Repository logo

Thesis Central

Communities & Collections
Browse
Log In
  1. Home
  2. Browse by Author

Browsing by Author "Karlan, Brett"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Results Per Page
  • Sort Options
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Item

    Rationality, Bias, and Mind: Essays on Epistemology and Cognitive Science

    (Princeton, NJ : Princeton University, 2020) Karlan, Brett; Kelly, Thomas; Helton, Grace; Philosophy Department

    In these essays, I offer solutions to a cluster of issues in epistemology, the philosophy of

    mind, and the philosophy of cognitive science. These issues center around the rational

    evaluability (and rational evaluation) of mental states found in human beings. Which kinds of

    mental states can be rationally evaluated? In virtue of what can they be so evaluated? And what

    role do facts about our cognitive limitations and biases play in rational evaluation? I offer

    answers to these questions in what follows.

    The first two chapters concern a particular kind of mental state, the implicit aitude.

    Implicit aitudes are opaque mental states that we often lack conscious access to, but that

    influence our behaviors in many ways. In Chapter 1, I argue that implicit aitudes, like beliefs,

    credences, and intentions (and unlike associations or mere flights of fancy) can be rationally

    evaluated. I argue this is because they have a capacity to respond to evidence. In Chapter 2, I

    show that the implicit aitudes are best thought of as belonging to a familiar psychological

    kind: belief. Our implicit beliefs form a significant portion of our rational outlook, although we

    often remain alienated from their contents and functions. Coming to terms with these facts is of

    the utmost importance for both epistemology and the philosophy of mind.

    In Chapter 3, I turn my aention to the rationality of psychological biases more

    generally. I consider so-called biases of reasoning, often known as heuristics, and ask about their

    rational standing. I argue that utilizing heuristic reasoning strategies often represents the best

    we can do from the point of view of rationality. Heuristic reasoning represents a local rational

    maximum, producing more accurate conclusions in our reasoning than our aempts to

    implement more “ideal” reasoning rules. I discuss three components of the human heuristic

    reasoning strategy (aributive substitution, recognition, and one-reason reasoning), and show

    how their use can lead to accurate conclusions in information-rich environments.

© 2024 The Trustees of Princeton University. All rights reserved.

  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility
  • Send Feedback