Explaining the Empiricist Bias: Reply to Berent

Journal of Consciousness Studies 27 (7-8):230-235 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Berent (this issue) critiques one of the three main proposals put forward by Carruthers (this issue), who suggests that cognitive scientists are biased against innateness-claims by the tacit assumptions of the mentalizing faculty. Berent proposes, instead, that the bias results from dissonance produced by a conflict between our innate dualism and our innate essentialism. The present response raises a number of difficulties for her argument.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Desgabets as a cartesian empiricist.Monte Cook - 2008 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 46 (4):pp. 501-515.
I Don't Want to Change Your Mind: A Reply to Sherman.Natalia Washington - 2016 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective.
Explaining Complex Adaptations: A Reply to Sober’s ”Reply to Neander’.Karen Neander - 1995 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (4):583-587.
Empiricism in Ethics.Stephan Körner - 1975 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Lectures 9:216-230.
Bias and Perception.Susanna Siegel - 2020 - In Erin Beeghly & Alex Madva (eds.), An Introduction to Implicit Bias: Knowledge, Justice, and the Social Mind. New York, NY, USA: Routledge. pp. 99-115.
Bias, Structure, and Injustice: A Reply to Haslanger.Robin Zheng - 2018 - Feminist Philosophy Quarterly 4 (1):1-30.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-07-16

Downloads
32 (#485,568)

6 months
9 (#298,039)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references