The Limits of Reason: Cognitive Psychology, The Epistemological Crisis, and Epistemic Humility, #6.

Mr Nemo
18 min readFeb 5, 2024

By Joseph Wayne Smith

(Palazzi, 2023)

***

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Background: The Cognitive Limits of Rationality

3. Cognitive Blindspots

4. The Myth of the All-Seeing Eye: The Limits of Perception

5. The Epistemological Crises

6. Conclusion

***

The essay that follows is being published in six installments, one per section; this is the sixth and final installment.

But you can also download and read or share a .pdf of the complete text of the essay, including the REFERENCES, by scrolling to the bottom of this post and clicking on the Download tab.

***

The Limits of Reason: Cognitive Psychology, The Epistemological Crisis, and Epistemic Humility, #6

There is a crack, a crack in everything

That’s how the light gets in. (Cohen, 1992)

How would we feel if science came up against experimental and intellectual brick walls, so that after centuries of trying, man finally concluded that the world was constructed — if upon intelligible principles at all — upon principles so bizarre as to be perfectly undiscoverable or unfathomable by the human mind? What if [humankind] became totally convinced that the world simply could not be understood, that the world is and always must remain an intellectual surd? Science might then continue at it pertains to technology, but not as it pertains to theory. What if all hope of theoretical understanding were permanently lost? (Davis, 1987: 293)

Only those who stop at the right moment prosper in philosophy, those who accept the limit and the comfort of a reasonable level of worry. Every problem, if one touches the bottom, leads to bankruptcy and leaves the intellect naked: No more questions and no more answers in a space without horizons. The questions turn against the mind which conceived them: It becomes their victim. Everything becomes hostile: [their] own solitude, [their] own audacity, absolute opacity, and the manifest nothingness. Woe to [that person] who, having reached a certain point of the essential, has not stopped! History shows that the thinkers who climbed to the limit of the ladder of questions, who laid their foot on the last rung, on that of the absurd, have given to posterity an example of sterility, whereas their peers, who stopped half-way, have fertilized the mind’s flow; they have been useful to their fellows, they have passed down some well-crafted idol, a few polished superstitions, a few errors dressed up as principles, and a system of hopes. (Cioran, 1949: pp. 115–116)

6. Conclusion

One of the main research hypotheses to be investigated in future essays, which is strongly suggested by the work about cognitive blind spots and errors, is that is that there exist cognitive/neurological limits to the human mind, that render it an imperfect instrument for the seeking of truth at the deepest level about reality. Colin McGinn has proposed, for example, that humans did not evolve for philosophical and scientific exploration, because there were no specific selective forces acting to favour these qualities (McGinn, 1993). Rather, these cognitive abilities arose as a broader spin off, and unintended consequence of survival and gene replication. Consequently, the human brain is good at navigating the physical world, and reproduction, but not so good at exploration of abstract realms, or for dealing with multi-dimensional, non-linear “wicked problems” such as the ecological crisis, let alone fundamental explorations of the nature of ultimate reality (Balcomb, 2014).

McGinn sees the intractability of foundational philosophically-based problems as arising from the limited cognitive capacity of the human mind, while other philosophers, such as Thomas Nagel see the intractability of such problems as arising from the clash between the subjective and objective points of view (Nagel, 1986, 2012). Eric Dietrich (Dietrich, 2011) has argued that the approaches of both McGinn and Nagel are based upon points of view, whereas McGinn argues that humans lack the appropriate cognitive point of view to solve philosophical problems. Nagel postulates three points of view, the subjective, objective, and a third view that sees the subjective and objective views as equally valid, with intractability arises from the inability to resolve this:

From Nagel’s point of view, the subjective/objective divide is unbridgeable, and is the font of all philosophy and its intractability. From McGinn’s point of view, there is a point of view from which the problems of philosophy are solvable, indeed solved. (Dietrich, 2011: p. 340)

Dietrich believes not only that we cannot know which of these positions is correct, if either (Dietrich, 2011: p. 340), but also that both positions show that philosophy cannot progress, because “crashing points of view are ineluctable, and their existence is the only truth (Dietrich, 2011, 341). But even this creates a self-referential problem, as Dietrich’s own account is a philosophical account, subject to the critical arguments of others, so even the claim may that philosophy does not progress will not be known.

The position taken here, from this review of literature, is that the limitations of human reason are more than just a conflict between subjective and objective perspectives, although this is one relevant factor. It is more likely that there are cognitive and neurological limits to the human mind, more widespread than relating to philosophical inquiry, as important as that is. As such, while that alone does not lead to epistemological skepticism, it does support the position of epistemic humility, a position adopted in various forms by many philosophers from Socrates (“For I was conscious that I knew practically nothing …” Plato, Apology, 22d) to Kant. Rae Langton in Kantian Humility says, regarding Kant’s idea that we can never have knowledge of mind-independent things-in-themselves, that this is a position of “epistemic humility,” the recognition that there “are inevitable constraints on what we can know, inevitable limits on what we can become acquainted with” (Langton, 2001: p. 2).

It has been shown in this essay that considerations from cognitive psychology, and the epistemological crises, strongly support this doctrine of epistemic humility, a matter which will be further discussed in future essays, examining other fields, including mathematic, statistics, and physics.

REFERENCES

(Amrhein et al., 2019). Amrhein, V. et al., “Inferential Statistics as Descriptive Statistics: There is No Replication Crisis if We Don’t Expect Replication.” American Statistician 73: 262–270.

(Angell, 2005). Angell, M. The Truth about Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. New York: Random House.

(Ariely, 2009). Ariely, D. Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions. New York: Harper.

(Bakan, 1966). Bakan, D., “The Test of Significance in Psychological Research.” Psychological Bulletin 66: 423–437.

(Balcomb, 2014). Balcomb, A. “Of Iron Cages, Double Binds, Epistemological Crises, and Environmental Destruction: The Fragmentation of the Western Worldview and Gestures Towards Another Way of Being in the World.” Religion and Theology 21: 358–379.

(Bar-Hillel & Falk, 1982). Bar-Hillel, M. and Falk, R. “Some Teasers Concerning Conditional Probabilities.” Cognition 11:109–122.

(Begley & Ellis, 2012). Begley C.G. & Ellis, L.M. “Drug Development: Raise Standards for Preclinical Cancer Research.” Nature 483: 531–533.

(Bishop & Trout, 2005). Bishop M. & Trout, J.D. Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

(Brennan, 2010). Brennan, J. “Scepticism about Philosophy.” Ratio 23: 1–16.

(Brilmayer, 1983). Brilmayer, L. “Discrepancies between Human Behavior and Formal Theories of Rationality: The Incompleteness of Bayesian Probability Logic.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6: 488–489.

(Bub, 1999). Bub, J. Interpreting the Quantum World. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

(Burton, 2008). Burton R.A. On Being Certain: Believing You are Right Even When You’re Not. New York: St Martin’s Griffin.

(Button et al., 2013). Button. K.S. et al. “Power Failure: Why Small Sample Size Undermines the Reliability of Neuroscience.” Nature Reviews/Neuroscience 14: 365–376.

(Callahan & Nuland, 2011). Callahan, D. & Nuland, S. B. “How American Medicine is Destroying Itself.” 19 May. The New Republic. Available online at URL = <https://newrepublic.com/article/88631/american-medicine-health-care-costs>.

(Carrara & Martino, 2011). Carrara, M. & Martino, E. “Curry’s Paradox: A New Argument for Trivialism.” Logic and Philosophy of Science 9: 199–206.

(Carver, 1978). Carver, R.P. “The Case Against Statistical Significance Testing,” Harvard Educational Review 48: 378–399.

(Chalmers, 1995). Chalmers, D. “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 2: 200–219.

(Chalmers, 2015). Chalmers, D. “Why Isn’t There More Progress in Philosophy?” Philosophy 90: 3–31.

(Cioran, 1949). Cioran, E. Précis de décomposition (A Short History of Decay). Paris: Gallimard.

(Cohen, 1981). Cohen, L.J. “Can Human Irrationality be Experimentally Demonstrated?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4: 317–331.

(Cohen, 1992). Cohen, L. “Anthem.” Available online HERE.

(Davies et al., 2019). Davies, R. et al. “Maze Learning and Memory in a Decapod Crustacean.” Biology Letters 15: 20190407. Available online at URL = http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2019.0407.>

(Davis, 1987). Davis, W.H. “The Meaning of Life.” Metaphilosophy 18: 288–305.

(de Long & Lang, 1992). de Long, J.B. & Lang, K. “Are All Economic Hypotheses False?” Journal of Political Economy 100: 1257–1272.

(Denzin, 1996). Denzin, N.K. “The Epistemological Crisis in the Human Disciplines: Letting the Old Do the Work of the New.” In R. Jessor et al. (eds.), Ethnography and Human Development: Context and Meaning in Social Inquiry, Chicago and London: Univ. of Chicago Pres. Pp. 127–151.

(Derry et al., 2017). Derry, S. et al. “Aspirin for Acute Treatment of Episodic Tension-Type Headache in Adults.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1: CD011888.

(Diekmann, 2011). Diekmann, A. “Are Most Published Research Findings False?” Journal of Economics and Statistics 231: 628–635.

Dietrich, E. “There is No Progress in Philosophy.” Essays in Philosophy 12: 329–344.

(Dietrich & Fields, 2015). Dietrich, E. and Fields, C. “Science Generates Limit Paradoxes.” Axiomathes 25, 4. Available online at URL = <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10516-015-9267-x>.

(Dietrich & Hardcastle, 2005). Dietrich, E. and Hardcastle, V.G. Sisyphus’s Boulder: Consciousness and the Limits of Knowledge. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.

(Djulbegovic et al., 2009). Djulbegovic, B. et al., “Epistemologic Enquiries in Evidence-Based Medicine.” Cancer Control 16: 158–168.

(Dougherty, 2008). Dougherty, E.R. “On the Epistemological Crisis in Genomics.” Current Genomics 9: 69–79.

(Eddington, 1927). Eddington, A. The Nature of the Physical World. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

(Ehrenfeld, 1978). Ehrenfeld, D. The Arrogance of Humanism. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

(Elster, 1979). Elster, J. Ulysses and the Sirens: Studies in Rationality and Irrationality. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

(Everett & Earp, 2015). Everett, J.A. & Earp, B.D. “A Tragedy of the (Academic) Commons: Interpreting the Replication Crisis in Psychology as a Social Dilemma for Early-Career Researchers.” Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1152. Available online at URL =

<https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01152/full>.

(Felin et al., 2017). Felin, T. et al. “Rationality, Perception, and the All-Seeing Eye.” Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 24: 1040–1059.

(Fischhoff & Beyth, 1975). Fischhoff, B. and Beyth, R. “‘I Knew It Would Happen:’ Remembered Probabilities of Once-Future Things.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 31: 1–16.

(Foss, 1989). Foss, L. “The Challenge to Biomedicine: A Foundational Perspective.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 4: 165–191.

(Fox et al., 2017). Fox, K.C.R. et al. “The Social and Cultural Roots of Whale and Dolphin Brains.” Nature Ecology and Evolution. 1: 1699–1705.

(Freedman et al., 2015). Freedman, L.P., et al. “The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research.” PLOS Biology 13: e1002165. Available online at URL = <https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165>.

(Freedman, 2010). Freedman, D.H. Wrong. New York: Little Brown and Company.

(Gigerenzer et al., 1999). Gigerenzer G. et al. Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

(Gigerenzer, 2007). Gigerenzer, G. Gut Feelings: Short Cuts to Better Decision Making. London: Penguin.

(Gilbert et al., 2016). Gilbert D.T. et al., “Comment on ‘Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science’.” Science 351: 1037a.

(Gilovich, 1991). Gilovich, T. How We Know What Isn’t So. New York: Free Press.

(Glass et al., 1981). Glass. G.V. et al., Meta-Analysis in Social Research. Beverly Hills CA: Sage Publications.

(Grabianowski, 2012). Grabianowski, E. “Why Slime Molds Can Solve Mazes Better than Robots.” 12 December. Available online at URL = <https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-slime-molds-can-solve-mazes-better-than-robots-30768179?IR=T.>

(Gray, 1995). Gray, J. Enlightenment’s Wake: Politics and Culture at the Close of the Modern Age. London: Routledge.

(Gray, 2002). Gray, J. Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

(Gregory & Heard, 1979). Gregory R. L. and Heard, P. “Border Locking and the Café Wall Illusion.” Perception 8: 365–380.

(Gregory, 2005). Gregory, R.L. “Knowledge for Vision: Vision for Knowledge.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360: 1231–1251.

(Gregory, 2009). Gregory, R.L. Seeing through Illusions. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

(Gruber, 2021). Gruber, D.R. “Questioning Conscious Realism.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 28, 5–6: 173–197.

(Guttman, 1985). Guttman, L. “The Illogic of Statistical Inference for Cumulative Science.” Applied Stochastic Models and Data Analysis 1: 3–10.

(Hanna, 2006). Hanna, R. Rationality and Logic. Cambridge: MIT Press. Available online in preview at URL = <https://www.academia.edu/21202624/Rationality_and_Logic>.

(Hanna, 2018). Hanna, R. Deep Freedom and Real Persons: A Study in Metaphysics. THE RATIONAL HUMAN CONDITION, Vol. 2. New York: Nova Science. Available online in preview HERE.

(Hanna, 2021). Hanna, R., The Fate of Analysis: Analytic Philosophy from Frege to The AshHeap of History. New York: Mad Duck Coalition. Epub at URL = <http://themadduckcoalition.org/product/the-fate-of-analysis/.>

(Hanna, 2022a). Hanna, R., “Can Physics Explain Physics? Anthropic Principles and Transcendental Idealism.” In L. Caranti (ed). Kant and the Problem of Knowledge in the Contemporary World. London; Routledge, pp. 136–145. Available online in preview HERE.

(Hanna, 2022 b). Hanna, R., “Six Studies in the Decline and Fall of Professional Academic Philosophy, and a Real and Relevant Alternative.” Borderless Philosophy 5: 48–130. Available online at URL = <https://www.cckp.space/single-post/bp-5-2022-robert-hanna-six-studies-in-the-decline-and-fall-of-professional-philosophy-48-130>.

(Hanna, 2023). Hanna, R., “Empirical Science with Uncertainty but Without Reproducibility.” Against Professional Philosophy. 10 December. Available online HERE.

(Hanna & Maiese, 2009). Hanna, R. & Maiese, M. Embodied Minds in Action. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Available online in preview HERE.

(Harris, 2016). Harris, I. Surgery, The Ultimate Placebo: A Surgeon Cuts through the Evidence. Sydney: NewSouth.

(Hartshorne et al., 2012). Hartshorne, J. et al. “Tracking Replicability as a Method of Post-Publication Open Evaluation.” Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6: 1–13.

(Henrich et al., 2010). Henrich, J. et al. “The Weirdest People in the World.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33, 2–3: 1–23.

(Henrion & Fischhoff, 1986). Henrion, M. and Fischhoff, B. “Assessing Uncertainty in Physical Constants.” American Journal of Physics 54: 791–798.

(Herbranson & Schroeder, 2010). Herbranson, W.T. and Schroeder, J. “Are Birds Smarter than Mathematicians? Pigeons (Columba Livia) Perform Optimally on a Version of the Monty Hall Dilemma.” Journal of Comparative Psychology 124: 1–13.

(Higginson & Munafò, 2016). Higginson, A.D. and Munafò, M.R., “Current Incentives for Scientists Lead to Underpowered Studies with Erroneous Conclusions.” PLOS Biology 14: e200995. Available online at URL = <https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2000995>.

(Hoffman & Prakash, 2014). Hoffman, D. & Prakash, C. “Objects of Consciousness.” Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1–22.

(Hoffman, 2019a). Hoffman, D. “Did We Evolve to See Reality, or are Spacetime and Objects Our User Interface?” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1458: 65–69.

(Hoffman, 2019 b). Hoffman, D. The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes. New York: Norton.

(Horton, 2015). Horton, R. “Offline: What is Medicine’s 5 Sigma?” The Lancet 385: 1380.

(Howard et al., 2018). Howard, S.R. et al., “Numerical Ordering of Zero in Honey Bees.” Science 360: 1124–1126.

(Howick, 2018). Howick, J. “Jacob Stegenga, Medical Nihilism.” Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. 16 August. Available online at URL = <https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/medical-nihilism/>.

(Hume, 1978). Hume, D., A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

(Illich, 1975). Illich, I. Medical Nemesis: The Expropriation of Health. London: Marion Boyars.

(Ioannidis & Trikalinos, 2005). Ioannidis, J.P.A. & Trikalinos, T.A. “Early Extreme Contradictory Estimates May Appear in Published Research: The Proteus Phenomenon in Molecular Genetics Research and Randomized Trials.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 58: 543–549.

(Ioannidis, 2005a). Ioannidis, J.P.A. “Contradictions in Highly Cited Clinical Research: Author Reply.” JAMA 294: 2696. Available online at URL = <https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/201952>.

(Ioannidis, 2005b). Ioannidis, J.P.A. “Why Most Published Research Findings are False,” PLOS Medicine 2, 8: 0696–0701. Available online at URL = <https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124>.

(Ioannidis, 2008a). Ioannidis, J.P.A. “Effectiveness of Antidepressants: An Evidence Myth Constructed from a Thousand Randomized Trials?” Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 3: 14. Available online at URL = <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18505564/>.

(Ioannidis, 2008b). Ioannidis, J.P.A. “Why Most Discovered True Associations are Inflated.” Epidemiology 19: 640–648. Available online at URL = <https://journals.lww.com/epidem/fulltext/2008/09000/why_most_discovered_true_associations_are_inflated.2.aspx>.

(Jensen, 2016). Jensen, D. The Myth of Human Supremacy. New York: Seven Stories Press.

(Johnston et al., 2017). Johnston A.M. et al., “Exploring the Evolutionary Origins of Overimitation: A Comparison Across Domesticate and Non-Domesticated Canids.” Developmental Science 20: e12460.

(Jussim, 2014). Jussim, L. Social Perception and Reality: Why Accuracy Dominates Bias and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

(Jussim, 2017). J. Jussim, J. “Précis of Social Perception and Reality: Why Accuracy Dominates Bias and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Available online at URL = <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26079679/>

(Kadadayi & Osvath, 2017). Kadadayi. C. & Osvath, M. “Ravens Parallel Great Apes in Flexible Planning for Tool-Use and Bartering.” Science 357: 202–204.

(Kahneman, 2011). Kahneman, D. Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

(Khlentzos, 2021). Khlentzos, D. “Challenges to Metaphysical Realism.” In E.N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available online at URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-sem-challenge/>.

(Koenderink, 2014). Koenderink, J. “The All Seeing Eye?” Perception 43: 1–6.

(Koenderink et al., 2014). Koenderink J. et al., “The Nature of the Visual Field, a Phenomenological Analysis.” Pattern Recognition Letters 64: 71–79.

(Langton, 2001). Langton, R. Kantian Humility: Our Ignorance of Things in Themselves. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

(Le Fanu, 2018). Le Fanu, J. Too Many Pills: How Too Much Medicine is Endangering Our Health and What We Can Do about It. London: Little Brown.

(Levenson et al., 2015). Levenson R.M. et al., “Pigeons (Columba Livia) as Trainable Observers of Pathology and Radiology Breast Cancer Images.” PLOS One 11. Available online at URL = <https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141357>.

(Ligotti, 2011). Ligotti, T. The Conspiracy Against the Human Race: A Contrivance of Horror. New York: Hippocampus Press.

(Liu et al., 2017). Liu, J. J. et al., “Payments by US Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Manufacturers to US Medical Journal Editors: Retrospective Observational Study.” British Medical Journal 359: j4619.

(Lloyd, 1995). Lloyd, G. The Man of Reason: “Male” and “Female” in Western Philosophy. London: Routledge.

(Lykken, 1968). Lykken, D.T. “Statistical Significance in Psychological Research.” Psychological Bulletin 70: 151–159.

(MacIntyre, 1977). MacIntyre, A. “Epistemological Crises, Dramatic Narrative and the Philosophy of Science.” The Monist 60: 453–472.

(MacIntyre, 2006). MacIntyre, A. The Tasks of Philosophy, Selected Essays, Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

(Marino & Allen, 2017). Marino, L. & Allen, K. “The Psychology of Cows.” Animal Behavior and Cognition 4: 474–498.

(Marino, 1998). Marino, L. “A Comparison of Encephalization between Odontocete Cetaceans and Anthropoid Primates.” Brain, Behavior and Evolution 51: 230–238.

(Marino et al, 2007). Marino, L. et al., “Cetaceans have Complex Brains for Complex Cognition.” PLOS Biology 5: 0966–0972.

(McGinn, 1993). McGinn, C., Problems in Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

(McKeown, 1976). McKeown, T. The Role of Medicine: Dream, Mirage, or Nemesis? London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust.

(McPherson & Schneider, 2019). McPherson, G. & Schneider, P. Going Dark,. 2nd edn., New York: Woodthrush Productions.

(Moonesinghe et al., 2007). Moonesinghe, R. et al. “Most Published Research Findings are False — But a Little Replication goes a Long Way.” PLoS Medicine. 4, 2: 0218–0221.

(Morrison & Henkel, 1970). Morrison, D.E. & Henkel R.E. (eds.), The Significance Test Controversy. Chicago: Aldine.

(Mortensen, 2010). Mortenson, C., Inconsistent Geometry. London: King’s College Publications.

(Mortensen, 2014). Mortensen, C. “Motion Perception as Inconsistent.” Philosophical Psychology 26 : 913–924.

(Nagel, 1986). Nagel, T. The View from Nowhere, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

(Nagel, 2012). Nagel, T. Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinist Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

(Nunnally, 1960). Nunnally, J. “The Place of Statistics in Psychology.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 20: 641–650.

(O’Mahony, 2019). O’Mahony, S. Can Medicine be Cured? The Corruption of a Profession. Apollo, Kindle.

(Open Science Collaboration, 2015). Open Science Collaboration. “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science.” Science 349: aac4716–1 — aac4716–8.

(Palazzi, 2023). Palazzi, A. “There is a Crack in Everything That’s How The Light Gets In: Sculpture.” Saatchi Art. Available online at URL = <https://www.saatchiart.com/art/Sculpture-There-is-a-crack-in-everything-that-s-how-the-light-gets-in/375985/3816655/view>.

(Pashler & Wagenmakers, 2012). Pashler, H. & Wagenmakers, E-J., “Editors’ Introduction to Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence?” Perspectives on Psychological Science 7: 528–530.

(Pinker, 2018). Pinker, S. Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. New York: Viking.

(Priest, 2002). Priest, G. Beyond the Limits of Thought. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

(Pronin et al., 2002). Pronin, E., et al., “The Bias Blind Spot: Perceptions of Bias in Self Versus Others.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 28: 369–381.

(Rediehs, 2016). Rediehs, L. “Our Epistemological Crisis.”13 May. Available online at URL = <https://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-rediehs/our-epistemological-crisi_b_9905086.html>.

(Reid et al., 2012). Reid, C.R. et al. “Slime Mold Uses an Externalized Spatial ‘Memory’ to Navigate in Complex Environments.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 43: 17490–17494.

(Relman & Angell, 2002). Relman, A.S. & Angell, M. “America’s Other Drug Problem.” The New Republic. 16 December. 29–41.

(Ritov & Barron, 1992). Ritov, I. and Barron, J. “Status-Quo and Omission Bias.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 49–61.

(Rogers, 2014). Rogers, B. “Delusions about Illusions.” Perception 43 : 840–845.

(Rorty, 1979). Rorty, R. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.

(Rosenhouse, 2009). Rosenhouse, J. The Monty Hall Problem. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

(Rothman & Salovey, 1997). Rothman, A.J. and Salovey, P. “Shaping Perceptions to Motivate Healthy Behavior: The Role of Message Framing.” Psychological Bulletin 121: 3–19.

(Rozeboom, 1960). Rozeboom, W.W. “The Fallacy of the Null-Hypothesis Significance Test.” Psychological Bulletin 57: 416–428.

(Sarcone, 2013). Sarcone, G., “These Patterns Move, but it’s All an Illusion.” 22 August. Available online at URL = <https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/these-patterns-move-but-its-all-an-illusion-1092906/>.

(Sauer-Thompson & Smith, 2021). Sauer-Thompson, G. & Smith, J.W. The Unreasonable Silence of the World: Universal Reason and the Wreck of the Enlightenment Project. New York: Routledge.

(Scarf, D. et al., 2011). Scarf, D. et al. “Pigeons on Par with Primates in Numerical Competence.” Science 334: 1664.

(Schnell et al., 2021). Schnell, A.K. et al. “Cuttlefish Exert Self-Control in a Delay of Gratification Task.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 288:20203161. Available online at URL = <https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.316>.

(Schwartz et al., 1999). Schwartz, S. et al. “A Future for Epidemiology?” Annual Review of Public Health 20: 15–33.

(Schwitzgebel & Cushman, 2012). Schwitzgebel E. & Cushman, F. “Expertise in Moral Reasoning? Order Effects on Moral Judgment in Professional Philosophers and Non-Philosophers.” Mind and Language 27: 135–153.

(Seltmann et al., 2018). Seltmann, M.W. et al., “Evaluating the Personality Structure of Semi-Captive Asian Elephants Living in Their Natural Habitat.” Royal Society Open Science 5: 172026.

(Selvin, 1957). Selvin, H.C., “A Critique of Tests of Significance in Survey Research.” American Sociological Review 22: 519–527.

(Sheffer, 1926). Sheffer, H. M., “Review of Principia Mathematica, Volume 1, second edition.” Isis 8: 226–231.

(Silva & Wyer, 2009). Silva, S. A. & Wyer, P. C., “Where is the Wisdom? II — Evidence-Based Medicine and the Epistemological Crisis in Clinical Medicine. Exposition and Commentary on Djulbegovic, B., Guyatt, G.H. & Ashcroft, R.E. (2009).” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 15: 899–906.

(Simmons, 2011). Simmons, J.P. “False Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant.” Psychological Science 22: 1359–1366.

(Simon, 1956). Simon, H. “Rational Choice and the Structure of Environments.” Psychological Review 63: 129–138.

(Simon, 1979). Simon, H. Models of Thought. New Haven CT: Yale Univ. Press.

(Simon, 1982). Simon, H. Models of Bounded Rationality. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

(Slote, 1970). Slote, M. Reason and Scepticism. London: Allen and Unwin.

(Smet & Byrnes, 2013). Smet, A.F. & Byrnes, R.W. “African Elephants Can Use Human Pointing Cues to Find Hidden Food.” Current Biology 23: 2033–2037.

(Smith, 1985). Smith, J.W. “Against Orientation Pluralism in Metaphilosophy.” Metaphilosophy 16: 214–220.

(Smith, 1988a). Smith, J.W. The Progress and Rationality of Philosophy as a Cognitive Enterprise: An Essay on Metaphilosophy. Aldershot: Avebury.

(Smith, 1988b). Smith, J.W. Essays on Ultimate Questions: Critical Discussions of the Limits of Contemporary Philosophical Inquiry. Aldershot: Avebury.

(Smith & Positano, 2010). The Self-Destructive Affluence of the First World: The Coming Crisis of Global Poverty and Ecological Collapse. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press.

(Smith, J. W. et al., 2023). Smith, J. W. et al., “Gödel’s Theorems, the (In)Consistency of Arithmetic, and the Fundamental Mistake of Analytic Philosophers of Mathematical Logic.” Against Professional Philosophy. 10 September. Available online HERE.

(Smith, 2014). Smith, C. The Sacred Project of American Sociology. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

(Smith, 2018a). Smith, R. “The Case for Medical Nihilism and ‘Gentle Medicine’.” 4 June. Available online at URL = <https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2018/06/04/richard-smith-the-case-for-medical-nihilism-and-gentle-medicine/>.

(Smith, 2018b). Smith, R. “How Medicine is Destroying Itself.” 19 February. Available online at URL = <https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2018/02/19/richard-smith-how-medicine-is-destroying-itself/>.

(Smith, 2019). Smith, J. E. H. Irrationality: A History of the Dark Side of Reason. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.

(Smolin, 2006). Smolin, L. The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science and What Comes Next. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

(Sorensen, 1988). Sorensen, R. Blindspots. Oxford: Clarendon/Oxford Univ. Press.

(Sorti & Kaufman, 2018). Sorti, A. & Kaufman, S. “The Epistemological Crisis in Modern Physics,” NeuroQuantology 16: 1–5.

(Stegenga, 2018). Stegenga, J. Medical Nihilism. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

(Stroebe & Strack, 2014). Stroebe, W. & Strack, F. “The Alleged Crisis and the Illusion of Exact Replication.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9: 59–71.

(Strohman, 1997). Strohman, R. C. “The Coming Kuhnian Revolution in Biology.” Nature Biotechnology 15: 194–200. Available online at URL = <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9062910/>.

(Sylvan & Plumwood, 1980). Sylvan, R. and V. Plumwood. “Human Chauvinism and Environmental Ethics.” In D.S. Mannison, M.A. McRobbie & R. Sylvan (eds.), Environmental Philosophy. Department of Philosophy, Research School of Social Sciences: Australian National University, Canberra. Pp. 96–189.

(Sztompka, 2013). Sztompka, P. Sociological Dilemmas: Toward a Dialectic Paradigm. New York: Elsevier.

(Tabarrok, 2005). Tabarrok, A. “Why Most Published Research Findings are False.” 2 September. Available online at URL = <http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/09/why_most_publis.html>.

(Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 185: 1124–1131. Available online at URL = <https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124>.

(Veit, 2023). Veit, W. A Philosophy for the Science of Animal Consciousness. New York: Routledge.

(Wilson, 2002). Wilson, T. Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconsciousness. Cambridge MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

(Wistrich et al., 2005). Wistrich, A.J. et al., “Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty of Deliberately Disregarding.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 153: 1251–1345. Available online at URL =

<https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review/vol153/iss4/2/>.

(Wong, 1998). Wong, K.N., “Can Social Action be Voluntary Action? The Epistemological-Moral Crisis of Psychology Re-examined.” Theory and Psychology 8, 3: 335–358. Available online at URL = <https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-10211-005>.

(Wujciak, 2017). Wujciak, A. “Canines are Over Overimitation.” Yale Scientific. 17 January. Available online at URL = <http://www.yalescientific.org/2017/01/12972/>.

(Young, 2015). Young, E. “How Reliable Are Psychology Studies?” The Atlantic. 27 August. Available online at URL = <http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/08/psychology-studies-reliability-reproducibility-nosek/4024661>.

Download

***

AGAINST PROFESSIONAL PHILOSOPHY REDUX 861

Mr Nemo, W, X, Y, & Z, Monday 5 February 2024

Against Professional Philosophy is a sub-project of the online mega-project Philosophy Without Borders, which is home-based on Patreon here.

Please consider becoming a patron!

--

--

Mr Nemo

Formerly Captain Nemo. A not-so-very-angry, but still unemployed, full-time philosopher-nobody.