Studia Philosophica Estonica 2 (2):35-53 (2009)

Authors
Bernard Molyneux
University of California, Davis
Joshua Earlenbaugh
University of California, Davis
Abstract
Many philosophers claim that intuitions are evidential. Yet it is hard to see how introspecting one's mental states could provide evidence for such synthetic truths as those concerning, for example, the abstract and the counterfactual. Such considerations have sometimes been taken to lead to mentalism---the view that philosophy must concern itself only with matters of concept application or other mind-dependent topics suited to a contemplative approach---but this provides us with a poor account of what it is that philosophers take themselves to be doing, for many of them are concerned with the extra-mental facts about the universe. Evidentialism therefore gestates a disaster for philosophy, for it ultimately demands an epistemology for the investigation into such matter as the abstract and the modal that simply will not be forthcoming. We make a different suggestion: That intuitions are inclinations to believe. Hence, according to us, a philosophical argument does well, as a socio-rhetorical matter of fact, when it is founded on premises philosophers are generally inclined to believe, whether or not those inclinations to believe connect appropriately to the extra-mental facts. Accordingly, the role of intuitions (inclinations to believe) in philosophical methodology is non-evidential, and the question of how they could be used as evidence falls away.
Keywords intuition  evidence  a priori  inclinations  dispositions  methodology  dispositional  mentalism
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.12697/spe.2009.2.2.03
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,039
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Intuition Deniers.Jennifer Nado - 2016 - Philosophical Studies 173 (3):781-800.
Demythologizing Intuition.Jennifer Ellen Nado - 2017 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 60 (4):386-402.
The Role of Intuitions in the Philosophy of Art.Annelies Monseré - 2015 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 58 (7-8):806-827.

View all 12 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Priori Knowledge.George Bealer - 2000 - The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 5:1-12.
Can Modal Intuitions Be Evidence for Essentialist Claims?Janet Levin - 2007 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 50 (3):253 – 269.
The Role of Theory Contamination in Intuitions.James Mcbain - 1999 - Southwest Philosophy Review 15 (1):197-204.
A Priori Knowledge and the Scope of Philosophy.George Bealer - 1996 - Philosophical Studies 81 (2-3):121-142.
Evidence and Intuition.Yuri Cath - 2012 - Episteme 9 (4):311-328.
What Intuitions Are Like.Elijah Chudnoff - 2011 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82 (3):625-654.
Intuitions Are Inclinations to Believe.Joshua Earlenbaugh & Bernard Molyneux - 2009 - Philosophical Studies 145 (1):89 - 109.
Philosophical Intuitions.Mark Fedyk - 2009 - Studia Philosophica Estonica 2 (2):54-80.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-02-26

Total views
176 ( #66,565 of 2,505,990 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,828 of 2,505,990 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes