Developing an intellectualist account of skill, Stanley and Williamson define skill as a kind of disposition to action-guiding knowledge. The present paper challenges their definition of skill. While we don’t dispute that skill may consist of a cognitive, a dispositional, and an action-guiding component, we argue that Stanley and Williamson’s account of each component is problematic. In the first section, we argue, against Stanley and Williamson, that the cognitive component of skill is not a case of propositional knowledge-wh, which is (...) typically indexical. In the second section, we seek to show that Stanley and Williamson face difficulties in arguing for a generic claim about skill as a kind of disposition, and they fail to defend intellectualism about skill based on the dispositional account. In the third section we argue that Stanley and Williamson need a more detailed account of the action-guiding aspect of skill to avoid several difficulties, including a threat of a regress. We close with some lessons for the debate over intellectualism and anti-intellectualism about skill. (shrink)

Ryle, the most prominent proponent of anti-intellectualism, and Stanley and Williamson, the most influential intellectualists, both invoke dispositions to explain the ascription of knowledge-how. It is now well known that conditional analyses of disposition suffer from two types of counterexamples: finkish and masked dispositions. If it is the case that dispositions play a role in the analysis of ascription of knowledge-how, and dispositions can be masked and finkish, then an important question arises: Can knowing-how be masked or finkish too? In (...) response to this question, Hawley claims that unlike dispositions, knowledge-how does not seem liable to finkishness, and knowledge-how can be accounted for in terms of counterfactual success. In this paper both claims will be challenged. I seek to show that Hawley’s account faces two problems: an unjustified asymmetry and a puzzle. I also argue that knowledge-how can, intuitively, be finkish and masked, and therefore the counterfactual analysis of knowing-how suggested by Ryle, Stanley and Hawley fails. What is more, I show that the debate on finkish and masked dispositions can shed a new light on the practical component which is necessary for knowing-how. (shrink)

Inspired by Williamson’s knowledge-first epistemology, I propose a position on practical knowledge that can be called the ‘know-how-first view’; yet whereas Williamson is one of the pioneers of the new intellectualism about know-how, I employ the know-how-first view to argue against intellectualism and instead develop a know-how-first version of anti-intellectualism. Williamson argues that propositional knowledge is a sui generis unanalyzable mental state that comes first in the epistemic realm; in parallel, I propose that know-how is a sui generis unanalyzable power (...) that comes first in the practical realm. To motivate this suggestion, I put forward two arguments: drawing on dispositionalist ideas, I argue that the practical component of know-how is unanalyzable; based on an investigation of the natures of intentionality and intelligence, I argue that know-how is prior to intentional and intelligent abilities in the order of explanation of agential action. Deploying this know-how-first anti-intellectualism, I then set out know-how-first solutions to two challenging problems for anti-intellectualism: the sufficiency problem and the necessary condition problem. (shrink)

Some authors maintain that anti-intellectualism faces a general epistemic problem of explaining the cognitive aspect of know-how, and answering the question of why know-how as a kind of disposition is to be considered a distinct kind of knowledge. In the present paper, I argue for a solution to this problem, the central idea of which is that there is a broader sense of knowledge to which both knowledge-that and knowledge-how belong. I present two versions of this solution. According to the (...) first version, know-how is a distinct kind of knowledge since there is a general analyzable category of knowledge under which both know-how and know-that fall. This general category is analyzed into three components: a success component, an externalist anti-luck component, and an internalist anti-luck component. According to the second version of the solution, know-how is a distinct kind of knowledge since there is an unanalyzable analogical conception of knowledge that comes first in both the theoretical realm (as propositional knowledge) and the practical realm (as know-how). Both versions of the solution are plausible since they distinguish between know-how and knacks in an anti-intellectualist manner by positing that there is an internal relation between know-how and non-propositional intentionality. (shrink)

The expertise defense is the best-known response by armchair philosophers to the challenge posed by experimental philosophers regarding the trustworthiness of intuitions. In a series of recent experiments, Experimental philosophers have recently focused on professional philosophers, claiming that, contrary to what the expertise defense assumes, philosophers’ intuitions are no less susceptible to the influence of irrelevant factors (the direct strategy). Additionally, drawing from literature on expertise, they contend that, unlike other domains of expertise, practice does not improve philosophers’ intuitions (the (...) indirect strategy). In this paper, adopting a skill-based perspective on expertise, my primary objective is to defend the expertise defense against both direct and indirect strategies. Based on the skill-based account, I present three arguments against the direct strategy by challenging its power, scope and methodology. Furthermore, borrowing empirical findings from recent literature on expertise, I argue against the indirect strategy that four skills that constitute philosophical expertise regarding thought experiments can be improved through various forms of practice, including deliberate practice. However, my moderate defense departs from typical versions of the expertise defense since I argue that while recent experiments by experimental philosophers cannot undermine the expertise defense, they provide valuable insights into philosophical expertise. (shrink)

It has been argued that virtue reliabilism faces difficulties in explaining why the “because-of” relation between true belief and the relevant competence is absent in Gettier cases. However, prominent proponents of this view such as Sosa and Turri suggest that these difficulties can be overcome by invoking the manifestation relation. In his Judgment and Agency, Sosa supports this claim based on an analogy between Gettier cases and what in the literature on dispositions is called mimic cases. While there are initial (...) motivations for the alleged analogy, I claim there are at least two arguments against it: 1. there is an asymmetry in the nature of context-sensitivity between the problem of mimicking and the Gettier problem; 2. while causal deviance and double luck can be found in both the mimic case and the Gettier case, their causal processes are different in important respects, making it challenging to see them as both falling under the same category. If these arguments are on the right track, the upshot is that virtue reliablists such as Sosa and Turri who describe the “because-of” relation in terms of the manifestation relation still owe us an account of why the manifestation relation is absent in Gettier cases. (shrink)

The intellectualist strategy of appealing to the notion of a practical mode of presentation to explain the practical component of know-how faces two standard objections. According to the first, the notion of a practical mode of presentation is mysterious; according to the second, intellectualists get the order of explanation wrong when they use the practical mode of presentation to explain know-how. In the first section, after reviewing recent literature on defusing the first objection, I employ some phenomenological insights to develop (...) four lines of argument which do show that the objection does not work. In the second section, I maintain that although the current version of the second objection is not conclusive, a restricted version of it is tenable. According to this restricted version, intellectualists do indeed get the order of explanation wrong at the level of basic action. The upshot is twofold: a challenge for anti-intellectualism to make room for the well-defined notion of the practical mode of presentation, and a challenge for intellectualism to explain the practical component of know-how at the basic level. (shrink)

Background:The decision-making process should be done according to a set of rules and principles so as to be fairly understood.Objectives:The aim of this study was to identify the basic principles and rules used by nurses to understand justice in nurse managers’ decision-making processes based on a procedural justice model.Research design and participants:This research was a qualitative study based on directed content analysis, which was performed on a group of 15 nurses working in different hospitals in Tehran, Iran. An in-depth semi-structured (...) interview was used as the method of data collection for this study.Ethical consideration:This research has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences. The respondents were informed about the aim of the study, about voluntary participation, anonymity and confidentiality.Findings:The results of this study showed that in order to understand procedural justice, nurses use several rules, including: duties organization, managerial support, consistency, bias-suppression, accuracy, correctability, representativeness, and ethicality.Conclusion:Nursing leaders must consider the importance of justice rules as one of many strategies to ensure the nurses’ perception of fairness in decision-making processes. (shrink)

ObjectivesThe breast cancer stigma affects Health-related quality of life, while general resilience resources, namely, sense of coherence, social support, and coping skills, are thought to alleviate this effect. The study aimed to explore the mediating/moderation role of GRRs in the relationship between stigma and HRQoL and its dimensions in Iranian patients with breast cancer.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, Stigma Scale for Chronic Illness 8-item version, SOC-13, Medical Outcome Survey- Social Support Scale, Brief COPE, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast were investigated (...) in a convenience sample of Iranian women with confirmed non-metastatic breast cancer. Following the establishment of correlations using Pearson’s correlation, single and parallel mediation analysis and moderation analysis were conducted to determine the extent to which each GRR might be impacted by stigma or decrease the adverse impact of stigma on HRQoL.ResultsAn analysis of 221 women with the mean age of 47.14 showed that stigma was negatively correlated to all HRQoL’s dimensions, SOC, social support, and the bulk of coping skills. In the single mediation analysis, stigma affected all facets of SOC, all subscales of social support, and positive reframing, which partially reduced breast cancer HRQoL. Stigma affects general HRQoL through damaging meaningfulness, social support, and positive reframing. Meaningfulness was marked as the most impacted GRR in terms of all domains of HRQoL. In parallel mediation, reduced meaningfulness, total social support, and positive reframing were highlighted as the pathways of diminished breast cancer HRQoL. Moderation analysis indicated the higher levels of humor, behavioral disengagement, and use of instrumental support behaviors to be functional in protecting different dimensions of HRQoL, while the results were mixed for venting, especially in patients with mastectomy surgery.ConclusionWhile GRRs may be impacted by stigma, they exert a relatively small protective effect against the impact of stigma on HRQoL. This study provides some novel findings, but longitudinal studies are needed to further verify these before any causal conclusion or recommendations for health policy can be drawn. (shrink)

Developing an intellectualist account of skill, Stanley and Williamson define skill as a kind of disposition to action-guiding knowledge. The present paper challenges their definition of skill. While we don’t dispute that skill may consist of a cognitive, a dispositional, and an action-guiding component, we argue that Stanley and Williamson’s account of each component is problematic. In the first section, we argue, against Stanley and Williamson, that the cognitive component of skill is not a case of propositional knowledge-wh, which is (...) typically indexical. In the second section, we seek to show that Stanley and Williamson face difficulties in arguing for a generic claim about skill as a kind of disposition, and they fail to defend intellectualism about skill based on the dispositional account. In the third section we argue that Stanley and Williamson need a more detailed account of the action-guiding aspect of skill to avoid several difficulties, including a threat of a regress. We close with some lessons for the debate over intellectualism and anti-intellectualism about skill. (shrink)

BackgroundDiscrimination in health care is an international challenge and a serious obstacle to justice and equality in health.Research objectiveThe purpose of this study was to design a grounded theory of discrimination in health care based on the experiences and perceptions of Iranian healthcare providers and patients.Research designThis qualitative study was conducted using by the grounded theory method.Participants and research contextData were collected through semi-structured interviews with 18 healthcare providers including 11 nurses, two physicians, two nurse’s assistants, and three patients in (...) two general hospitals in Tehran, Iran. Participants were selected through purposeful sampling and analyzed simultaneously using the Corbin and Strauss (2015) approach.Ethical considerationsThe study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences (Ethics code: IR.USWR.REC.1398.023). Also, after explaining the objectives of the study, all the participants completed and signed the written consent form.FindingsThe “culture of discrimination” was the study’s core category, reflecting the nature of discrimination in health care. The theory of “culture of discrimination in health care” is the result of five main categories: “individual social stimuli,” “culture of discrimination,” “unintentional discrimination,” “conflict with discrimination,” and “dissatisfaction with discriminatory behavior.” These categories cover the underlying factors, strategies, and outcomes of the discrimination process in health care.DiscussionThe results of the study showed that nurses and other health care providers experience unintentional discrimination. Unintentional discrimination refers to discriminatory behaviors and practices of health care providers.ConclusionThe theory of culture of discrimination in health care can be used as a practical guide to describe and understand the role of health care providers, especially nurses. Further studies with a quantitative approach to applying this theory in medical settings are recommended. (shrink)