David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Mind 120 (478):263-327 (2011)
It is commonly held that our intuitive judgements about imaginary problem cases are justified a priori, if and when they are justified at all. In this paper I defend this view — ‘rationalism’ — against a recent objection by Timothy Williamson. I argue that his objection fails on multiple grounds, but the reasons why it fails are instructive. Williamson argues from a claim about the semantics of intuitive judgements, to a claim about their psychological underpinnings, to the denial of rationalism. I argue that the psychological claim — that a capacity for mental simulation explains our intuitive judgements — does not, even if true, provide reasons to reject rationalism. (More generally, a simulation hypothesis, about any category of judgements, is very limited in its epistemological implications: it is pitched at a level of explanation that is insensitive to central epistemic distinctions.) I also argue that Williamson’s semantic claim — that intuitive judgements are judgements of counterfactuals — is mistaken; rather, I propose, they are a certain kind of metaphysical possibility judgement. Several other competing proposals are also examined and criticized
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Edmund Gettier (1963). Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Analysis 23 (6):121-123.
Keith E. Stanovich & Richard F. West (2000). Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):645-665.
Citations of this work BETA
Juhani Yli-Vakkuri (2013). Modal Skepticism and Counterfactual Knowledge. Philosophical Studies 162 (3):605-623.
Brian Weatherson (2013). Running Risks Morally. Philosophical Studies 167 (1):1-23.
Similar books and articles
Albert W. Musschenga (2011). The Epistemic Value of Intuitive Moral Judgements. Philosophical Explorations 13 (2):113-128.
Albert W. Musschenga (2009). Moral Intuitions, Moral Expertise and Moral Reasoning. Journal of Philosophy of Education 43 (4):597-613.
Fabrice Teroni (2014). The Epistemological Disunity of Memory. In Anne Reboul (ed.), Mind, Values and Metaphysics: Philosophical Papers Dedicated to Kevin Mulligan, vol. 2. Springer 183-202.
Cain S. Todd (2008). Unmasking the Truth Beneath the Beauty: Why the Supposed Aesthetic Judgements Made in Science May Not Be Aesthetic at All. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (1):61 – 79.
Martin Lin (2012). Rationalism and Necessitarianism. Noûs 46 (3):418-448.
Malcolm Budd (2007). The Intersubjective Validity of Aesthetic Judgements. British Journal of Aesthetics 47 (4):333-371.
Caj Strandberg (2011). A Structural Disanalogy Between Aesthetic and Ethical Value Judgements. British Journal of Aesthetics 51 (1):51-67.
Elisabeth Schellekens (2006). Towards a Reasonable Objectivism for Aesthetic Judgements. British Journal of Aesthetics 46 (2):163-177.
Gunnar Björnsson & Tristram McPherson (2014). Moral Attitudes for Non-Cognitivists: Solving the Specification Problem. Mind 123 (489):1-38.
Richard Bradley, Franz Dietrich & Christian List (forthcoming). Aggregating Causal Judgments. The University of Chicago Press on Behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association: Philosophy of Science.
Julien A. Deonna & Fabrice Teroni (2012). From Justified Emotions to Justified Evaluative Judgements. Dialogue 51 (1):55-77.
Alberto Vanzo (2012). Kant on Truth-Aptness. History and Philosophy of Logic 33 (2):109-126.
Added to index2010-11-25
Total downloads469 ( #690 of 1,700,363 )
Recent downloads (6 months)51 ( #6,914 of 1,700,363 )
How can I increase my downloads?