my whole life to understand it!

I suppose you knew it, but did you understood?

Yes, Val. I think one can know an awful lot of things but have no real understanding of them. I've mentioned some of them in previous posts. Here's another one. I know how the internet works. I know that people in many disparate parts of the world are reading this message right now. If I had to explain in any detail how this is possible -- sorry, I don't really understand the whole process well at all. I'm no computer guru, just a humble user.

Andrew

But then you don't know how internet works. You only know and understand that internet makes possible to people around the world to read your message. But you don't know how does it work.
I persist - sorry - in saying that there is no real knowledge without understanding.

Basic first year of college in Dept. of Education taught me that the definition of learning is to understand. In other words, if there is no understanding, then learning did not take place. Rote memory of facts or math formulas does not indicate learning took place. However, application of the facts or formulas is how learning is evaluated. I think it was third year before I got to testing and evaluation classes, and at that time I learned how to write proper test questions for evaluating student learning as well as the application of statistical formulas to place learning on a scale and provide a grade to that student.

So, just to throw another wrench into things, I would suggest that "knowing" is memory recall, while understanding is true learning that has taken place.

Well, I know the difference between 'to know' and 'to understand'.

I never really understood, why people mix this up - although I'm doing it perhaps myself now and then.

It's the same with the corresponding verbs in German, btw.
I need to know more to understand, why this happens - perhaps our common ancestral Germans were confused less by these terms.

When behavior modification became trendy in the public school system, the teacher was required to state all objectives for students without use of the word "understand", as that word was too vague to measure.

The student will read and understand Romeo and Juliet. (no, no)
The student will read and demonstrate the following concepts:

ability to point out examples of an oxymoron.
ability to translate Shakespearian dialogue into present day English.

etc. etc.

Very good, Letty. I can see why use of the word "understand" would be confusing to many students. It is precisely why I started this thread. Most students think they understand the lesson when, in fact, all they have learned is some diparate facts, with no real understanding of the subject. If a student can parrot a few lines from Romeo and Juliet, name all the major characters and write an accurate summary of the plot, that student knows the play. To determine whether he/she understands it, much more is required.