TY - JOUR
T1 - Understanding in Medicine
AU - Varga, Somogy
N1 - Funding Information:
I would like to thank Stephen Grimm, Remy Debes, Jens Christian Bjerring, Klemens Kappel, and two anonymous referees for helpful comments on earlier drafts. This work was supported by the Carlsberg Foundation.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.
PY - 2024/12
Y1 - 2024/12
N2 - This paper aims to clarify the nature of understanding in medicine. The first part describes in more detail what it means to understand something and links a type of understanding (i.e., objectual understanding) to explanations. The second part proceeds to investigate what objectual understanding of a disease (i.e., biomedical understanding) requires by considering the case of scurvy from the history of medicine. The main hypothesis is that grasping a mechanistic explanation of a condition is necessary for a biomedical understanding of that condition. The third part of the paper argues that biomedical understanding is necessary, but not sufficient for understanding in a clinical context (i.e., clinical understanding). The hypothesis is that clinical understanding combines biomedical understanding of a disease or pathological condition with understanding illness, which involves some degree of personal understanding of the patient. It is argued that, in many cases, clinical understanding necessitates adopting a particular second-personal stance and using cognitive resources in addition to those involved in biomedical understanding.
AB - This paper aims to clarify the nature of understanding in medicine. The first part describes in more detail what it means to understand something and links a type of understanding (i.e., objectual understanding) to explanations. The second part proceeds to investigate what objectual understanding of a disease (i.e., biomedical understanding) requires by considering the case of scurvy from the history of medicine. The main hypothesis is that grasping a mechanistic explanation of a condition is necessary for a biomedical understanding of that condition. The third part of the paper argues that biomedical understanding is necessary, but not sufficient for understanding in a clinical context (i.e., clinical understanding). The hypothesis is that clinical understanding combines biomedical understanding of a disease or pathological condition with understanding illness, which involves some degree of personal understanding of the patient. It is argued that, in many cases, clinical understanding necessitates adopting a particular second-personal stance and using cognitive resources in addition to those involved in biomedical understanding.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85149003716&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10670-023-00665-8
DO - 10.1007/s10670-023-00665-8
M3 - Journal article
AN - SCOPUS:85149003716
SN - 0165-0106
VL - 89
SP - 3025
EP - 3049
JO - Erkenntnis
JF - Erkenntnis
IS - 8
ER -