David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Australasian Journal of Philosophy 72 (1):89-102 (1994)
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)|
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.
Citations of this work BETA
Murali Ramachandran (2010). The Impossibility of Inverted Reasoners. Acta Analytica 25 (4):499-502.
Similar books and articles
Daniel C. Dennett (1981). Making Sense of Ourselves. Philosophical Topics 12 (1):63-81.
Stephen P. Stich (1984). Relativism, Rationality, and the Limits of Intentional Ascription. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly.
Nenad Smokrovic (1995). Intentionalism and Rationality (a Criticism of Stich's Slippery Slope Argument). Acta Analytica 14 (14):101-111.
David H. Sanford (1992). The Anastylosis of Reason: Fitting Together Stich's Fragments. Inquiry 35 (1):113 – 137.
Michael Bishop (2009). Reflections on Cognitive and Epistemic Diversity : Can a Stich in Time Save Quine? In Dominic Murphy & Michael A. Bishop (eds.), Stich and His Critics. Wiley-Blackwell.
Kevin Possin (1986). The Case Against Stich's Syntactic Theory of Mind. Philosophical Studies 49 (May):405-18.
Kim Sterelny (2004). The Triumph of a Reasonable Man: Stich, Mindreading, and Nativism. In Michael A. Bishop & Dominic Murphy (eds.), Stich and His Critics. Blackwell. 14--152.
Roy Sorensen (2004). Charity Implies Meta-Charity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (2):290–315.
Michael Devitt (2009). On Determining What There Isn't. In Dominic Murphy & Michael A. Bishop (eds.), Stich and His Critics. Blackwell.
Stephen P. Stich (1985). Could Man Be an Irrational Animal? Some Notes on the Epistemology of Rationality. Synthese 64 (1):115 - 135.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads25 ( #68,165 of 1,099,037 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #58,097 of 1,099,037 )
How can I increase my downloads?