Philosophia 40 (3):473-482 (2012)
|Abstract||A common view in philosophy is that the way human beings reason is not only gradually better, but that our way of reasoning is fundamentally distinctive. Findings in the psychology of reasoning challenge the traditional view according to which human beings reason in accordance with the laws of logic and probability theory, but rather suggest that human reasoning consists in the application of domain specific rules of thumb similar to those that we ascribe to some intelligent non-human animals as well. However, this view on human reasoning is unable to explain human accomplishments like technological innovations or scientific progress. David Papineau offers a theory of human theoretical rationality that is consistent with the psychological view on human reasoning but that can also explain how humans sometimes are able to transcend the limitations of their biologically quick and dirty modes of thought and thereby reach a high level of accuracy. Papineau claims that the abilities that constitute theoretical rationality are unique to the human species and thus, that human reasoning is fundamentally distinctive after all. In this paper I am going to discuss to what extent these abilities in fact are unique to our species and whether this theoretical rationality can be called an anthropological difference|
|Keywords||Rationality Animal cognition Psychology Reasoning Theory of mind Anthropological difference|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
David Papineau (2003). The Roots of Reason: Philosophical Essays on Rationality, Evolution, and Probability. Oxford University Press.
Richard Samuels, Stephen Stich & Michael Bishop (2002). Ending the Rationality Wars: How to Make Disputes About Human Rationality Disappear. In Renee Elio (ed.), Common Sense, Reasoning and Rationality. Oxford University Press.
Thomas Sturm (2012). The “Rationality Wars” in Psychology: Where They Are and Where They Could Go. Inquiry 55 (1):66-81.
Thomas Kelly (2003). Epistemic Rationality as Instrumental Rationality: A Critique. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (3):612–640.
David Shier (2000). Can Human Rationality Be Defended "A Priori"? Behavior and Philosophy 28 (1/2):67 - 81.
Patrick Rysiew (2008). Rationality Disputes – Psychology and Epistemology. Philosophy Compass 3 (6):1153-1176.
Niki Pfeifer (2006). On Mental Probability Logic. Dissertation, Department of Psychology
Barbara Winters (1983). Inferring. Philosophical Studies 44 (2):201 - 220.
James H. Fetzer (1990). Evolution, Rationality and Testability. Synthese 82 (3):423-39.
Wim J. M. Dekkers (1995). F.J.J. Buytendijk's Concept of an Anthropological Physiology. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 16 (1).
Ronald B. de Sousa (2004). Rational Animals: What the Bravest Lion Won't Risk. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 4 (12):365-386.
Philip Pettit (2007). Rationality, Reasoning and Group Agency. Dialectica 61 (4):495-519.
Wolfram Hinzen (2013). Narrow Syntax and the Language of Thought. Philosophical Psychology 26 (1):1-23.
Added to index2012-01-02
Total downloads17 ( #78,020 of 722,826 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,826 )
How can I increase my downloads?