Advertisement

Erkenntnis

, Volume 82, Issue 3, pp 603–623 | Cite as

Three Questions About Immunity to Error Through Misidentification

  • Giovanni Merlo
Original Article
  • 349 Downloads

Abstract

It has been observed that, unlike other kinds of singular judgments, mental self-ascriptions are immune to error through misidentification: they may go wrong, but not as a result of mistaking someone else’s mental states for one’s own. Although recent years have witnessed increasing interest in this phenomenon, three basic questions about it remain without a satisfactory answer: what is exactly an error through misidentification? What does immunity to such errors consist in? And what does it take to explain the fact that mental self-ascriptions exhibit this sort of immunity? The aim of this paper is to bring these questions into focus, propose some tentative answers and use them to show that one prominent attempt to explain the immunity to error through misidentification of mental self-ascriptions is unsuccessful.

Keywords

Simple Explanation False Identification Minimal Evidence Epistemic Assurance Singular Proposition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Manuel Garcia-Carpintero, John Hawthorne, Guy Longworth, Aidan McGlynn, Daniel Morgan, François Recanati, Sven Rosenkranz, Assaf Weksler and Crispin Wright for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Thanks also to the participants of the LOGOS Colloquium in Barcelona, the second HUJI Graduate Conference in Jerusalem and the 2013 NIP / Institut Jean-Nicod Workshop “Thinking of Oneself” in Paris. The research leading to this paper has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007–2013 under grant agreement no. FP7-238128, and from the Swiss National Science Foundation Sinergia Project ‘Grounding – Metaphysics, Science, and Logic’ (Project 147685).

References

  1. Anscombe, E. (1975). The first person. In S. Guttenplan (Ed.), Mind and language (pp. 45–65). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bermudez, J. L. (1998). The paradoxes of self-consciousness. Camrbidge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, J. (1999). Immunity to error through misidentification and the meaning of a referring term. Philosophical Topics, 26(1–2), 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coliva, A. (2006). Error through misidentification: Some varieties. The Journal of Philosophy, 103(8), 403–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coliva, A. (2012). Which ‘key to all mythologies’ about the self? A note on where illusions of transcendence come from and how to resist them. In S. Prosser & F. Recanati (Eds.), Immunity to error through misidentification: New essays (pp. 22–45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Evans, G. (1982). The varieties of reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Garcia-Carpintero, M. (2013). Self-conception: Sosa on de se thought. In J. Turri (Ed.), Virtuous thoughts: The philosophy of Ernest Sosa. Philosophical studies series (Vol. 119, pp. 73–99). Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5934-3.
  8. McDowell, J. (Ed.). (1998). Reductionism and the first-person. In Mind, value and reality (pp. 359–382). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. McGlynn, A. (2016). Immunity to error through misidentification and the epistemology of de se thought. In M. Garcia-Carpintero & S. Torre (Eds.), About oneself: De se thought and communication (pp. 25–55). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Morgan, D. (2012). Immunity to error through misidentification: What does it tell us about the de se? In S. Prosser & F. Recanati (Eds.), Immunity to error through misidentification: New essays (pp. 104–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Morgan, D. (manuscript). Thinking about the body as subject.Google Scholar
  12. Nida-Rümelin, M. (2011). The conceptual origin of mind-body dualism. In A. Coliva (Ed.), Self and self-knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Peacocke, C. (1999). Being known. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Prosser, S., & Recanati, F. (Eds.). (2012). Immunity to error through misidentification: New essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Pryor, J. (1999). Immunity to error through misidentification. Philosophical Topics, 26(1–2), 271–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pryor, J. (2000). The Skeptic and the Dogmatist. Noûs, 34(4), 517–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Recanati, F. (2012). Immunity to error through misidentification: What it is and where it comes from. In S. Prosser & F. Recanati (Eds.), Immunity to error through misidentification: New essays (pp. 180–201). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shoemaker, S. (1968). Self-reference and self-awareness. The Journal of Philosophy, 65(19), 555–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shoemaker, S. (1970). Persons and their pasts. American Philosophical Quarterly, 7(4), 269–285.Google Scholar
  20. Smith, J. (2006). Which immunity to error? Philosophical Studies, 130, 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stanley, J. (2011). Know how. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). The blue and brown books. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Wright, C. (2000). Self-knowledge: The Wittgensteinian legacy. In C. Wright, B. Smith, & C. McDonald (Eds.), Knowing our own minds (pp. 13–45). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wright, C. (2002). (Anti)-sceptics, simple and subtle: Moore and McDowell. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65, 330–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wright, C. (2012). Reflections on François Recanati’s ‘Immunity to error through misidentification: What it is and where it comes from’. In S. Prosser & F. Recanati (Eds.), Immunity to error through misidentification: New essays (pp. 247–280). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Phlox Research GroupUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations