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...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Synthese (Dordrecht) 2021-10, Vol.198 (10), p.9763-9785 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 9785 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | 9763 |
| container_title | Synthese (Dordrecht) |
| container_volume | 198 |
| creator | Silins, Nicholas |
| description | 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11229-020-02680-6 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2574937536</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>48692573</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>48692573</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c292t-ff2b83ba1e8913f1918e2907e824bc7eb8455738ce99eda382ced30b8348d8623</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtLBDEQhIMoOK7-AAVhwHO0k87kcZTFFyx4Wc9hHj26y-zMmswK_nuzjujNQ9PQ1FddFGMXAq4FgLmJQkjpOEhIoy1wfcAyURjk4LQ6ZBkAOm5sYY7ZSYxrACG0goydL98op49Vlze0Gfp81edjunRldcqO2rKLdPazZ-zl_m45f-SL54en-e2C19LJkbetrCxWpSDrBLbCCUvSgSErVVUbqqwqUg5bk3PUlGhlTQ1CYpRtrJY4Y1eT7zYM7zuKo18Pu9Cnl14WRjk0BeqkkpOqDkOMgVq_DatNGT69AL-vwE8V-FSB_67A7yGcoJjE_SuFP-t_qcuJWsdxCL9_lNUuBUL8Ak9qZP8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2574937536</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The evil demon in the lab: skepticism, introspection, and introspection of introspection</title><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Silins, Nicholas</creator><creatorcontrib>Silins, Nicholas</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0039-7857</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-0964</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11229-020-02680-6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media</publisher><subject>Deception ; Education ; Epistemology ; Knowledge ; Logic ; Metaphysics ; Philosophers ; Philosophy ; Philosophy of Language ; Philosophy of Science ; Skepticism</subject><ispartof>Synthese (Dordrecht), 2021-10, Vol.198 (10), p.9763-9785</ispartof><rights>Springer Nature B.V. 2020</rights><rights>Springer Nature B.V. 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c292t-ff2b83ba1e8913f1918e2907e824bc7eb8455738ce99eda382ced30b8348d8623</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3779-5850</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11229-020-02680-6$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11229-020-02680-6$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Silins, Nicholas</creatorcontrib><title>The evil demon in the lab: skepticism, introspection, and introspection of introspection</title><title>Synthese (Dordrecht)</title><addtitle>Synthese</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Deception</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Epistemology</subject><subject>Knowledge</subject><subject>Logic</subject><subject>Metaphysics</subject><subject>Philosophers</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Philosophy of Language</subject><subject>Philosophy of Science</subject><subject>Skepticism</subject><issn>0039-7857</issn><issn>1573-0964</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>AVQMV</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEtLBDEQhIMoOK7-AAVhwHO0k87kcZTFFyx4Wc9hHj26y-zMmswK_nuzjujNQ9PQ1FddFGMXAq4FgLmJQkjpOEhIoy1wfcAyURjk4LQ6ZBkAOm5sYY7ZSYxrACG0goydL98op49Vlze0Gfp81edjunRldcqO2rKLdPazZ-zl_m45f-SL54en-e2C19LJkbetrCxWpSDrBLbCCUvSgSErVVUbqqwqUg5bk3PUlGhlTQ1CYpRtrJY4Y1eT7zYM7zuKo18Pu9Cnl14WRjk0BeqkkpOqDkOMgVq_DatNGT69AL-vwE8V-FSB_67A7yGcoJjE_SuFP-t_qcuJWsdxCL9_lNUuBUL8Ak9qZP8</recordid><startdate>20211001</startdate><enddate>20211001</enddate><creator>Silins, Nicholas</creator><general>Springer Science + Business Media</general><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AIMQZ</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GB0</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>LIQON</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3779-5850</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20211001</creationdate><title>The evil demon in the lab</title><author>Silins, Nicholas</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c292t-ff2b83ba1e8913f1918e2907e824bc7eb8455738ce99eda382ced30b8348d8623</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Deception</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Epistemology</topic><topic>Knowledge</topic><topic>Logic</topic><topic>Metaphysics</topic><topic>Philosophers</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Philosophy of Language</topic><topic>Philosophy of Science</topic><topic>Skepticism</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Silins, Nicholas</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>DELNET Social Sciences & Humanities Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Art, Design & Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature - U.S. Customers Only</collection><collection>Arts & Humanities Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Synthese (Dordrecht)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Silins, Nicholas</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The evil demon in the lab: skepticism, introspection, and introspection of introspection</atitle><jtitle>Synthese (Dordrecht)</jtitle><stitle>Synthese</stitle><date>2021-10-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>198</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>9763</spage><epage>9785</epage><pages>9763-9785</pages><issn>0039-7857</issn><eissn>1573-0964</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Science + Business Media</pub><doi>10.1007/s11229-020-02680-6</doi><tpages>23</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3779-5850</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0039-7857 |
| ispartof | Synthese (Dordrecht), 2021-10, Vol.198 (10), p.9763-9785 |
| issn | 0039-7857 1573-0964 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2574937536 |
| source | SpringerLink Journals |
| subjects | Deception Education Epistemology Knowledge Logic Metaphysics Philosophers Philosophy Philosophy of Language Philosophy of Science Skepticism |
| title | The evil demon in the lab: skepticism, introspection, and introspection of introspection |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-15T14%3A55%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20evil%20demon%20in%20the%20lab:%20skepticism,%20introspection,%20and%20introspection%20of%20introspection&rft.jtitle=Synthese%20(Dordrecht)&rft.au=Silins,%20Nicholas&rft.date=2021-10-01&rft.volume=198&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=9763&rft.epage=9785&rft.pages=9763-9785&rft.issn=0039-7857&rft.eissn=1573-0964&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11229-020-02680-6&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E48692573%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2574937536&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=48692573&rfr_iscdi=true |