Philosophical intuitions, heuristics, and metaphors

Psychological explanations of philosophical intuitions can help us assess their evidentiary value, and our warrant for accepting them. To explain and assess conceptual or classificatory intuitions about specific situations, some philosophers have suggested explanations which invoke heuristic rules proposed by cognitive psychologists. The present paper extends this approach of intuition assessment by heuristics-based explanation, in two ways: It motivates the proposal of a new heuristic, and shows that this metaphor heuristic helps explain important but neglected intuitions: general factual intuitions which have been highly influential in the philosophies of mind and perception but neglected in ongoing debates in the epistemology of philosophy. To do so, the paper integrates results from three philosophically pertinent but hitherto largely unconnected strands of psychological research: research on intuitive judgement, analogy and metaphor, and memory-based processing, respectively. The paper shows that the heuristics-based explanation thus obtained satisfies the key requirements cognitive psychologists impose on such explanations, that it can explain the philosophical intuitions targeted, and that this explanation supports normative assessment of the intuitions’ evidentiary value: It reveals whether particular intuitions are due to proper exercise of cognitive competencies or constitute cognitive illusions.

[1]  H. Cappelen Philosophy Without Intuitions , 2012 .

[2]  Joseph Shieber On the nature of thought experiments and a core motivation of experimental philosophy , 2010 .

[3]  张利生 谈谈 metaphor 的结构 , 1991 .

[4]  Kevin Dunbar,et al.  Representational change and analogy: how analogical inferences alter target representations. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[5]  Nick Smith,et al.  Philosophy's new challenge: Experiments and intentional action , 2011 .

[6]  K. Holyoak,et al.  A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization. , 2003, Psychological review.

[7]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  MAC/FAC: A Model of Similarity-Based Retrieval , 1995, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Surrogates for Theory , 2009 .

[9]  M. Lassaline,et al.  Structural alignment in induction and similarity. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[10]  Jonathan Vogel,et al.  Are there Counterexamples to the Closure Principle , 1990 .

[11]  Bertram Gawronski,et al.  Fast and fragile: A new look at the automaticity of negation processing. , 2009, Experimental psychology.

[12]  Timothy Williamson,et al.  Contextualism, Subject‐Sensitive Invariantism and Knowledge of Knowledge , 2005 .

[13]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[14]  Gordon B. Moskowitz,et al.  People as Flexible Interpreters: Evidence and Issues from Spontaneous Trait Inference , 1996 .

[15]  D. Kahneman,et al.  A model of heuristic judgment , 2005 .

[16]  Jennifer Nagel,et al.  Intuitions and Experiments: A Defense of the Case Method in Epistemology , 2012 .

[17]  D. Gentner,et al.  Systematicity as a selection constraint in analogical mapping , 1991 .

[18]  D. Sperber,et al.  Intuitive and Reflective Inferences , 2008 .

[19]  D. S. Lindsay,et al.  Remembering Mistaken for Knowing: Ease of Retrieval as a Basis for Confidence in Answers to General Knowledge Questions , 1993 .

[20]  S. Stich Do Different Groups Have Different Epistemic Intuitions? A Reply to Jennifer Nagel , 2011 .

[21]  T. E. Lange,et al.  Below the Surface: Analogical Similarity and Retrieval Competition in Reminding , 1994, Cognitive Psychology.

[22]  P. Todd,et al.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .

[23]  Brian F. Bowdle,et al.  The career of metaphor. , 2005, Psychological review.

[24]  A. Tversky,et al.  Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment , 1983 .

[25]  D. Kahneman Thinking, Fast and Slow , 2011 .

[26]  G. Lakoff Philosophy in the flesh , 1999 .

[27]  M. Osman An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[28]  Jonathan Evans,et al.  Science Perspectives on Psychological , 2022 .

[29]  Jennifer Nagel,et al.  Knowledge Ascriptions and the Psychological Consequences of thinking about Error , 2010 .

[30]  H. Kornblith Naturalism and intuitions , 2007 .

[31]  G. Keren,et al.  Two Is Not Always Better Than One , 2009, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[32]  E. Sosa INTUITIONS: THEIR NATURE AND EPISTEMIC EFFICACY , 2007 .

[33]  John R. Anderson,et al.  A Theory of Sentence Memory as Part of A General Theory of Memory , 2001 .

[34]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Metaphor as structure-mapping , 2008 .

[35]  K. Stanovich,et al.  On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. , 2008, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[36]  Stephen B. Barton,et al.  A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[37]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Surrogates for Theories , 1998 .

[38]  Carey K. Morewedge,et al.  Associative processes in intuitive judgment , 2010, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[39]  Valerie A. Thompson,et al.  Intuition, reason, and metacognition , 2011, Cognitive Psychology.

[40]  Jonathan Evans Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. , 2008, Annual review of psychology.

[41]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  How (far) can rationality be naturalized? , 2012, Synthese.

[42]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  Computational models of analogy. , 2011, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[43]  L. Reder,et al.  Locus of the Moses Illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match? , 1991 .

[44]  W. Newton-Smith,et al.  A Companion to the Philosophy of Science , 2001 .

[45]  J. de Houwer,et al.  Automaticity: a theoretical and conceptual analysis. , 2006, Psychological bulletin.

[46]  Mark A. Casteel Contextual Support and Predictive Inferences: What do Readers Generate and Keep Available for Use? , 2007 .

[47]  D. Smith Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature , 1981 .

[48]  Fedor Girenok,et al.  On Philosophy: On Philosophy , 2013 .

[49]  Lera Boroditsky,et al.  The Roles of Body and Mind in Abstract Thought , 2002, Psychological science.

[50]  J. Wright On intuitional stability: The clear, the strong, and the paradigmatic , 2010, Cognition.

[51]  Yael Grushka-Cockayne,et al.  The Similarity Heuristic , 2007 .

[52]  E. J. O'Brien,et al.  Sources of coherence in reading , 1995 .

[53]  H. Oostendorp,et al.  Moses beats Adam : a semantic relatedness effect on a semantic illusion , 1990 .

[54]  D. Hume,et al.  The philosophical works , 1964 .

[55]  Ran R. Hassin,et al.  Social Motivation: Automatic Goal Inference and Contagion: On Pursuing Goals One Perceives in Other People's Behavior , 2004 .

[56]  R. Rorty,et al.  Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. , 1980 .

[57]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Interpretation-based processing: a unified theory of semantic sentence comprehension , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

[58]  K. Cox Gut feelings. , 2003, ANZ journal of surgery.

[59]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Relations, Objects, and the Composition of Analogies , 2006, Cogn. Sci..

[60]  Joel Pust Intuitions as Evidence , 2021 .

[61]  Leif D. Nelson,et al.  Intuitive confidence: choosing between intuitive and nonintuitive alternatives. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[62]  M. Gill,et al.  On the genesis of confidence. , 1998 .

[63]  Barbara A. Spellman,et al.  Analogical priming via semantic relations , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[64]  A. Goldman PHILOSOPHICAL INTUITIONS: THEIR TARGET, THEIR SOURCE, AND THEIR EPISTEMIC STATUS , 2007 .

[65]  Wim De Neys,et al.  Conflict monitoring in dual process theories of thinking , 2008, Cognition.

[66]  Thomas Nadelhoffer,et al.  Is Incompatibilism Intuitive , 2006 .

[67]  Thorsten Pachur,et al.  On the psychology of the recognition heuristic: retrieval primacy as a key determinant of its use. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[68]  T. Williamson PHILOSOPHICAL EXPERTISE AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF , 2011 .

[69]  Brian Falkenhainer,et al.  The Structure-Mapping Engine: Algorithm and Examples , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[70]  L. Boroditsky Metaphoric structuring: understanding time through spatial metaphors , 2000, Cognition.

[71]  Michele Burigo,et al.  Deduction without awareness. , 2012, Acta psychologica.

[72]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Pragmatics in Analogical Mapping , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[73]  J. Taylor,et al.  Language and the cognitive construal of the world , 1995 .

[74]  T. E. Lange,et al.  Remote analogical reminding , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[75]  L. Boroditsky,et al.  Metaphors We Think With: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning , 2011, PloS one.

[76]  Ran R. Hassin,et al.  Spontaneous causal inferences , 2002 .

[77]  M. Daneman,et al.  Susceptibility to semantic illusions: An individual-differences perspective , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[78]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  “I Know, you Know”: Epistemic Egocentrism in Children and Adults , 2003 .

[79]  J. O’leary-Hawthorne Knowledge and lotteries , 2005 .

[80]  Jason Kimmel,et al.  COGNITIVE ILLUSIONS , 2006 .

[81]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Nonintentional analogical inference in text comprehension , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[82]  D. Gentner,et al.  As time goes by: Evidence for two systems in processing space → time metaphors , 2002 .

[83]  Joshua Knobe,et al.  An Experimental Philosophy Manifesto , 2008 .

[84]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. , 2002 .

[85]  R. Gibbs The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought , 2008 .

[86]  Mark Johnson The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought: Philosophy's debt to metaphor , 2008 .

[87]  Rüdiger F. Pohl,et al.  Empirical tests of the recognition heuristic , 2006 .

[88]  Eleen N. Kamas,et al.  Partial matching in the Moses illusion: Response bias not sensitivity , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[89]  J. Hawthorne Deeply Contingent A Priori Knowledge , 2002 .

[90]  Eve Sweetser From Etymology To Pragmatics , 1990 .

[91]  F. Jackson On Gettier Holdouts , 2011 .

[92]  D. Mareschal,et al.  Analogy as relational priming: The challenge of self-reflection , 2008, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[93]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  The Roles of Similarity in Transfer: Separating Retrievability From Inferential Soundness , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

[94]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Constraints on Analogical Inference , 1997, Cogn. Sci..

[95]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer , 1987, Memory & cognition.

[96]  Vincent F. Hendricks,et al.  New Waves of Epistemology , 2007 .

[97]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy , 1983, Cogn. Sci..

[98]  Jennifer Nagel The Psychological Basis of the Harman-Vogel Paradox , 2011 .

[99]  Galen V. Bodenhausen,et al.  Resistance is futile: The unwitting insertion of analogical inferences in memory , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[100]  D. Gentner,et al.  The Evolution of Mental Metaphors in Psychology. A 90-Year Retrospective , 1985 .

[101]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Integration of Background Knowledge in Language Processing: A Unified Theory of Metaphor Understandi , 2000 .

[102]  Wim De Neys,et al.  Automatic-heuristic and executive-analytic processing during reasoning: Chronometric and dual-task considerations. , 2006 .

[103]  K. Holyoak,et al.  The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning , 2005 .

[104]  G. Bealer On the possibility of philosophical knowledge , 1996 .

[105]  K. Jellinger,et al.  In two minds: Dual processes and beyond. , 2009 .

[106]  John R. Anderson The Architecture of Cognition , 1983 .

[107]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Uniting the Tribes of Fluency to Form a Metacognitive Nation , 2009, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[108]  Eve Sweetser From Etymology to Pragmatics: List of abbreviations , 1990 .

[109]  John R Anderson,et al.  An integrated theory of the mind. , 2004, Psychological review.

[110]  Richard J. Gerrig,et al.  The Scope of Memory-Based Processing , 2005 .

[111]  Mark Johnson Philosophy’s Debt to Metaphor , 2015 .

[112]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Defining structural similarity , 2005 .

[113]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Models of ecological rationality: the recognition heuristic. , 2002, Psychological review.

[114]  Jerome L. Myers,et al.  Accessing Distant Text Information during Reading: Effects of Contextual Cues. , 1998 .

[115]  Mary Hesse,et al.  Models and analogies in science , 1970 .

[116]  K. Stanovich Rationality and the Reflective Mind , 2010 .

[117]  Joshua Alexander,et al.  The instability of philosophical intuitions: Running hot and cold on truetemp , 2008 .

[118]  M. Lupfer,et al.  Impact of context on spontaneous trait and situational attributions. , 1990 .

[119]  Eve Sweetser From Etymology to Pragmatics: Subject index , 1990 .

[120]  T. K. Srull,et al.  Handbook of Social Cognition , 1993 .

[121]  J. Uleman,et al.  Spontaneous inferences, implicit impressions, and implicit theories. , 2008, Annual review of psychology.

[122]  D. Gentner Structure‐Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy* , 1983 .

[123]  Jonathan Evans On the resolution of conflict in dual process theories of reasoning , 2007 .

[124]  S. Sloman The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. , 1996 .

[125]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability , 1973 .

[126]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Overcoming intuition: metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[127]  M. Mattson,et al.  From words to meaning: A semantic illusion , 1981 .

[128]  Sabine Guéraud,et al.  What Have We Been Missing? The Role of General World Knowledge in Discourse Processing , 2005 .

[129]  S. Stich Do Different Groups Have Different Epistemic Intuitions? A Reply to Jennifer Nagel1: DO DIFFERENT GROUPS HAVE DIFFERENT EPISTEMIC INTUITIONS? , 2013 .

[130]  B. Ross Distinguishing Types of Superficial Similarities: Different Effects on the Access and Use of Earlier Problems , 1989 .

[131]  E. Sosa Experimental philosophy and philosophical intuition , 2007 .

[132]  Karen S Ulliv Metaphoric Extension and Invited Inferencing in Semantic Change , 2007 .

[133]  Lael J. Schooler,et al.  Why You Think Milan is Larger than Modena: Neural Correlates of the Recognition Heuristic , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[134]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  How do we tell an association from a rule , 1996 .

[135]  Eve Sweetser,et al.  From Etymology to Pragmatics: Preface , 1990 .

[136]  Jonathan Evans Intuition and Reasoning: A Dual-Process Perspective , 2010 .

[137]  Joshua Alexander,et al.  Analytic epistemology and experimental philosophy , 2007 .