Skip to main content
Log in

No unchallengeable epistemic authority, of any sort, regarding our own conscious experience – Contra Dennett?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dennett argues that we can be mistaken about our own conscious experience. Despite this, he repeatedly asserts that we can or do have unchallengeable authority of some sort in our reports about that experience. This assertion takes three forms. First, Dennett compares our authority to the authority of an author over his fictional world. Unfortunately, that appears to involve denying that there are actual facts about experience that subjects may be truly or falsely reporting. Second, Dennett sometimes seems to say that even though we may be mistaken about what our conscious experience is, our reports about “what it’s like to be us” must be correct. That view unfortunately requires a nonstandard and unremarked distinction between facts about consciousness and facts about “what it’s like.” Third, Dennett says that reports about experience may be “incorrigible.” However, that claim stands in tension with evidence, highlighted by Dennett himself, that seems to suggest that people can be demonstrably mistaken about their own experience. Dennett needlessly muddies his case against infallibilism with these unsatisfactory compromises.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (2000). The case for rorts. In R. B. Brandom (Ed.), Rorty and his critics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (2002). How could I be wrong? How wrong could I be? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 9(5–6), 13–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (2003). Who’s on first? Heterophenomenology explained. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(9–10), 19–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (2005). Sweet dreams. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurlburt, R. T., & Schwitzgebel, E. (forthcoming). Describing inner experience? Proponent meets skeptic. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/DescExp.htm.

  • Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? Philosophical Review, 63, 435–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R. (1970). Incorrigibility as the mark of the mental. Journal of Philosophy, 67, 399–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwitzgebel, E. (2002). How well do we know our own conscious experience? The case of visual imagery. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 9(5–6), 35–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwitzgebel, E. (2004). Introspective training apprehensively defended: Reflections on Titchener’s lab manual. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11(7–8), 58–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwitzgebel, E. (in preparation). The unreliability of naive introspection. http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/Naive.htm.

  • Schwitzgebel, E., & Gordon, M. S. (2000). How well do we know our own conscious experience? The case of human echolocation. Philosophical Topics, 28, 235–246.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric Schwitzgebel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schwitzgebel, E. No unchallengeable epistemic authority, of any sort, regarding our own conscious experience – Contra Dennett?. Phenom Cogn Sci 6, 107–113 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-006-9034-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-006-9034-y

Key words

Navigation