The evil demon in the lab: skepticism, introspection, and introspection of introspection.
In part one, I clarify the crucial notion of "introspection", and give novel cases for the coherence of scenarios of local and global deception about how we access our own minds, drawing on empirical work. In part two, I evaluate a series of skeptical arguments based on such scenarios of error, and...
| Published in: | Synthese Vol. 198; no. 10; pp. 9763 - 9786 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Springer Nature
Oct2021
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=152559375&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 152559375 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00397857 4LI jtl: Synthese issn: 00397857 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Oct2021 vid: 198 iid: 10 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 152559375 10.1007/s11229-020-02680-6 ppf: 9763 ppct: 23 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 322KB tig: atl: The evil demon in the lab: skepticism, introspection, and introspection of introspection. aug: au: Silins, Nicholas affil: Cornell University, Ithaca, USA su: Introspection Skepticism Demonology Good & evil Deception sug: subj: Introspection Skepticism Demonology Good & evil Deception keyword: Reliability Self-knowledge ab: In part one, I clarify the crucial notion of "introspection", and give novel cases for the coherence of scenarios of local and global deception about how we access our own minds, drawing on empirical work. In part two, I evaluate a series of skeptical arguments based on such scenarios of error, and in each case explain why the skeptical argument fails. The first main upshot is that we should not over-estimate what it takes to introspect: introspection need not be accurate, or non-inferential, or exclusive of perception, or even exclusive of confabulation. The second main upshot is that, while skeptical challenges by figures such as Carruthers, Doris, and Schwitzgebel are rich and empirically informed, these skeptical challenges founder on how they are epistemologically under-informed. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Synthese is a copyright of Springer, 2021. All Rights Reserved. item: Synthese holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2021 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|