Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 741–765 | Cite as

Belief-Forming Processes, Extended

  • Spyridon Orestis PalermosEmail author


We very often grant that a person can gain knowledge on the basis of epistemic artifacts such as telescopes, microscopes and so on. However, this intuition threatens to undermine virtue reliabilism according to which one knows that p if and only if one’s believing the truth that p is the product of a reliable cognitive belief-forming process; in an obvious sense epistemic artifacts are not parts of one’s overall cognitive system. This is so, unless the extended cognition hypothesis (HEC) is true. According to HEC when parts of the environment become properly coupled to the agent’s brain then they too can be considered constitutive parts of the overall cognitive mechanism—i.e. cognition potentially extends to the world surrounding the agent. Interestingly, HEC and the broader framework of virtue reliabilism share some intriguing similarities, which render these two views mutually supportive. Making these similarities explicit provides a principled account of the way in which our knowledge-conducive cognitive characters may extend beyond our natural cognitive capacities by incorporating epistemic artifacts.


True Belief Cognitive Agency Gettier Case Cognitive Success Testimonial Knowledge 
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.



I am grateful to Andy Clark, Julian Kilverstein, Duncan Pritchard and two anonymous reviewers for the Review of Philosophy and Psychology for feedback to previous drafts. I am also thankful to Shane Ryan and Eusebio Waweru for drawing my attention to useful corrections.


  1. Adams, F., and K. Aizawa. 2008. The bounds of cognition. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, F., and K. Aizawa. 2010. Defending the bounds of cognition. In The extended mind, ed. Menary. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Audi, R. 1998. Epistemology: A contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bach-y-Rita, P., and S.W. Kercel. 2003. Sensory substitution and the human-machine interface. Trends in Cognitive Science 7(12): 541–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burge, T. 1986. Individualism and psychology. Philosophical Review 95: 3–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burge, T. 1993. Content preservation. Philosophical Review 102: 457–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, A. 1998. Magic words, how language augments human computation. In Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes, ed. P. Carruthers and J. Boucher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, A. 2001. Reasons, robots, and the extended mind. Mind and Language 16(2): 121–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, A. 2006. Soft selves and ecological control. In Distributed cognition and the will, ed. D. Spurrett, D. Ross, H. Kincaid, and L. Stephens. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, A. 2007. Curing cognitive hiccups: A defence of the extended mind. The Journal of Philosophy 104: 163–192. Also available at Scholar
  11. Clark, A. 2008. Supersizing the mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, A. 2010a. Memento’s revenge: The extended mind, extended. In The extended mind, ed. Menary. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Clark, A. 2010b. Coupling, constitution, and the cognitive kind: A reply to Adams and Aizawa. In The extended mind, ed. Menary. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, A., and D. Chalmers. 1998. The extended mind. Analysis 58(1): 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dretske, F. 1970. Epistemic operators. Journal of Philosophy 67: 1007–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Faulkner, P. 2000. The social character of testimonial knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy 97: 581–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fricker, E. 1994. Against gullibility. In Knowing from words, ed. B.K. Matilal and A. Chakrabarti, 125–161. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  18. Gettier, E. 1963. Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis 23: 121–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldman, A. 1976. Discrimination and perceptual knowledge. Journal of Philosophy 73: 771–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greco, J. 1999. Agent reliabilism. In Philosophical perspectives, 13: Epistemology, ed. James Tomberlin, 273–296. Atascadero: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
  21. Greco, J. 2004. Knowledge as credit for true belief. In Intellectual virtue: Perspectives from ethics and epistemology, ed. M. DePaul and L. Zagzebski. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Greco, J. 2007. The nature of ability and the purpose of knowledge. Philosophical Issues 17: 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greco, J. 2008. What’s wrong with contextualism? The Philosophical Quarterly 58: 299–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greco, J. 2010. Achieving knowledge: A virtue-theoretic account of epistemic normativity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hume, D. 1977. In An enquiry concerning human understanding, ed. E. Steinberg. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  26. Hurley, S. 1998. Consciousness in action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hurley, S. 2010. The varieties of externalism. In The extended mind, ed. Menary. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kelp, C. (forthcoming). Extended Cognition and Robust Virtue Epistemology. Erkenntnis.Google Scholar
  29. Lackey, J. 2007. Why we do not deserve credit for everything we know. Synthese 158: 345–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lackey, J. 2008. Learning from words: Testimony as a source of knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lakatos, I. 1970. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Criticism and the growth of knowledge, ed. Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Logan, K.R. 2003. The extended mind: Understanding language and thought in terms of complexity and chaos theory. In Humanity and the cosmos, ed. Daniel McArthur and Cory Mulvihil. Also available at
  33. Menary, R. 2006. Attacking the bounds of cognition. Philosophical Psychology 19(3): 329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Menary, R. 2007. Cognitive integration: Mind and cognition unbound. Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
  35. Menary, R. 2010a. Introduction: The extended mind in focus. In The extended mind, ed. Menary. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Menary, R. 2010b. Cognitive integration and the extended mind. In The extended mind, ed. Menary. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Noë, A. 2004. Action in perception. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Nozick, R. 1981. Philosophical explanations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Plantinga, A. 1993. Warrant and proper function. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pritchard, D.H. 2002. Resurrecting the Moorean response to scepticism. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 10: 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pritchard, D.H. 2008. Sensitivity, safety, and anti-luck epistemology. In The Oxford handbook of skepticism, ed. J. Greco. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Pritchard, D.H. 2009. Knowledge. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  43. Pritchard, D.H. 2010a. Anti-luck virtue epistemology, manuscript, available at
  44. Pritchard, D.H. 2010b. Knowledge and understanding. In The nature and value of knowledge: Three investigations, ed. A. Haddock, A. Millar, and D.H. Pritchard. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pritchard, D.H. 2010c. Cognitive ability and the extended cognition thesis. Synthese 175: 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Putnam, H. 1975. The meaning of “meaning”. In Language, mind and knowledge, ed. K. Gunderson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  47. Reid, T. 1983. Essay on the intellectual powers of man. In Thomas Reid’s inquiry and essays, ed. R.E. Beanblossom and K. Lehrer. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  48. Roberts, T. manuscript. Taking responsibility for cognitive extension.Google Scholar
  49. Ross, D., and J. Ladyman. 2010. The alleged coupling-constitution fallacy and the mature sciences. In The extended mind, ed. Menary. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Rowlands, M. 1999. The body in mind: Understanding cognitive processes. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rowlands, M. 2009. Extended cognition and the mark of the cognitive. Philosophical Psychology 22(1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rupert, D.R. 2004. Challenges to the hypothesis of extended cognition. Journal of Philosophy 101: 389–428.Google Scholar
  53. Rupert, D.R. 2009. Cognitive systems and the extended mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Rupert, D.R. 2010. Representation in extended cognitive systems: Does the scaffolding of language extend the mind? In The extended mind, ed. Menary. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Sosa, E. 1988. Beyond skepticism, to the best of our knowledge. Mind, New Series 97(386): 153–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sosa, E. 1993. Proper functionalism and virtue epistemology. Nous 27(1): 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sosa, E. 1999. How to defeat opposition to Moore. Philosophical Perspectives 13: 141–154.Google Scholar
  58. Sosa, E. 2000. Skepticism and contextualism. Philosophical Issues 10: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vaesen, K. forthcoming. Knowledge without credit, exhibit 4: Extended cognition. Synthese. Google Scholar
  60. Van Gelder, T. 1995. What might cognition be, if not computation? The Journal of Philosophy 92(7): 345–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Varela, F. 1979. Principles of biological autonomy. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  62. Weiner, M. 2003. Accepting testimony. The Philosophical Quarterly 53: 256–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wheeler, M. 2004. Is language the ultimate artifact? Language Sciences 26: 693–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wilson, R.A. 2000. The mind beyond itself. In Metarepresentations: A multidisciplinary perspective, ed. D. Sperber, 31–52. New York University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Wilson, R.A. 2004. Boundaries of the mind: The individual in the fragile sciences: cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Philosophy, Psychology & Language SciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations