Abstract
Williamson (2000) [Knowledge and its Limits, Oxford: Oxford University Press] argues that attempts to substitute narrow mental states or narrow/environmental composites for broad and factive mental states will result in poorer explanations of behavior. I resist Williamson’s arguments and use Twin-Earth style cases to argue for the causal inertness of broad mental states.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brueckner A. (2002). Williamson on the Primeness of Knowing. Analysis 62.3: 197–202.
Davidson D. (1987). Knowing One’s Own Mind. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 60: 441–458 .
Fodor J. (1975). The Language of Thought. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Fodor J. (1987). Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Goldman, A. (1976): ‘Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge’, Journal of Philosophy, 73, 20. Reprinted in Pojman, L.P. (1993) The Theory of Knowledge: Classic and Contemporary Readings, Wadsworth Inc.
Magnus P.D. and Cohen J. (2003). Williamson on Knowledge and Psychological Explanation. Philosophical Studies 116: 37–52 .
Putnam, H. (1975): The Meaning of Meaning’, in K. Gunderson (ed.), Language, Mind and Knowledge, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science VII, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Reprinted in Putnam, H. (1975) Mind, Language and Reality, Philosophical Papers Volume 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Schiffer S. (1987). Remnants of Meaning. MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts.
Williamson T. (2000). Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford University Press, Oxford .
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Molyneux, B. Primeness, Internalism and Explanatory Generality. Philos Stud 135, 255–277 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-005-2330-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-005-2330-5