Knowledge, Action, and Defeasibility

C. Pavese
{"title":"Knowledge, Action, and Defeasibility","authors":"C. Pavese","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198847205.003.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay reviews some motivations for a ‘knowledge-centered psychology’—a psychology where knowledge enters center stage in an explanation of intentional action (Section 8.2). Then it outlines a novel argument for the claim that knowledge is required for intentional action (Section 8.3) and discusses some of its consequences, in particular for the debate on the defeasibility of know-how. Section 8.4 argues that a knowledge-centered psychology motivates the intellectualist view that know-how is a species of know-that. In its more extreme form, the view is committed to an epistemologically substantial claim—i.e., that the epistemic profile of know-how is the same as that of propositional knowledge. Now, it is widely believed that know-that can be defeated by undermining and rebutting defeaters (e.g., Chisholm 1966; Goldman 1986; Pollock and Cruz 1999; Bergmann 2000). If that is correct, one corollary of intellectualism is that the defeasibility of know-how patterns with that of knowledge. A knowledge-centered psychology does predict that, for it predicts that both know-how and knowledge are defeated when one’s ability to intentionally act is defeated. In Section 8.5, by replying to a challenge raised in the recent literature (Carter and Navarro 2018), I argue that this prediction is actually borne out.","PeriodicalId":148935,"journal":{"name":"Reasons, Justification, and Defeat","volume":"119 52","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reasons, Justification, and Defeat","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198847205.003.0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

This essay reviews some motivations for a ‘knowledge-centered psychology’—a psychology where knowledge enters center stage in an explanation of intentional action (Section 8.2). Then it outlines a novel argument for the claim that knowledge is required for intentional action (Section 8.3) and discusses some of its consequences, in particular for the debate on the defeasibility of know-how. Section 8.4 argues that a knowledge-centered psychology motivates the intellectualist view that know-how is a species of know-that. In its more extreme form, the view is committed to an epistemologically substantial claim—i.e., that the epistemic profile of know-how is the same as that of propositional knowledge. Now, it is widely believed that know-that can be defeated by undermining and rebutting defeaters (e.g., Chisholm 1966; Goldman 1986; Pollock and Cruz 1999; Bergmann 2000). If that is correct, one corollary of intellectualism is that the defeasibility of know-how patterns with that of knowledge. A knowledge-centered psychology does predict that, for it predicts that both know-how and knowledge are defeated when one’s ability to intentionally act is defeated. In Section 8.5, by replying to a challenge raised in the recent literature (Carter and Navarro 2018), I argue that this prediction is actually borne out.
知识、行动和可行性
这篇文章回顾了“以知识为中心的心理学”的一些动机——在解释有意行为时,知识进入了心理学的中心阶段(第8.2节)。然后,它概述了一个新颖的论点,即知识是有意行为所必需的(第8.3节),并讨论了它的一些后果,特别是关于专有技术的可否定性的辩论。第8.4节认为,以知识为中心的心理学激发了知识主义者的观点,即知识是一种“知道”。在其更极端的形式中,这种观点致力于认识论上的实质性主张。也就是说,专有知识的认识论概况与命题知识的认识论概况相同。现在,人们普遍认为,知道-那可以通过破坏和反驳失败者而被击败(例如,Chisholm 1966;高盛1986年;Pollock and Cruz 1999;伯格曼2000)。如果这是正确的,那么理智主义的一个必然结果就是,知识模式的可行性与知识模式的可行性是相辅相成的。以知识为中心的心理学确实预测到了这一点,因为它预测,当一个人有意行动的能力被击败时,诀窍和知识都将被击败。在8.5节中,通过回答最近文献(Carter and Navarro 2018)中提出的挑战,我认为这一预测实际上是被证实的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信