Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (2008). The tree of knowledge. New York, NY: Shambhala.
This book is dedicated to the phenomenon of knowledge and cognition. Understanding the relationship between knowledge and cognition has important psychological, sociological, and ethical complications. The author analyzes knowledge through the prism of culture, biology, and linguistics and presents a unified concept of cognition and concept formation (Maturana & Varela, 2008). The weakness of this book is that it is presenting its findings in an attempt to reform the modern scientific method while not backing them up with empirical evidence. The book is important to my research because it describes knowledge as an action performed by the knower, thus erasing the gap between the classic interpretations of knowledge and understanding.
Greco, J. (2010). Achieving knowledge. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
The purpose of this book is to investigate epistemic normativity, which is a central theme in contemporary theories of knowledge. The author reflects on the thinking processes and practices and establishes knowledge as more than just simple ‘data,’ but viewing it as achievement instead (Greco, 2010). According to the author, knowledge is a result of conscious effort rather than information received through perception (Greco, 2010). The weakness of this book lies in the fact that the author does not present any opposing arguments to his view. The information gives insight into what knowledge is and what value it has for every individual.
Findler, N. V. (2009). Associative networks: Representation and use of knowledge by computers (6th ed.). London, England: Academic Press.
This book is different from other works reviewed in this paper. The difference is in the fact that most works address knowledge as a concept directly attached to the human psyche (Findler, 2009). The author of this book shifts away from the human-centric perceptions of knowledge and treats it as a separate entity by exploring the concept of understanding and knowledge in machines using associative networks (Findler, 2009). The information provided in this work is important to my research as it provides an alternative view of knowledge and understanding, which is not restricted to humans alone. However, the book seems to deal only with tractable issues related to associative networks while avoiding difficult and problematic areas.
Shank, R., & Abelson, R. (2005). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge (4th ed.). New York, NY: Sage Publications.
While this book touches many subjects regarding the processes of human and machine learning and perception, its main purpose is to describe the nature of knowledge and how it is used. The authors explain the formation of concepts in a human mind, the use of said concepts, and their connection to understanding and behavior (Shank & Abelson, 2005). This book helps my research, as it continues the ideas of the previous book and reflects on how machine knowledge, which consists of data, is different from that of humans. The book does not have any major flaws, except for the fact that the association between a human and a machine mind seems somewhat exaggerated.
Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. New York, NY: Methuen.
The relationship between knowledge and understanding has always been an important subject for teachers. This book, in particular, addresses the process of the formation of knowledge received through educational channels and its transformation into common knowledge and understanding. It explores the length to which common knowledge becomes a shared understanding of the subject based on the input of teachers and classmates (Edwards & Mercer, 1987). This practical knowledge is important to my research because it describes how outside information turns knowledge into understanding. The book does not have many weaknesses aside from the fact that it does not provide enough theoretical background for the issue.
Elgin, C. Z. (2009). Is understanding factive? Epistemic Value, 1(2), 322-330.
This article addresses the different meanings of the word “understanding” and separates its scientific meaning from historical and linguistic meanings of the word. The author argues that the epistemological meaning of the word “understanding” cannot be considered as active, while its historical meaning is (Elgin, 2009). The article is largely dedicated to debunking the book written by Jonathan Kvanvig, titled “The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding,” which somewhat limits the research. However, it still provides valuable data, as it highlights the importance of the meaning of “Understanding” when it comes to comparing it with knowledge.
Comesana, J. (2005). Unsafe knowledge. Synthese, 146(3), 395-404.
This article argues the use of safety as a requirement for knowledge. Some researchers, like Sosa and Williamson, agree that knowledge is a collection of data inherently safe to whoever possesses it. The author reflects on the three major arguments provided by Sosa and examines their plausibility (Comesana, 2005). These arguments are largely based on the supposition that the understanding and use of knowledge is never intended to bring harm to the user. Like the previous research, the author limits himself to debunking the statements provided by other researchers. However, his arguments can be viewed as support for the idea that knowledge can be dangerous.
Kelp, C. (2009). Knowledge and safety. Journal of Philosophical Research, 34, 21-31.
To continue the topic brought forth in the previous source. The author analyzes the existing concepts of safety as a prerequisite to knowledge and examines the reasons why none of the contemporary models can do so (Kelp, 2009). The idea is that understanding and knowledge are inherently linked, and if knowledge is dangerous, then its understanding and implementation become dangerous as well (Kelp, 2009). This topic has some value to my research as it presents the relationship between understanding and knowledge from a perspective of safety.
Colaço, D., Buckwalter, W., Stich, S., & Machery, E. (2014). Epistemic intuitions in fake-barn thought experiments. Episteme, 11(2), 199-212.
This report studies the connection between knowledge and understanding by exploring intuition, which is considered a bridge between the two concepts. The author reflects on the fake-barn cases, which are avidly used in epistemology. The findings of the research state that intuition in some cases are treated as knowledge, while in others – as understanding, depending on the difficulty of the case (Colaço, Buckwalter, Stich, & Machery, 2014). While this study is qualitative, which suggests a degree of marginal error, its conclusions are solid and useful in my research, as they show the fluidity between the perceptions of understanding and knowledge.
Caillies, S., Denhière, G., & Kintsch, W. (2017). The effect of prior knowledge on understanding from text: Evidence from primed recognition. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 267-286.
This research investigates the relationship between prior knowledge of certain subjects and the ability of students with different levels of knowledge to understand the complicated material. The research found that possessing greater prior knowledge significantly improved understanding of the subject (Caillies, Denhière, & Kintsch, 2017). This quantitative study adds another layer of contact between knowledge and understanding, which lies in the area of recognition. The article’s conclusions and methodology are solid, but the source itself is relatively outdated. Still, this data is useful to my research, as it suggests that knowledge and understanding could both be parts of a single process.