David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Traditionally, intuitions about cases have been taken as strong evidence for a philosophical position. I argue that intuitions about concept deployment have epistemic value while intuitions about matters of fact have none. I argue this by use of the explanationist criterion which contends that S is justified in believing only those propositions which are part of the best explanation of S’s making the judgements she makes. This criterion accords with scientific practice. Bealer suggests, as a defence of intuition, that naturalists rely on intuition in their arguments against intuition and thus that their arguments are self-undermining. But beliefs based on intuitions about the application of concepts, like ‘justification’ and ‘theory,’ are epistemically justified by the explanationist criterion. It is only intuitions about matters of fact which are rejected. Thus, epistemically-respectable intuitions about concepts are used to undermine intuitions about metaphysics. There is nothing self-undermining about this.
|Keywords||intuition conceptual analysis Bealer, G concept metaphysics epistemology experimentalism metaphilosophy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Adam Feltz (2008). Problems with the Appeal to Intuition in Epistemology. Philosophical Explorations 11 (2):131 – 141.
Alexander Sarch (2010). Bealer and the Autonomy of Philosophy. Synthese 172 (3):451 - 474.
Ernest Sosa (1996). Rational Intuition: Bealer on its Nature and Epistemic Status. Philosophical Studies 81 (2-3):151--162.
Steven D. Hales (2012). The Faculty of Intuition. Analytic Philosophy 53 (2):180-207.
Stephen Stich & Jonathan M. Weinberg, Empirical Challenges to the Use of Intuitions as Evidence in Philosophy, or Why We Are Not “Judgment Skeptics”.
Mark Fedyk (2009). Philosophical Intuitions. Studia Philosophica Estonica 2 (2):54-80.
Thomas Grundmann (2007). The Nature of Rational Intuitions and a Fresh Look at the Explanationist Objection. Grazer Philosophische Studien 74 (1):69-87.
Christian Nimtz (2010). Saving the Doxastic Account of Intuitions. Philosophical Psychology 23 (3):357-375.
Elijah Chudnoff (2013). Is Intuition Based On Understanding? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 86 (1):42-67.
Yuri Cath (2012). Evidence and Intuition. Episteme 9 (4):311-328.
H. D. Braude (2013). Human All Too Human Reasoning: Comparing Clinical and Phenomenological Intuition. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38 (2):173-189.
Henry Jackman (2005). Intuitions and Semantic Theory. Metaphilosophy 36 (3):363-380.
Nenad Miscevic (2003). Explaining Modal Intuition. Acta Analytica 18 (30-31):5--41.
Added to index2010-09-10
Total downloads83 ( #17,339 of 1,102,037 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #68,255 of 1,102,037 )
How can I increase my downloads?