A Cognitive Perspective on Knowledge How : Why Intellectualism Is Neuro-Psychologically Implausible
Stephens, Andreas LU
and Felix, Cathrine V.
LU
(2020)
In Philosophies
5(3).
- Abstract
- We defend two theses: (1) Knowledge how and knowledge that are two distinct forms of knowledge, and; (2) Stanley-style intellectualism is neuro-psychologically implausible. Our naturalistic argument for the distinction between knowledge how and knowledge that is based on a consideration of the nature of slips and basic activities. We further argue that Stanley’s brand of intellectualism has certain ontological consequences that go against modern cognitive neuroscience and psychology. We tie up our line of thought by showing that input from cognitive neuroscience and psychology, on multiple levels of analysis, cohere in supporting the distinction between two separate forms of knowledge. The upshot is a neuro-psychologically plausible... (More)
- We defend two theses: (1) Knowledge how and knowledge that are two distinct forms of knowledge, and; (2) Stanley-style intellectualism is neuro-psychologically implausible. Our naturalistic argument for the distinction between knowledge how and knowledge that is based on a consideration of the nature of slips and basic activities. We further argue that Stanley’s brand of intellectualism has certain ontological consequences that go against modern cognitive neuroscience and psychology. We tie up our line of thought by showing that input from cognitive neuroscience and psychology, on multiple levels of analysis, cohere in supporting the distinction between two separate forms of knowledge. The upshot is a neuro-psychologically plausible understanding of knowledge. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/45b212c6-1343-4976-9d1c-009856dc616d
- author
- Stephens, Andreas
LU
and Felix, Cathrine V.
LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2020-09-05
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- intellectualism, anti-intellectualism, knowledge, knowledge how, knowledge that, naturalism, slips, basic activities
- in
- Philosophies
- volume
- 5
- issue
- 3
- article number
- 21
- pages
- 14 pages
- publisher
- MDPI AG
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85119258078
- ISSN
- 2409-9287
- DOI
- 10.3390/philosophies5030021
- project
- Cognitive Philosophy Research Group (CogPhi)
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 45b212c6-1343-4976-9d1c-009856dc616d
- date added to LUP
- 2020-09-07 12:33:06
- date last changed
- 2022-04-19 00:34:07
@article{45b212c6-1343-4976-9d1c-009856dc616d,
abstract = {{We defend two theses: (1) Knowledge how and knowledge that are two distinct forms of knowledge, and; (2) Stanley-style intellectualism is neuro-psychologically implausible. Our naturalistic argument for the distinction between knowledge how and knowledge that is based on a consideration of the nature of slips and basic activities. We further argue that Stanley’s brand of intellectualism has certain ontological consequences that go against modern cognitive neuroscience and psychology. We tie up our line of thought by showing that input from cognitive neuroscience and psychology, on multiple levels of analysis, cohere in supporting the distinction between two separate forms of knowledge. The upshot is a neuro-psychologically plausible understanding of knowledge.}},
author = {{Stephens, Andreas and Felix, Cathrine V.}},
issn = {{2409-9287}},
keywords = {{intellectualism; anti-intellectualism; knowledge; knowledge how; knowledge that; naturalism; slips; basic activities}},
language = {{eng}},
month = {{09}},
number = {{3}},
publisher = {{MDPI AG}},
series = {{Philosophies}},
title = {{A Cognitive Perspective on Knowledge How : Why Intellectualism Is Neuro-Psychologically Implausible}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/philosophies5030021}},
doi = {{10.3390/philosophies5030021}},
volume = {{5}},
year = {{2020}},
}