DOCSLIB.ORG

Research.Pdf (1.560Mb)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Research.Pdf (1.560Mb) SKILL-BASED RELIABILISM _______________________________________ A Dissertation presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri-Columbia _______________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy _____________________________________________________ by DANIEL C. MARSHALL Dr. Paul Weirich, Dissertation Supervisor May 2014 © Copyright by Daniel C. Marshall 2014 All Rights Reserved The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined dissertation entitled SKILL-BASED RELIABILISM presented by Daniel C. Marshall, candidate for the degree of doctor of philosophy and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. Professor Paul Weirich Professor Peter Markie Professor André Ariew Professor George Smith DEDICATION τῇ καλλίστῃ (To the prettiest one) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The initial seeds of this dissertation were planted during my first semester of graduate school, and many have helped nourish this sapling over the years. I am very greatly indebted to my advisor, Professor Paul Weirich, who read several drafts of each chapter, and gave many comments, suggestions, and criticisms that proved very valuable. It is not an exaggeration to say that this dissertation would not have been possible without him. I am also indebted to my committee members, Professor Peter Markie, Professor André Ariew, and Professor George Smith, who provided invaluable comments during the defense and also contributed ideas that went into the structure of this project. Finally, I greatly benefited from discussions with my fellow graduate students, including (but perhaps not limited to – my memory is somewhat vague in parts), Kok Young Lee, Lynn Chiu, and Chris Gadsen. Thank you all. ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………... ii Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………….. iii Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………. vii Chapter 0: Introduction ……………………………………………………………. 1 1. Reliabilism, and Three Problems Facing It ……………………………. 1 2. An Evolutionary Dead-End: Proper Functionalism ………...……...…. 4 3. A Third Way: John Greco's Achieving Knowledge ………………..…. 10 4. A Skill-based Solution to the Generality, and Some Implications of It 15 4.1 Skill-based Reliabilism and the Justification Problem ………... 17 4.2 Skill-based Reliabilism and the Strange and Fleeting Process Problem …………………… 21 Chapter 1: Functionalism Without Proper Function …………………………….. 22 0. Introduction ……………………………………………………..……. 22 1. 'Design' Plans and Selected Effects ………………………………..…. 25 2. Objections to the Selected Effect Theory of Function ……………......... 30 3. Boorse's General Goal Contribution Account of Function …………..... 38 4. Function and Virtue ………………………………………..…………. 45 Chapter 2: A Skill-Based Solution to the Generality Problem …………...………. 53 0. Introduction ……………………………………………………………. 53 1. The Generality Problem, and Previously Proposed Solutions to It ...…. 57 1.1 A Quick Solution to the Generality Problem (Token Reliabilism) …………………………………...…... 59 iii 1.2 A Well-Founded Solution to the Generality Problem ……..... 61 1.3 The Tri-Lvel/Statistical Relevance Solution to the Generality Problem ………..…………………………. 66 1.4 A Simple Solution to the Generality Problem …………..…... 73 2. Two Theories of Skill-Learning …………………..…………………... 77 2.1 Adams' Open-Loop Theory of Motor Learning .……………… 78 2.2 Anderson's ACT* Theory of Cognitive Architecture …..…... 82 3. A Model of Skill-Learning ………………………..…………………. 85 3.1 Learning and Selection Mechanisms ………………..………. 86 3.2 Maintenance Mechanisms and Simple Control Programs ..… 88 3.3 Activation Mechanisms …………………………………..... 92 4. A Skill-Based Solution to the Generality Problem ……………………. 93 4.1 The Activation Type and the Activation Mechanism ……..… 93 4.2 Selection and Learning Types ……………..………………... 97 4.3 Maintenance and Production Types ………………………….... 102 5. Conee and Feldman's Adequacy Conditions ……………………..……. 106 6. Conclusion ……………………………………………………….......... 112 Chapter 3: Absolute Reliability and Epistemic Strength ……………………..…. 114 Section 0: Introduction ………………..……………………………..…… 114 Section 1: On the Shoulders of Giants …...………………………………. 120 1. The Evolution of Goldman's Theory of Justification ………………..... 120 1.1 "What is Justified Belief?" (1979) ………………………..…. 122 1.1.1 The Benevolent Demon ………………………..…… 125 iv 1.1.2 The Lying Parent …………………………………... 126 1.2 Epistemology and Cognition (1986) ……………………..…... 129 1.2.1 "Normal Worlds" Reliablism ……………………..... 130 1.2.2 "Non-Undermining" Condition …………………..… 131 1.2.3 Primary Justification vs. Secondary Justification 134 1.2.4 Post-Mortem …………………………..…………… 139 1.3 "Strong and Weak Justification" (1988) …………………..…. 141 2. Contextualism ………………………………………………………..... 145 Section 2: A Rough Account of Epistemic Strength ………………..…..... 158 1. From Normal Worlds Reliability to Absolute Reliability, and from Strength of Epistemic Position to Epistemic Strength ………......... 159 2. Simple New Evil Demon Problem Cases …………………………..…. 162 3. Sensitivity to Defeat and the Rule of Belief ………………………….... 165 Section 3: A More Refined Account ……………………..…………........ 167 1. A Regress of Adaptive Mechanisms ………………………………….... 167 2. The Extended Activation Type ……………………………..………… 178 3. 'Demonic' Interference with Skill-Learning …………………................ 180 Section 4: The Nature of Epistemic Strength and the 'Demonic' Creation of Epistemic Agents …………………..… 185 0. Introduction …………………………………….……………………. 185 1. Reasons for the Impossibility of Maximally Strong but Unjustified Beliefs ………………………………..……………... 192 2. The Artificial Brain-in-a-Vat and the "Heaping" Strategy …..………… 202 3. Swampman and the "Splitting" Strategy ……………………….……... 208 v Section 5: Conclusion ………..……………………………….................. 211 Chapter 4: Strange and Fleeting Process Problems ………………………..……… 212 0. Introduction ………………………………………………….……....... 212 1. The Case of the Autistic Twins and Environmentally Sensitive Control Programs ……..……………… 213 2. The Careless Math Student, and the Possibility of Multiple Output Activation Mechanisms ………………………..……………………………………. 225 3. The Possibility of Socially Extended Learning Mechanisms ………..…… 230 4. Norman the Clairvoyant ……………………………………………….... 239 Chapter 5: Concluding Remarks ………………………………………………..… 244 Bibliography ………………………………………………………………….… 256 Vita ……………………………………………………………………………… 260 vi SKILL-BASED RELIABILISM Daniel C. Marshall Dr. Paul Weirich, Dissertation Supervisor ABSTRACT Reliabilism, at its most general, is the claim that a belief has some positive epistemic status (typically justification or knowledge) only if it was formed by a reliable belief-forming process or mechanism. One important problem facing reliabilism is the Generality Problem. The Generality Problem arises because reliability is generally taken to be a property of a type of mechanism or process, and a given token process belongs to as many different types as it has properties. The Generality Problem consists of the task of specifying in a principled manner which of the multitude of types a given belief- forming token-process belongs to is the one whose reliability is relevant to the epistemic project. In this dissertation, I will propose a solution to the Generality Problem. My proposed solution is based on a model of skill-learning which I have developed based on the theories of motor-learning provided by John A. Adams and Richard A. Schmidt, and a theory of cognitive architecture (which focuses on cognitive skills) provided by John R. Anderson. This model is most directly applicable to cases where beliefs are formed by acquired cognitive skills, but it can easily be extended to apply to cases involving innate cognitive instincts, and, with some degree of difficulty, to cases involving belief formation through a process of deliberation. vii I will develop my proposed solution to the Generality Problem in two stages. In the first stage, I will propose a “rough draft” version of the solution. According to this rough draft version, the mechanism type that is relevant to the epistemic project is a mechanism’s activation type. A belief-forming mechanism of a given activation type consists of an activation mechanism which is responsible for activating ‘a’ belief-forming program that is stored at a certain address. This belief-forming program is, at least typically, acted on by learning, selection, and/or maintenance mechanisms, which constrain the degree and manner of how the program can vary from time-slice to time- slice and from world to world. Any belief-forming program (or version of the same program) that is activated by the same activation mechanism belongs to the same activation type. This rough draft solution is incomplete in two ways. First, it provides no way of specifying the epistemically relevant type a given activation mechanism belongs to. Secondly, it provides no obvious reason to think that this type, out of the multitude that a given belief-forming process-token or mechanism-token belong to, is relevant to the epistemic project. These two issues are addressed by a more refined version of my proposed solution, which claims that the type a belief-forming mechanism belongs to which is relevant to the epistemic project is its extended activation type. This type is also identified on the basis of the activation mechanism, but this proposed solution recognizes that the epistemically relevant type of the activation mechanism itself can be specified by some underlying adaptive mechanism
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reliabilism Without Epistemic Consequentialism
    Reliabilism without Epistemic Consequentialism Abstract This paper argues that reliabilism can plausibly live without epistemic consequentialism, either as part of a non-consequentialist normative theory or as a non-normative account of knowledge on a par with certain accounts of the metaphysics of perception and action. It argues moreover that reliabilism should not be defended as a consequentialist theory. Its most plausible versions are not aptly dubbed ‘consequentialist’ in any sense that genuinely parallels the dominant sense in ethics. Indeed, there is no strong reason to believe reliabil- ism was ever seriously intended as a form of epistemic consequentialism. At the heart of its original motivation was a concern about the necessity of non-accidentality for knowledge, a concern quite at home in a non-consequentialist or non-normative setting. Reliabilism’s connection to epistemic consequentialism was an accretion of the ’80s, and a feature of only one of its formulations in that decade. 1 Introduction Recent literature conveys the impression that epistemic consequentialism has long been a domi- nant view about justified belief.1 One source of this impression is the prominence of reliabilism in the post-Gettier history of epistemology. While reliabilism has had many critics, it retains many adherents and remains a dominant perspective on the nature of justified belief and knowl- edge; indeed, it is arguably the leading form of externalism. Accordingly, if reliabilism were a form of epistemic consequentialism, one could reasonably conclude that the latter has been a major force in traditional epistemology since the late ’60s and early ’70s. But such thinking would be misguided.
    [Show full text]
  • The Value Problem of Knowledge. Against a Reliabilist Solution
    The Value Problem of Knowledge. Against a Reliabilist Solution Anne Meylan* * University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland: [email protected] Abstract. A satisfying theory of knowledge has to explain why knowledge seems to be better than mere true belief. In this paper, I try to show that the best reliabilist explanation (ERA+) is still not able to solve this problem. According to an already elaborated answer (ERA), it is better to possess knowledge that p because this makes likely that one’s future belief of a similar kind will also be true. I begin with a metaphysical comment which gives birth to ERA +, a better formulation of ERA. Then, I raise two objections against ERA+. The first objection shows that the truth of the reliabilist answer requires the conception of a specific theory of instrumental value. In the second objection, I present an example in order to show that ERA+ actually fails to explain why it is better to possess knowledge than a mere true belief. 1 Introduction: the Value Problem of Knowleddge Why is it better to know that p than to possess a mere true belief that p?1 The prob- lem of the value of knowledge constitutes one of the main issue in contemporary epistemology. The intuition2 that it is better to possess knowledge than mere true belief has an important historical precedent. It arouses Socrates’ astonishment in Plato’s Meno. As Plato notices, it is not possible to account for this intuition merely by appealing to its distinctive utility. Indeed, a true belief about the way to go to Larissa is as useful as a piece of knowledge about the way to go to Larissa.
    [Show full text]
  • An Ontological Objection to the Causal Theory of Action
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 8-2018 Actions Are Not Events: An Ontological Objection to the Causal Theory of Action Jiajun Hu University of Tennessee, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Recommended Citation Hu, Jiajun, "Actions Are Not Events: An Ontological Objection to the Causal Theory of Action. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2018. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/5008 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Jiajun Hu entitled "Actions Are Not Events: An Ontological Objection to the Causal Theory of Action." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Philosophy. David W. Palmer, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Richard E. Aquila, Eldon F. Coffman Jr., Bruce J. MacLennan Accepted for the Council: Dixie L. Thompson Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) Actions Are Not Events: An Ontological Objection to the Causal Theory of Action A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Jiajun Hu August 2018 Copyright © 2018 by Jiajun Hu.
    [Show full text]
  • Goldman and Siegel on the Epistemic Aims of Education
    Goldman and Siegel on the epistemic aims of education Alessia Marabini & Luca Moretti [email protected] [email protected] First Draft (April 25, 2018) ABSTRACT Philosophers have claimed that education aims at fostering disparate epistemic goals––for instance: knowledge, true belief, understanding, epistemic character, critical thinking. In this paper we focus on an important segment of the debate involving conversation between Alvin Goldman and Harvey Siegel. Goldman claims that education is essentially aimed at producing true beliefs. Siegel contends that education is essentially aimed at fostering both true beliefs and, independently, rational beliefs. We summarize and criticize the arguments from both sides. We find Siegel’s position intuitively more plausible than Goldman’s, but we also find Siege’s defence of it wanting. We suggest a novel argumentative strategy on Siegel’s behalf that goes from general epistemology to epistemology of education. (shrink) KEYWORDS: epistemic aims of education, epistemic aims, epistemic rationality, critical thinking, testimony, deontological justification, Alvin Goldman, Harvey Siegel 1. What we do in the paper The debate on the epistemic aims or goals of education is very hot and on-going. Philosophers have claimed that education aims at fostering disparate epistemic goals––for instance: knowledge, true belief, understanding, epistemic character, critical thinking (for an introduction see Carter and Kotzee 2015: §6). In this paper we focus on an important segment of the debate involving conversation between Alvin Goldman and Harvey Siegel. Goldman claims that education is essentially aimed at producing true beliefs. Siegel contends that education is essentially aimed at fostering both true beliefs and, independently, rational beliefs.
    [Show full text]
  • Reliabilism, Intuition, and Mathematical Knowledge a View Beyond the Frontier
    A VIEW BEYOND THE FRONTIER FILOZOFIA ___________________________________________________________________________Roč. 63, 2008, č. 8 RELIABILISM, INTUITION, AND MATHEMATICAL KNOWLEDGE JENNIFER W. MULNIX , University Honors Program, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA, USA MULNIX, J. W.: Reliabilism, Intuition, and Mathematical Knowledge FILOZOFIA 63, 2008, No 8, p. 715 It is alleged that the causal inertness of abstract objects and the causal conditions of certain naturalized epistemologies precludes the possibility of mathematical know- ledge. This paper rejects this alleged incompatibility, while also maintaining that the objects of mathematical beliefs are abstract objects, by incorporating a naturalisti- cally acceptable account of ‘rational intuition.’ On this view, rational intuition con- sists in a non-inferential belief-forming process where the entertaining of proposi- tions or certain contemplations results in true beliefs. This view is free of any condi- tions incompatible with abstract objects, for the reason that it is not necessary that S stand in some causal relation to the entities in virtue of which p is true. Mathe- matical intuition is simply one kind of reliable process type, whose inputs are not ab- stract numbers, but rather, contemplations of abstract numbers. Keywords: Reliabilism – Mathematical intuition – Rational intuition – Naturalism, knowledge – Justification epistemology Some have objected that on certain naturalized epistemologies, the possibility of mathematical knowledge is excluded. More specifically, if one maintains that the objects of our mathematical beliefs are abstract objects, and one imposes causal constraints on the conditions of knowledge, then, perhaps, knowledge of mathematics is not possible be- cause of the incompatibility between the causal inertness of abstract objects and our causal conditions on knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • Epistemic Divergence and the Publicity of Scientific Methods
    Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 34 (2003) 597–612 www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsa Epistemic divergence and the publicity of scientific methods Gualtiero Piccinini Department of Philosophy, Washington University, Campus Box 1073, One Brookings Dr., St Louis, MO 63130-4899, USA Received 20 May 2002; received in revised form 24 November 2002 Abstract Epistemic divergence occurs when different investigators give different answers to the same question using evidence-collecting methods that are not public. Without following the principle that scientific methods must be public, scientific communities risk epistemic divergence. I explicate the notion of public method and argue that, to avoid the risk of epistemic divergence, scientific communities should (and do) apply only methods that are public. 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Epistemic divergence; Public method; Intersubjective test; Reliabilism; Method of possible cases The activities of the sciences that are taught are things that can be seen and there is none that is not visible in one form or another. Hippocrates1 1. Introduction Scientific statements must be intersubjectively testable. If evidence for a statement cannot be obtained by different investigators, then neither the evidence nor the state- ment are scientific. Classical defenses of this principle have been given by Herbert E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Piccinini). 1 In The Science of Medicine, anciently attributed to Hippocrates. 0039-3681/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0039-3681(03)00049-9 598 G. Piccinini / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 34 (2003) 597–612 Feigl (1953, p. 11), Carl Hempel (1952, p. 22), Immanuel Kant (1965, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Bootstrapping in General∗ Jonathan Weisberg University of Toronto
    Bootstrapping in General∗ Jonathan Weisberg University of Toronto 1 Introduction The following procedure seems epistemically defective. Suppose I have no reason to think the gas gauge in my car is reliable, and I attempt to establish its reliability as follows. I read the gauge on many occasions, concluding each time that the tank is as the gauge says. When the gauge reads ‘full’, I conclude that the tank is full, similarly for ‘empty’, etc. Eventually I conclude by induction that the gauge is reliable, since it was correct each time. Even if my beliefs in this chain of reasoning are all true, I have done nothing to establish that the gauge is reliable: I do not know that it is reliable, nor am I justified in believing that it is. Call this sort of defective procedure bootstrapping.1 Our focus here is: what is defective about this sort of reasoning, and what epistemological lessons can we learn from its defectiveness? Vogel (2000) argues that bootstrapping presents a problem for reliabilist theo- ries of knowledge. According to Vogel, reliabilism says that I can use the reasoning just outlined to come to know that my gauge is reliable. Cohen (2002; 2005), Van Cleve (2003), and others argue that bootstrapping actually poses a more general problem, afflicting any view that allows for basic knowledge, i.e. any view that allows one to gain knowledge from a source without prior knowledge that the source is reliable.2 Thus bootstrapping is also a problem for foundationalists I am grateful to David Christensen, Phil Kremer, Jennifer Nagel, Adam Sennet, and Jonathan ∗ Vogel for much patient discussion and invaluable feedback.
    [Show full text]
  • A Rationalist Argument for Libertarian Free Will
    A rationalist argument for libertarian free will Stylianos Panagiotou PhD University of York Philosophy August 2020 Abstract In this thesis, I give an a priori argument in defense of libertarian free will. I conclude that given certain presuppositions, the ability to do otherwise is a necessary requirement for substantive rationality; the ability to think and act in light of reasons. ‘Transcendental’ arguments to the effect that determinism is inconsistent with rationality are predominantly forwarded in a Kantian manner. Their incorporation into the framework of critical philosophy renders the ontological status of their claims problematic; rather than being claims about how the world really is, they end up being claims about how the mind must conceive of it. To make their ontological status more secure, I provide a rationalist framework that turns them from claims about how the mind must view the world into claims about the ontology of rational agents. In the first chapter, I make some preliminary remarks about reason, reasons and rationality and argue that an agent’s access to alternative possibilities is a necessary condition for being under the scope of normative reasons. In the second chapter, I motivate rationalism about a priori justification. In the third chapter, I present the rationalist argument for libertarian free will and defend it against objections. Several objections rest on a compatibilist understanding of an agent’s abilities. To undercut them, I devote the fourth chapter, in which I give a new argument for incompatibilism between free will and determinism, which I call the situatedness argument for incompatibilism. If the presuppositions of the thesis are granted and the situatedness argument works, then we may be justified in thinking that to the extent that we are substantively rational, we are free in the libertarian sense.
    [Show full text]
  • Reliabilism – Modal, Probabilistic Or Contextualist1
    Reliabilism – Modal, Probabilistic or Contextualist1 Peter Baumann Swarthmore College Summary This paper discusses two versions of reliabilism: modal and probabilistic reliabilism. Modal reliabilism faces the problem of the missing closeness metric for possible worlds while probalistic reliabilism faces the problem of the relevant reference class. Despite the severity of these problems, reliabilism is still very plausible (also for independent reasons). I propose to stick with reliabilism, propose a contextualist (or, alternatively, harmlessly relativist) solution to the above problems and suggest that probabilistic reliabilism has the advantage over modal reliabilism. Reliabilism about knowledge has it that knowledge is reliable true belief, that is, true belief which has been acquired in a reliable way. We do not have to take this as a reductive definition of knowledge. It seems hopeless to try to give a reductive definition of any ordinary (and philosophically interesting) concept, like the concept of knowledge. Let us rather see it as an indication of a conceptually necessary condition of knowledge: (KR) Necessarily, if S knows that p, then S acquired the belief that p in a reliable way. 1 Published in Grazer Philosophische Studien 79, 2009, 77-89. 2 The general idea of knowledge reliabilism strikes me as being very plausible and Alvin Goldman deserves major credit for developing hints by Frank Ramsey into a full-blown theory (cf. Ramsey 1990a, 91-94, 1990b, 110; Goldman 1992a, 1992b, 1986, 1988, 2008; cf. also Armstrong 1973, Dretske 1981 and Nozick 1981). The basic idea can be formulated in such generality that it covers both internalism and externalism about knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge and Its Limits Professor Wesley Holliday MWF 10-11 UC Berkeley, Spring 2013 101 Barker
    PHIL 4 - Knowledge and Its Limits Professor Wesley Holliday MWF 10-11 UC Berkeley, Spring 2013 101 Barker Syllabus Description In this course, we will investigate questions about the nature and limits of knowledge: Is knowledge compatible with the possibility of human error? Is the structure of our knowledge like a building that rests on a foundation or like a web held together by its connections? What are the requirements for knowledge? Can one know by accident? How can we acquire knowledge and avoid misinformation from others? Whom can we trust? Prerequisites There are no official prerequisites for this course. Success in the course will require the patience to carefully read, re-read, and think about difficult philosophical texts, as well as the willingness to work on developing your skills for clear and rigorous analytical writing. Readings There is a reader for the course sold by Copy Central. Versions of most readings are hyperlinked from this syllabus or bSpace, but the official versions are in the reader. Requirements { Section participation (including Piazza) and quizzes (10% of grade) { In-class exam on February 22 (15% of grade) { 3-5 page paper due on bSpace by March 17, 5pm (20% of grade) { 3-5 page paper due on bSpace by April 14, 5pm (25% of grade) { In-class final exam on May 14, 3-6pm (30% of grade) In-class participation will be taken into account in cases of borderline grades. (CDC recommendation: if you are sick, stay home until 24 hours after symptoms stop.) Sections All enrolled students must attend a weekly discussion section.
    [Show full text]
  • REVIEW ARTICLE on the Philosophical
    REVIEW ARTICLE On the philosophical applications of Cognitive Science Alvin Goldman (ed), Readings in Philosophy and Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1993. Goldman collected thirty-eight papers in Philosophy and in Cognitive Science that are of interest to people from both disciplines. In the following I describe the motivation behind Readings in Philosophy and Cognitive Science (henceforth RPCS), and review its structure. I also point to recent selections, probably less familiar to the potential reader, but certainly worth noticing. I then discuss the bounds of the philosophical applications of Cognitive Science. 1. General overview The very first reaction to RPCS is to wonder why we need another anthology for the philosophy of cognitive science. RPCS, however, is different from Block (1980), Lycan (1990) and many other anthologies. Unlike the others, whose focus is the so-called philosophical foundations of cognitive science, RPCS focuses on the applications of cognitive science to philosophy. As such, most of the papers in RPCS make explicit the connection between empirical findings and significant philosophical theses. Another distinctive feature of RPCS is that half of the papers in it were written by cognitive scientists. These essays describe important empirical work in social psychology, developmental psychology, computational linguistics, artificial intelligence, decision-making theory, vision and neuroscience. Some of the papers, such as Chomsky’s "On the Nature, Use, and Acquisition of Language", and Tversky and Kahneman's "Probabilistic Reasoning" are already very familiar to philosophers and have had their impact on the philosophical literature. Many other papers report or summarize more recent empirical findings. An explicit goal of Goldman in RPCS is to show “how cognitive science bears on most of the major branches in philosophy” (p.
    [Show full text]
  • Sceptical Paths Studies and Texts in Scepticism
    Sceptical Paths Studies and Texts in Scepticism Edited on behalf of the Maimonides Centre for Advanced Studies by Giuseppe Veltri Managing Editor: Yoav Meyrav Editorial Board Heidrun Eichner, Talya Fishman, Racheli Haliva, Henrik Lagerlund, Reimund Leicht, Stephan Schmid, Carsten Wilke, Irene Zwiep Volume 6 Sceptical Paths Enquiry and Doubt from Antiquity to the Present Edited by Giuseppe Veltri, Racheli Haliva, Stephan Schmid, and Emidio Spinelli The series Studies and Texts in Scepticism is published on behalf of the Maimonides Centre for Advanced Studies ISBN 978-3-11-058960-3 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-059104-0 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-059111-8 ISSN 2568-9614 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 Licence. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Control Number: 2019947115 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2019 Giuseppe Veltri, Racheli Haliva, Stephan Schmid, Emidio Spinelli, published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover image: Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg, Ms Cod. Levy 115, fol. 158r: Maimonides, More Nevukhim, Beginn von Teil III. Printing & binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com Contents Introduction 1 Carlos Lévy Philo of Alexandria vs. Descartes: An Ignored Jewish
    [Show full text]