David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 141 (3):287 - 331 (2004)
It has been commonplace in epistemology since its inception to idealize away from computational resource constraints, i.e., from the constraints of time and memory. One thought is that a kind of ideal rationality can be specified that ignores the constraints imposed by limited time and memory, and that actual cognitive performance can be seen as an interaction between the norms of ideal rationality and the practicalities of time and memory limitations. But a cornerstone of naturalistic epistemology is that normative assessment is constrained by capacities: you cannot require someone to do something they cannot or, as it is usually put, ought implies can. This much we take to be uncontroversial. We argue that differences in architectures, goals and resources imply substantial differences in capacity, and that some of these differences are ineliminable. It follows that some differences in goals and architectural and computational resources matter at the normative level: they constrain what principles of normative epistemology can be used to describe and prescribe their behavior. As a result, we can expect there to be important epistemic differences between the way brains, individuals, and science work
|Keywords||Philosophy Philosophy Epistemology Logic Metaphysics Philosophy of Language|
|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
Jonathan Baron (2000). Normative and Prescriptive Implications of Individual Differences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):668-669.
Keith E. Stanovich & Richard F. West (2000). Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):645-665.
Anthony Robert Booth (2008). Deontology in Ethics and Epistemology. Metaphilosophy 39 (4-5):530-545.
Jeroen G. W. Raaijmakers & Richard M. Shiffrin (2003). Models Versus Descriptions: Real Differences and Language Differences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (6):753-753.
John L. Pollock (1983). Epistemology and Probability. Noûs 17 (1):65-67.
Arthur M. Diamond (1982). Stable Values and Variable Constraints; the Sources of Behavioral and Cultural Differences. Journal of Business Ethics 1 (1):49 - 58.
Bart Verheij, Jaap C. Hage & H. Jaap Van Den Herik (1998). An Integrated View on Rules and Principles. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6 (1):3-26.
Paul A. Klaczynski (2000). Is Rationality Really “Bounded” by Information Processing Constraints? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):683-684.
Robert C. Cummins, Pierre Poirier & Martin Roth (2004). Epistemological Strata and the Rules of Right Reason. Synthese 141 (3):287 - 331.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads38 ( #106,775 of 1,902,164 )
Recent downloads (6 months)22 ( #33,506 of 1,902,164 )
How can I increase my downloads?