Specter of Reason

Last September, I defended Gilbert Ryle against Stanley and Williamson's "Knowing How" (2001). After reviewing Ryle, reading a good many papers on the topic, discussing some issues with a few professional philosophers (including an in-depth and spirited email exchange with Jason Stanley about how to interpret Ryle), I've come to the following conclusions, which I divide into two parts. The first addresses S&W's misrepresentation of Ryle. In the second, I develop extensive, original arguments against S&W's formulation of knowing-how as a species of knowing-that. 1.0) Stanley and Williamson (S&W) profoundly misinterpret Ryle. I stand by my original critique of the way they present Ryle's regress argument. Similar critiques are found in Hetherington (2006) and Sheiber (2003). Others (Noe 2005; Wiggins 2009) point out other ways in which S&W get Ryle wrong, though I do not think anyone has yet to identify the full extent to which S&W ...

I don't know how accurate the results of this poll are, but it seems plausible that a somewhat large percentage of self-identifying Republicans harbor irrational and hostile beliefs about Obama, and generally unsettling views about homosexuals, creationism, and other staples of conservative controversy. There's nothing surprising here, as disturbing and sad as it is. It is also unsurprising that prominent Republicans would want to distance themselves from those who, for example, think that Obama should be impeached, or that Obama "wants the terrorists to win." So we should not be surprised to find Bill O'Reilly distancing himself from what he considers a fringe of conservative extremists . But instead of just distancing himself from their wacky beliefs, and defending Obama, homosexuals, and the American education system--instead of talking straight politics--O'Reilly goes on a smear campaign against the poll itself. First, he tries to poison the well, clai...