Intuitive And Reflective Responses In Philosophy

Dissertation, University of Colorado (2014)
Authors
Nick Byrd
Florida State University
Abstract
Cognitive scientists have revealed systematic errors in human reasoning. There is disagreement about what these errors indicate about human rationality, but one upshot seems clear: human reasoning does not seem to fit traditional views of human rationality. This concern about rationality has made its way through various fields and has recently caught the attention of philosophers. The concern is that if philosophers are prone to systematic errors in reasoning, then the integrity of philosophy would be threatened. In this paper, I present some of the more famous work in cognitive science that has marshaled this concern. Then I present reasons to think that those with training in philosophy will be less prone to certain systematic errors in reasoning. The suggestion is that if philosophers could be shown to be less prone to such errors, then the worries about the integrity of philosophy could be constrained. Then I present evidence that, according to performance on the CRT (Frederick 2005), those who have benefited from training and selection in philosophy are indeed less prone to one kind of systematic error: irrationally arbitrating between intuitive and reflective responses. Nonetheless, philosophers are not entirely immune to this systematic error, and their proclivity for this error is statistically related to their responses to a variety of philosophical questions. So, while the evidence herein puts constraints on the worries about the integrity of philosophy, it by no means eliminates these worries. The conclusion, then, is that the present evidence offers prima facie reasons to ascribe a mitigated privilege to philosophers' ability to rationally arbitrate between intuitive and reflective responses.
Keywords cognitive science  rationality  experimental philosophy  epistemology  philosophy of mind  dual process  social psychology  cognitive style  cognitive reflection test  PhilPapers survey
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

References found in this work BETA

What Do Philosophers Believe?David Bourget & David J. Chalmers - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 170 (3):465-500.
Experimental Philosophy and Philosophical Intuition.Ernest Sosa - 2007 - Philosophical Studies 132 (1):99-107.

View all 335 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Common Sense, Reasoning, & Rationality.Renee Elio (ed.) - 2002 - Oxford University Press.
Artificial Intelligence, Psychology, and the Philosophy of Discovery.Paul Thagard - 1982 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:166 - 175.
Introduction: Philosophy in and Philosophy of Cognitive Science.Andrew Brook - 2009 - Topics in Cognitive Science 1 (2):216-230.
Experimental Philosophy.Joshua Knobe - 2007 - Philosophy Compass 2 (1):81–92.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-11-02

Total downloads
1,823 ( #530 of 2,293,671 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
219 ( #1,195 of 2,293,671 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature