Are there more than minimal a priori limits on irrationality?

Australasian Journal of Philosophy 72 (1):89-102 (1994)
Abstract
Our concern in this paper is with the question of how irrational an intentional agent can be, and, in particular, with an argument Stephen Stich has given for the claim that there are only very minimal a priori requirements on the rationality of intentional agents. The argument appears in chapter 2 of The Fragmentation of Reason.1 Stich is concerned there with the prospects for the ‘reform-minded epistemologist’. If there are a priori limits on how irrational we can be, there are limits to how much reform we could expect to achieve. With this in mind, Stich sets out to determine what a priori limits there are on irrationality by examining `a cluster of influential arguments aimed at showing that there are conceptual constraints on how badly a person can reason’ (p. 30). Stich aims to remove the threat of a priori limits on the project of reforming our cognitive practices by showing, first, that these influential arguments are bad arguments, and, second, that at best there are only minimal constraints on how irrational we can be.2 We aim to show three things. The first is that Stich’s own arguments against strong a priori limits on how badly a person can reason are unsuccessful, because Stich fails to take into account that the concept of rationality is an epistemic, not just a logical concept, and because he fails to take into account the connection between having a concept and being able to recognize conceptually simple inferences involving the concept. The second is that the position Stich argues for, on the basis of Richard Grandy’s principle of humanity, turns out not to be distinct from the one he rejects. The third is that, in any case, the position that Stich rejects in order to preserve some scope for the project of improving our reasoning is not only no danger to that project but must be presupposed by it
Keywords Epistemology  Language  Rationality  Reason  Stich, S
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/00048409412345901
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,133
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Probability and Tempered Modal Eliminativism.Michael J. Shaffer - 2004 - History and Philosophy of Logic 25 (4):305-318.
The Impossibility of Inverted Reasoners.Murali Ramachandran - 2010 - Acta Analytica 25 (4):499-502.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Making Sense of Ourselves.Daniel C. Dennett - 1981 - Philosophical Topics 12 (1):63-81.
The Anastylosis of Reason: Fitting Together Stich's Fragments.David H. Sanford - 1992 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 35 (1):113 – 137.
The Case Against Stich's Syntactic Theory of Mind.Kevin Possin - 1986 - Philosophical Studies 49 (May):405-18.
The Triumph of a Reasonable Man: Stich, Mindreading, and Nativism.Kim Sterelny - 2004 - In Michael A. Bishop & Dominic Murphy (eds.), Stich and His Critics. Blackwell. pp. 14--152.
On Determining What There Isn't.Michael Devitt - 2009 - In Dominic Murphy & Michael A. Bishop (eds.), Stich and His Critics. Blackwell.
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
68 ( #79,405 of 2,191,826 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #144,664 of 2,191,826 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature