Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have heightened concerns about their potential misalignment with human values. However, evaluating their grasp of these values is complex due to their intricate and adaptable nature. We argue that truly understanding values in LLMs requires considering both "know what" and "know why". To this end, we present the Value Understanding Measurement (VUM) framework that quantitatively assess both "know what" and "know why" by measuring the discriminator-critique gap related to human values. Using the Schwartz Value Survey, we specify our evaluation values and develop a thousand-level dialogue dataset with GPT-4. Our assessment looks at both the value alignment of LLM's outputs compared to baseline answers and how LLM responses align with reasons for value recognition versus GPT-4's annotations. We evaluate five representative LLMs and provide strong evidence that the scaling law significantly impacts "know what" but not much on "know why", which has consistently maintained a high level. This may further suggest that LLMs might craft plausible explanations based on the provided context without truly understanding their inherent value, indicating potential risks.