Williamson on knowledge and psychological explanation

Philosophical Studies 116 (1):37-52 (2003)
Abstract
According to many philosophers, psychological explanation canlegitimately be given in terms of belief and desire, but not in termsof knowledge. To explain why someone does what they do (so the common wisdom holds) you can appeal to what they think or what they want, but not what they know. Timothy Williamson has recently argued against this view. Knowledge, Williamson insists, plays an essential role in ordinary psychological explanation.Williamson's argument works on two fronts.First, he argues against the claim that, unlike knowledge, belief is``composite'' (representable as a conjunction of a narrow and a broadcondition). Belief's failure to be composite, Williamson thinks, undermines the usual motivations for psychological explanation in terms of belief rather than knowledge.Unfortunately, we claim, the motivations Williamson argues against donot depend on the claim that belief is composite, so what he saysleaves the case for a psychology of belief unscathed.Second, Williamson argues that knowledge can sometimes provide abetter explanation of action than belief can.We argue that, in the cases considered, explanations that cite beliefs(but not knowledge) are no less successful than explanations that citeknowledge. Thus, we conclude that Williamson's arguments fail both coming andgoing: they fail to undermine a psychology of belief, and they fail tomotivate a psychology of knowledge.
Keywords Philosophy   Philosophy   Epistemology   Logic   Philosophy of Mind   Philosophy of Religion
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2004
DOI 10.1023/B:PHIL.0000005558.40211.01
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 26,702
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Belief is Prior to Knowledge.David Rose - 2015 - Episteme 12 (3):385-399.
Primeness, Internalism and Explanatory Generality.Bernard Molyneux - 2007 - Philosophical Studies 135 (2):255 - 277.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Interpretation and Knowledge Maximization.Aidan McGlynn - 2012 - Philosophical Studies 160 (3):391-405.
Williamson on Inexact Knowledge.Anna Mahtani - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 139 (2):171 - 180.
Why Williamson Should Be a Sceptic.Dylan Dodd - 2007 - Philosophical Quarterly 57 (229):635–649.
Williamson on Knowledge and Evidence.Alvin Goldman - 2009 - In Patrick Greenough, Duncan Pritchard & Timothy Williamson (eds.), Williamson on Knowledge. Oxford University Press. pp. 73-91.
Epistemicism About Vagueness and Meta-Linguistic Safety.Stephen Kearns & Ofra Magidor - 2008 - Philosophical Perspectives 22 (1):277-304.
Williamson on Knowledge, Action, and Causation.Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen - 2005 - SATS: Northern European Journal of Philosophy 6 (1):15-28.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

116 ( #41,579 of 2,158,667 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

4 ( #86,888 of 2,158,667 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums