Open AccessIf Intuitions Must Be Evidential then Philosophy is in Big Trouble
Author(s) -
Joshua Earlenbaugh,
Bernard Molyneux
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
studia philosophica estonica/studia philosophica estonica.
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2228-110X
pISSN - 1736-5899
DOI - 10.12697/spe.2009.2.2.03
Subject(s) - epistemology , philosophy of mind , counterfactual thinking , argument (complex analysis) , philosophy , rhetorical question , experimental philosophy , free will , philosophical methodology , metaphysics , chemistry , biochemistry , linguistics
Many philosophers claim that intuitions are evidential. Yet it is hard to see how introspecting one's mental states could provide evidence for such synthetic truths as those concerning, for example, the abstract and the counterfactual. Such considerations have sometimes been taken to lead to mentalism---the view that philosophy must concern itself only with matters of concept application or other mind-dependent topics suited to a contemplative approach---but this provides us with a poor account of what it is that philosophers take themselves to be doing, for many of them are concerned with the extra-mental facts about the universe. Evidentialism therefore gestates a disaster for philosophy, for it ultimately demands an epistemology for the investigation into such matter as the abstract and the modal that simply will not be forthcoming. We make a different suggestion: That intuitions are inclinations to believe. Hence, according to us, a philosophical argument does well, as a socio-rhetorical matter of fact, when it is founded on premises philosophers are generally inclined to believe, whether or not those inclinations to believe connect appropriately to the extra-mental facts. Accordingly, the role of intuitions (inclinations to believe) in philosophical methodology is non-evidential, and the question of how they could be used as evidence falls away.