File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Knowledge Is Not Enough

TitleKnowledge Is Not Enough
Authors
Keywordsexperimental philosophy
intuition
metaphilosophy
Issue Date2017
Citation
Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 2017, v. 95 n. 4, p. 658-672 How to Cite?
Abstract© 2017 Australasian Association of Philosophy Discussions of the role of intuition in philosophical methodology typically proceed within the knowledge-centred framework of mainstream analytic epistemology. Either implicitly or explicitly, the primary questions in metaphilosophy frequently seem to revolve around whether or not intuition is a source of justification, evidence, or knowledge. I argue that this Standard Framework is inappropriate for methodological purposes: the epistemic standards that govern inquiry in philosophy are more stringent than the standards that govern everyday cognition. The experimentalist should instead view her criticisms as analogous to calls for the use of double-blinding in science.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/244065
ISSN
2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.703
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorNado, Jennifer-
dc.date.accessioned2017-08-31T08:55:57Z-
dc.date.available2017-08-31T08:55:57Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.citationAustralasian Journal of Philosophy, 2017, v. 95 n. 4, p. 658-672-
dc.identifier.issn0004-8402-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/244065-
dc.description.abstract© 2017 Australasian Association of Philosophy Discussions of the role of intuition in philosophical methodology typically proceed within the knowledge-centred framework of mainstream analytic epistemology. Either implicitly or explicitly, the primary questions in metaphilosophy frequently seem to revolve around whether or not intuition is a source of justification, evidence, or knowledge. I argue that this Standard Framework is inappropriate for methodological purposes: the epistemic standards that govern inquiry in philosophy are more stringent than the standards that govern everyday cognition. The experimentalist should instead view her criticisms as analogous to calls for the use of double-blinding in science.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofAustralasian Journal of Philosophy-
dc.subjectexperimental philosophy-
dc.subjectintuition-
dc.subjectmetaphilosophy-
dc.titleKnowledge Is Not Enough-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/00048402.2016.1273959-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85009495790-
dc.identifier.hkuros287131-
dc.identifier.volume95-
dc.identifier.issue4-
dc.identifier.spage658-
dc.identifier.epage672-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000411515000003-
dc.identifier.issnl0004-8402-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats