Andrew, It doesn't hurt to show a Leonardo DiCaprio movie, either. One of my lovely little gothic students talked me into that one.
I know where you're comin' from, Andy.
Gawd, Letty! That DiCaprio version of R&J has to be the most mindless travesty ever perpetrated on Shakespeare. But I had a colleague a couple of years ago, fresh out of grad school, who thought it was a teriffic way of teaching the play. To each one's own.
How about this? My wife's behavior rarely surprises me. I can very often predict how she will react to some situations. So, to that extent, I know her. At the same time, I do not understand the many reasons behind her reactions, the psychological, physiological and other causal determinants of her behavior.
Uh...JL. did you mean that post for some other thread?
Not really. I was suggesting a difference between knowing the WHAT and understanding the WHY of something, in this case my wife's behavior.
Soooooo, JL is expressing "what" as to know, and "why" as to understand. I recognize that, because it's predictability that psychologists and psychiatrists use to determine the relatively normal folks from those who suffer disorders.
I responded, in my mind, entirely differently than everyone else to the question, it seems.
I understand a lot of things, of parts of things, and know little. I guess I connect know with a kind of certainty.
Sorry, JL. I think I misread your reply last night.
Interesting reverse take on the conundrum, Osso.
From a legal view comes another example along the lines of Osso's.
I understand from the evidence that it is likely that Scott Peterson killed his wife.
However, I do not know this to be a fact.
Squinny, I "know" what the public knows about the Scott-Petersen case, but I do not "understand" why so many people were not given pause by the fact that all the evidence against him was circumstantial. My views on his guilt or innocence are not what I'm raising here, only the way know and understand play.
The reason why this topic is so difficult is that "know" and "understand" are almost synonymous, but not quite or not always. In some statements they seem interchangeable, in others they do not.
Although the two words are used interchangeably the interesting case is where "knowledge" is affirmed but "understanding" is denied. In this case the latter refers to comprehension of underlying mechanisms or causes but the problem is that such comprehension (holding together) is itself ultimately limited. (Godels theoerem...all systems rely on at least one axiom unproveable from within the system). i.e. even the "foundations" are subject to potential subsidence but more than "single facts" would be at risk.
Fresco, my UNDERSTANDING of your point is obstructed by the fact that I do not KNOW what "subsidence" means.
I knew that SOMEBODY would eventually demand a denotation:
subsidence
sub·si·dence [ səb sd'nss, súbsədənss ]
noun
1. sinking of land level: the sinking down of land resulting from natural shifts or human activity, frequently causing structural damage to buildings
2. decreasing of something: the waning or lessening of something
Thanks, Letty. Your dictionary is bigger than mine. Difficult for a male to confess.
Shall I turn left, or go to the right?
When you come to a fork in the road....well you know.
Yogi Berra
I may understand the theorem but if I can't recall it (as in haven't committed it to memory) I dont know it and will be in big trouble at exam time.
True, Shepaints. That's why when I took exams, decades ago, especially history-like and math-like exams, I wrote down all the dates, theorems, etc. and spent the night before (before going to sleep since that enhances memory; fewer events to "interfere" with the memorized data). This assumes, of course, that my understandings of the material were adequate. Then I'd enter the exam room with the factual stuff on the tip of my tongue. After the exam, I would just let the facts fade away.
