Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T20:52:31.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2017

Abrol Fairweather
Affiliation:
San Francisco State University
Carlos Montemayor
Affiliation:
San Francisco State University
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Knowledge, Dexterity, and Attention
A Theory of Epistemic Agency
, pp. 178 - 188
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alfano, M. (2013). Character as Moral Fiction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Allport, A. (1987). Selection for action: Some behavioural and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action. In Sanders, A. and Heuer, H. (eds.), Perspectives on Perception and Action. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 395419.Google Scholar
Allport, A. (2011). Attention and integration. In Mole, C., Smithies, D., and Wu, W. (eds.), Attention: Philosophical and Psychological Essays. Oxford University Press, pp. 2459.Google Scholar
Anand, P. and Hacquard, V. (2013). Epistemics and attitudes. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6 (8): 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, E. (2007). The epistemology of democracy. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 3 (1): 822.Google Scholar
Andrews, K., (2014). Animal cognition. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall Edition), Zalta, E. N. (ed.), URL http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/cognition-animal/.Google Scholar
Anscombe, G. E. M. (1957). Intention. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). Modern moral philosophy. Philosophy, 33: 119.Google Scholar
Anscombe, G. E. M. (1962). On sensations of position. Analysis, 22 (3): 5558.Google Scholar
Axelrod, R. (2006). The Evolution of Cooperation (Revised Edition). Perseus Books Group.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (1984). Default reasoning: Jumping to conclusions and knowing when to think twice. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 65: 3758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, K. (2008). Applying pragmatics to epistemology. Philosophical Issues, 18: 6888.Google Scholar
Bach, K. and Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bacon, W. F. and Egeth, H. E. (1997). Goal-directed guidance of attention: Evidence from conjunctive visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23 (4): 948961.Google Scholar
Baehr, J. (2011). The Inquiring Mind: On Intellectual and Virtues and Virtue Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bargh, J. A., and Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54: 462479.Google Scholar
Battaly, H. (2008). Virtue epistemology. Philosophy Compass, 3 (4): 639663.Google Scholar
Berker, S. (2013a). Epistemic teleology and the separateness of propositions. Philosophical Review, 122 (3): 337393.Google Scholar
Berker, S. (2013b). The rejection of epistemic consequentialism. Philosophical Issues, 23 (1): 363387.Google Scholar
Bermudez, J. L. (2003). Thinking without Words. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, N. A. (1950/1996). Dexterity and Its Development. Edited by Latash, M. L. and Turvey, M. T.. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Blackburn, S. (2001). Reason, virtue, and knowledge. In Fairweather, A. and Zagzebski, L. (eds.), Virtue Epistemology: Essays on Epistemic Virtue and Responsibility, pp. 1529.Google Scholar
Blackburn, S. (2010). Success semantics. Practical Tortoise Raising: And Other Philosophical Essays. Oxford University Press, pp. 181199.Google Scholar
Blum, L. A. (1986). Iris Murdoch and the domain of the moral. Philosophical Studies, 50 (3): 343367.Google Scholar
Boghossian, P. (2000). Knowledge of logic. In Boghossian, P. and Peacocke, C. (eds.), New Essays on the A Priori. Oxford University Press, pp. 229254.Google Scholar
Bonjour, L. (1980). Externalist theories of empirical knowledge. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 5 (1): 5373.Google Scholar
Brandstätter, E., Gigerenzer, G., and Hertwig, R. (2006). The priority heuristic: Making choices without trade-offs. Psychological Review, 113 (2): 409.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. (1987). Intention, Plans and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brendel, E. (2009). The epistemic function of virtuous dispositions. In Damschen, G., Schnepf, R., and Stuber, K. R. (eds.), Debating Dispositions: Issues in Metaphysics, Epistemology and Philosophy of Mind. New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 320340.Google Scholar
Broncano, F. (2014). Daring to believe: Metacognition, epistemic agency and reflective knowledge. In Fairweather, A. (ed.), Virtue Epistemology Naturalized. Springer International Publishing, pp. 19.Google Scholar
Burge, T. (2010). Origins of Objectivity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Call, J. and Tomasello, M. (2008). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12: 187192.Google Scholar
Cappelen, H. (2011). Against assertion. In Brown, J. and Cappelen, H. (eds.), Assertion: New Philosophical Essays. Oxford University Press, pp. 2147.Google Scholar
Carrasco, M. (2011). Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision Research, 51 (13): 14841525.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P. (2006). The Architecture of the Mind: Massive Modularity and the Flexibility of Thought. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cave, K. R. and Bichot, N. P. (1999). Visuospatial attention: Beyond a spotlight model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6 (2): 204223.Google Scholar
Chica, A. B., Bartolomeo, P., and Lupianez, J. (2013). Two cognitive and neural systems for endogenous and exogenous spatial attention. Behavioural Brain Research, 237: 107123.Google Scholar
Conee, E. and Feldman, R. (2001). Internalism defended. In Kornblith, H. (ed.), Epistemology: Internalism and Externalism. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 231260.Google Scholar
Copp, D. (2006). On the agency of certain collective entities: An argument from “normative autonomy.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 30 (1): 194221.Google Scholar
Copp, D. (2007). The collective moral autonomy thesis. Journal of Social Philosophy, 38 (3): 369388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, E. (1990). Knowledge and the State of Nature. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1979). Moods and performances. In Margalit, A. (ed.), Meaning and Use. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (1999). Intellectual biography. In Hahn, L. (ed.), The Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Library of Living Philosophers. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
de Sousa, R. (1987). The Rationality of Emotion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. (2002). Assertion, knowledge and context. Philosophical Review, 111 (2): 167203.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. (2009). The Case for Contextualism: Knowledge, Skepticism, and Context, Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dickie, I. (2011). Visual attention fixes demonstrative reference by eliminating referential luck. In Mole, C., Smithies, D. and Wu, W. (eds.), Attention: Philosophical and Psychological Essays. Oxford University Press, pp. 292322.Google Scholar
Dickie, I. (2015). Fixing Reference. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dietrich, F. and List, C. (2008). Judgment aggregation without full rationality. Social Choice and Welfare, 31 (1): 1539.Google Scholar
Ding, N., Melloni, L., Zhang, H., Tian, X., and Poeppel, D. (2015). Cortical tracking of hierarchical linguistic structures in connected speech. Nature Neuroscience, doi:10.1038/nn.4186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrynin, N. (1961). Basic problems of the psychology of attention. In Anan’yev, B. G. (ed.), Psychological Science in the USSR. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, pp. 274291.Google Scholar
Dokic, J. and Engel, P. (2006). Frank Ramsey: Truth and Success. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Doris, J. (2002). Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dormashev, Y. (2010). Flow experience explained on the grounds of an activity approach to attention. In Bruya, B. (ed.), Effortless Attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 287333.Google Scholar
Douven, I. (2006). Assertion, knowledge and rational credibility. Philosophical Review, 115: 449485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dummet, M. (1981). Frege: Philosophy of Language (2nd Edition). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s Empire. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Engel, P. (2008). In what sense is knowledge the norm of assertion? Grazer Philosophische Studien, 77 (1): 4559.Google Scholar
Fairweather, A. (2001). Epistemic motivation. In Fairweather, A. and Zagzebski, L. (eds.), Virtue Epistemology: Essays on Epistemic Virtue and Responsibility. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, pp. 6381.Google Scholar
Fairweather, A. and Montemayor, C. (2014a). Inferential abilities and common epistemic goods. In Fairweather, A. (ed.), Virtue Epistemology Naturalized: Bridges between Virtue Epistemology and Philosophy of Science: Vol. 366. Synthese Library. Springer, pp. 123142.Google Scholar
Fairweather, A. and Montemayor, C. (2014b). Epistemic dexterity: A Ramseyian account of agent based knowledge. In Fairweather, A. and Flanagan, O. (eds.), Naturalizing Epistemic Virtue. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fairweather, A. and Alfano, M. (eds.), (2017). Epistemic Situationism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Firth, R. (1981). Epistemic merit, intrinsic and instrumental. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 55: 523. Presidential address delivered at the Annual Eastern Meeting of the American Philosophical Association in December, 1980. Reprinted in Firth 1998, 259–271. Page references are to the 1998 reprint.Google Scholar
Flanagan, O. (1991). Varieties of Moral Personality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1987). Modules, frames, fridgeons, sleeping dogs, and the music of the spheres. In Pylyshyn, Z. W. (ed.), The Robot’s Dilemma: The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 139149.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (2000). The Mind Doesn’t Work That Way. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Foot, P. (1972). Morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives. The Philosophical Review, 81 (3): 305316.Google Scholar
Foot, P. (1978). Reasons for action and desires. In Virtues and Vices and Other Essays. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 148156.Google Scholar
Foot, P. (2002). Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1918–1919/1997). Thought. In Beany, M. (ed.), The Frege Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 325345.Google Scholar
Fricker, M. (2010). 10. Can there be institutional virtues?. Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 3: 235.Google Scholar
Graziano, M. S. (2013). Consciousness and the Social Brain. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Rationality for Mortals: How People Cope with Uncertainty, Oxford University Pres.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. and Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62: 451482.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. and Sturm, T. (2012). How (far) can rationality be naturalized? Synthese, 187 (1): 243268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, M. (1987). Modelling collective belief. Synthese, 73 (1): 185204.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. (1992). On Social Facts. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. (2006). A Theory of Political Obligation: Membership, Commitment, and the Bonds of Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Glover, S. and Dixon, P. (2002). Semantics affect the planning but not control of grasping. Experimental Brain Research, 146 (3): 383387.Google Scholar
Glymour, C. (1987). Android epistemology and the frame problem: Comments on Dennett’s cognitive wheels. In Pylyshyn, Z. W. (ed.), The Robot’s Dilemma: The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 6375.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2002). The search for the shared semantic core of all languages. In Goddard, C. and Wierzbicka, A. (eds.), Meaning and Universal Grammar – Theory and Empirical Findings, Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 540.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. C. (2015). Assertion: On the Philosophical Significance of Assertoric Speech. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. (1992). Epistemic folkways and scientific epistemology. In Goldman, A. I. (ed.), Liaisons: Philosophy Meets the Cognitive and Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 155178.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. (2015). Reliabilism, veritism, and epistemic teleology. Episteme, 12: 131143.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. and Olsson, E. (2009). Reliabilism and the value of knowledge. In Haddock, A., Millar, A., and Pritchard, D. (eds.), Epistemic Value. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1941.Google Scholar
Goodale, M. A. (2010). Transforming vision into action. Vision Research, 10 (1016): 727.Google Scholar
Graham, P. (2011). Psychological capacity and positive epistemic status. In Hernandez, J. G. (ed.), The New Intuitionism. Continuum International Publishing Group, pp. 128150.Google Scholar
Graham, P. (2014). Functions, warrant and history. In Fairweather, A. and Flanagan, O. (eds.), Naturalizing Epistemic Virtue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1535.Google Scholar
Graham, P. J. (2012). Epistemic Entitlement. Noûs, 46: 449482.Google Scholar
Greco, J. (2004). How to preserve your virtue while losing your perspective. In Greco, J. (ed.), Ernest Sosa and His Critics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 96105.Google Scholar
Greco, J. (2010). Achieving Knowledge: A Virtue-Theoretic Account. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Greco, J. and Turri, J. (2011). Virtue Epistemology. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Ways of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grimm, S. R. (2009). Epistemic normativity. In Haddock, A., Millar, A., and Pritchard, D. (eds.), Epistemic Value. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 243264.Google Scholar
Gruber, M. J. (2014). States of curiosity modulate hippocampus – Dependent learning via the dopaminergic circuit. Neuron, 84 (2): 486496.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (2014). Why Is There Philosophy of Mathematics at All? Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haddock, A., Millar, A., and Pritchard, D. (eds.). (2009). Epistemic Value. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haladjian, H. H. and Montemayor, C. (2015). On the evolution of conscious attention. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 22 (3): 595613.Google Scholar
Harman, G. (2000). The nonexistence of character traits. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 100: 223226.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. (2004). Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. and Stanley, J. (2008). Knowledge and action. Journal of Philosophy, CV: 571590.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35 (4): 519530.Google Scholar
Hazlett, A. (2014). Expressivism and convention relativism about epistemic discourse. In Fairweather, A., and Flanagan, O. (eds.), Naturalizing Epistemic Virtue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 223246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, D. and Horgan, T. (2009). Epistemic virtues and cognitive dispositions. In Steuber, K., Damschen, G., and Schnepf, R. (eds.), Debating Dispositions: Issues in Metaphysics, Epistemology and Philosophy of Mind. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 296319.Google Scholar
Henderson, D. and Horgan, T. (2011). The Epistemological Spectrum. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hommel, B. (2010). Grounding attention in action control: The intentional control of selection. In Bruya, B. (ed.), Effortless Attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 121140.Google Scholar
Hookway, C. (2001). Epistemic akrasia and epistemic virtue. In Fairweather, A. and Zagzebski, L. T. (eds.), Virtue Epistemology: Essays on Epistemic Virtue and Responsibility. Oxford University Press, pp. 178199.Google Scholar
Inan, I. (2012). The Philosophy of Curiosity. New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Inan, I. (2014). Curiosity, belief and acquaintance. In Virtue Epistemology Naturalized. Springer International Publishing, pp. 143157.Google Scholar
Jones, W. (1997). Why do we value knowledge? American Philosophical Quarterly, 34: 423439.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93 (5): 14491475.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47 (2): 263291.Google Scholar
Klein, P. (2003). How a Pyrrhonian skeptic might respond to academic skepticism. In Luper, S. (ed.), The Skeptics: Contemporary Essays. London: Ashgate Press, pp. 7594.Google Scholar
Koch, C. and Crick, F. (2001). The zombie within. Nature, 411 (6840): 893.Google Scholar
Kornblith, H. (1993). Epistemic normativity. Synthese, 94 (3): 357376.Google Scholar
Kornblith, H. (2000). The contextualist evasion of epistemology. Philosophical Issues, 10: 2432.Google Scholar
Kornblith, H. (2002). Knowledge and Its Place in Nature. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kornblith, H. (2010). What reflective endorsement cannot do. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 80 (1): 119.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, C. M. (1996). The Sources of Normativity. O’Neill, O. (ed.). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kvanvig, J. L. (2005). Truth and the epistemic goal. In Steup, M. and Sosa, E. (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology. Malden: Blackwell, pp. 285295.Google Scholar
Kvanvig, J. L. (2009). Assertion, knowledge and lotteries. In Greenough, P. and Pritchard, D. (eds.), Williamson on Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 140160.Google Scholar
Kvanvig, J. L. (2011). Norms of assertion. In Brown, J. and Cappelen, H. (eds.), Assertion: New Philosophical Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 233250.Google Scholar
Lackey, J. (2007). Why we don’t deserve credit for everything we know. Synthese, 158 (3): 345361.Google Scholar
Lackey, J. (2008). Learning from Words: Testimony as a Source of Knowledge. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lahroodi, R. (2007). Collective epistemic virtues. Social Epistemology, 21 (3): 281297.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. M., and Whalen, D. H. (2000). On the relation of speech to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4 (5): 187196.Google Scholar
Lehrer, K. (1990). Theory of Knowledge. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Translated by Hall, M. J.. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Lepock, C. (2014). Metacognition and intellectual virtue. In Virtue Epistemology Naturalized. Springer International Publishing, pp. 3348, 143157.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1997). Finkish dispositions. The Philosophical Quarterly, 47: 143158.Google Scholar
List, C. (2012). Collective wisdom: A judgment aggregation perspective. In Landemore, H. and Elster, J. (eds.), Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
List, C. and Pettit, P. (2011). Group Agency: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, C. and Turri, J. (eds.). (2014). Epistemic Norms: New Essays on Action, Belief and Assertion. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacFarlane, J. (2007). Relativism and disagreement. Philosophical Studies, 132: 1731.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J. (2011). What is assertion? In Brown, J. and Cappelen, H. (eds.), Assertion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 7996.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J. (2014). Assessment Sensitivity: Relative Truth and Its Applications. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maitra, I. and Weatherson, B. (2010). Assertion, knowledge, and action. Philosophical Studies, 149: 99118.Google Scholar
Manser, M. B., Bell, M. B., and Fletcher, L. B. (2001). The information that receivers extract from alarm calls in suricates. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 268: 24852491.Google Scholar
Mantel, S. (2013). Acting for reasons, apt action, and knowledge. Synthese, 190 (17): 38653888.Google Scholar
Mellor, D. H. (ed.). (1990). F. P. Ramsey: Philosophical Papers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mellor, D. H. (1991). Matters of Metaphysics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. (2000). On Clear and Confused Ideas: An Essay about Substance Concepts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Misak, C. (2016). Cambridge Pragmatism: From Peirce and James to Ramsey and Wittgenstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mitova, V. (2011). Epistemic motivation: Towards a metaethics of belief. In Reisner, A. and Steglich-Petersen, A. (eds.), Reasons for Belief. Cambridge University Press, pp. 5474.Google Scholar
Mole, C. (2006). Attention, self, and The Sovereignty of Good. In Rowe, A. (ed.), Iris Murdoch: A Reassessment. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 7284.Google Scholar
Mole, C., Smithies, D., and Wu, W. (eds.). (2011). Attention: Philosophical and Psychological Essays. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2014). Propositions, attitudinal objects, and the distinction between actions and products. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 43 (5): 679701.Google Scholar
Montemayor, C. (2014). Success, minimal agency, and epistemic virtue. In Fairweather, A. (ed.), Virtue Epistemology Naturalized: Bridges Between Virtue Epistemology and Philosophy of Science: Vol. 366. Synthese Library. Springer, pp. 6782.Google Scholar
Montemayor, C. and Haladjian, H. H. (2015). Consciousness, Attention, and Conscious Attention. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Montmarquet, J. A. (1993). Epistemic Virtue and Doxastic Responsibility. Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Morton, A. (2012). Bounded Thinking: Intellectual Virtues for Limited Agents. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murdoch, I. (1970). The Sovereignty of Good. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
Nanay, B. (2013). Success semantics: The sequel. Philosophical Studies, 165: 151165.Google Scholar
Neta, R. (2014). The epistemic ought. In Fairweather, A. and Flanagan, O. (eds.), Naturalizing Epistemic Virtue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3652.Google Scholar
Olin, L. and Doris, J. M. (2014). Vicious minds. Philosophical Studies, 168 (3): 665692.Google Scholar
Owings, D. H. and Hennessy, D. F. (1984). The importance of variation in sciurid visual and vocal communication. In Murie, J. O. and Michener, G. R. (eds.), The Biology of Ground-Dwelling Squirrels. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 169200.Google Scholar
Paul, L. (2014). Transformative Experience. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pavese, C. (2015). Practical senses. Philosophers’ Imprint, 15 (29): 125.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1992). The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings, Vol. I. Houser, N. and Kloesel, C. (eds.). Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Petitto, L. and Marentette, P. (1991). Babbling in the manual mode: Evidence for the ontogeny of language. Science, 251 (5000): 14931496.Google Scholar
Petitto, L. A., Berens, M. S., Kovelman, I., Dubins, M. H., Jasinska, K. and Shalinsky, M. (2012). The “Perceptual Wedge” hypothesis as the basis for bilingual babies’ phonetic processing advantage: New insights from fNIRS brain imaging. Brain and Language, 121 (2): 130143.Google Scholar
Plantinga, A. (1993). Warrant: The Current Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Proust, J. (2012). Mental acts as natural kinds. In Clark, A., Kiverstein, J. and Vierkant, T. (eds.), Decomposing the Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 262282.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2009). Knowledge, understanding and epistemic value. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 64: 1943.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2012). Anti-luck virtue epistemology. Journal of Philosophy, 109: 247279.Google Scholar
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (ed.). (1987). The Robot’s Dilemma: The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence. Ablex.Google Scholar
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (2003). Seeing and Visualizing: It’s Not What You Think. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1969). Epistemology Naturalized. In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ramsey, F. P. (1927). Facts and propositions. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 7 (1):153170.Google Scholar
Ramsey, F. P. (1931). Knowledge. In Braithwaite, R. B. (ed.), The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Essays. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace, pp. 258259.Google Scholar
Rescorla, M. (2009). Assertion and its constitutive norms. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 79 (1): 98130.Google Scholar
Richard, M. (2004). Contextualism and relativism. Philosophical Studies, 119: 215242.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, D. A. (2002). Motor control. In Pashler, H. (Series ed.) and Yantis, S. (Vol. ed.), Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology: Vol. 1. Sensation and perception (3rd Edition). New York, NY: Wiley, pp. 315339.Google Scholar
Rudder-Baker, L. (2013). Naturalism and the First Person Perspective. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sahlin, N. E. (1990). The Philosophy of F. P. Ramsey. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1998). Causality and Explanation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2010). Local contexts and local meanings. Philosophical Studies, 151: 115142.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1985). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seyfarth, R. M., Cheney, D. L., and Marler, P. (1980). Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: Evidence of predator classification and semantic communication. Science, 210 (4471): 801803.Google Scholar
Seyfarth, R. M. and Cheney, D. L. (1990). The assessment by vervet monkeys of their own and another species’ alarm calls. Animal Behaviour, 40 (4): 754764.Google Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (ed.) (2007). Moral Psychology (Vol. 2). The Cognitive Science of Morality: Intuition and Diversity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smith, P. (2003). Deflationism: The facts. In Lillehammer, H. and Rodriguez-Pereyra, G. (eds.), Real Metaphysics. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 4353.Google Scholar
Smithies, D. (2011). Attention is rational-access consciousness. In Mole, C., Smithies, D. and Wu, W. (eds.), Attention: Philosophical and Psychological Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 247273.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (2000). Skepticism and contextualism. Philosophical Issues, 10: 118.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (2007). A Virtue Epistemology: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge (Volume I). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (2009). Reflective Knowledge: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge, Volume II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (2011). Knowing Full Well. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (2013). Epistemic agency. The Journal of Philosophy, 110 (11): 585605.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (2015). Judgment & Agency. Oxford University Press UK.Google Scholar
Stainton, R. (2006). Words and Thoughts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. Syntax and Semantics, 9: 315332.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1984). Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25 (5): 701721.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. (2005). Knowledge and Practical Interests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. (2011). Rationality and the Reflective Mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steup, M., Turri, J., and Sosa, E. (eds.). (2013). Contemporary Debates in Epistemology. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1964). Intention and convention in speech acts. Philosophical Review, 73: 439460.Google Scholar
Sylvan, K. and Sosa, E. (In Press). The place of reasons in epistemology. In Star, D. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Reasons and Normativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Theeuwes, J. (2013). Feature-based attention: It is all bottom-up priming. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 368 (1628): 20130055.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2010). Epistemic invariantism and speech act contextualism. Philosophical Review, 119: 7795.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2011). Manifest failure: The Gettier problem solved. Philosophers’ Imprint, 11: 8.Google Scholar
Turri, J. (2013). The test of truth: An experimental investigation into the norm of assertion. Cognition, 129: 279291.Google Scholar
Unger, P. (1975). Ignorance: A Case for Skepticism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Velleman, J. D. (1989). Practical Reflection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Velleman, J. D. (2007). What good is a will? In Leist, A. (ed.), Action in Context. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 193215.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K. and Gillies, A. (2008). CIA leaks. Philosophical Review, 117 (1): 7798.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K. and Gillies, A. (2011). ‘Might’ made right. In Egan, A. and Weatherson, B. (eds.), Epistemic Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 108130.Google Scholar
von Frisch, K. (1953). The Dancing Bees: An Account of the Life and Senses of the Honey Bee. Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Weiner, M. (2005). Must we know what we say? The Philosophical Review, 114: 227251.Google Scholar
Whitcomb, D. (2010). Curiosity was framed. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81 (3): 664687.Google Scholar
Whyte, J. T. (1990). Success semantics. Analysis, 50: 149157.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (1994). Vagueness. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (1996). Knowing and asserting. Philosophical Review, 105 (4): 489523.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1969). On Certainty. Anscombe, G. E. M. and von Wright, G. H. (eds.). Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0 – A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1 (2): 202238.Google Scholar
Wright, C. (2001). On being in a quandry. Mind, 110: 4598.Google Scholar
Wu, W. (2011). Attention as selection for action. In Mole, C., Smithies, D., and Wayne, W. (eds.), Attention: Philosophical and Psychological Essays. Oxford University Press, pp. 97116.Google Scholar
Wu, W. (2013). Mental action and the threat of automaticity. In Clark, A., Kiverstein, J., and Vierkant, T. (eds.), Decomposing the Will. Oxford University Press, pp. 244261.Google Scholar
Wu, W. (2015). Experts and deviants: The story of agentive control. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 93 (1): 101126.Google Scholar
Yablo, S. (2014). Aboutness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Yaffe, G. (2010). Attempts: In the Philosophy of Action and the Criminal Law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yalcin, S. (2007). Epistemic Modals. Mind, 116 (464): 9831026.Google Scholar
Yalcin, S. (2011). Nonfactualism about epistemic modality. In Egan, A. and Weatherson, B. (eds.), Epistemic Modality. Oxford University Press, pp. 295332.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, L. (1996). Virtues of the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, L. (2000). From reliabilism to virtue epistemology. The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, 5: 173179.Google Scholar
Zuberbühler, K. (2000). Referential labeling in Diana monkeys. Animal Behaviour, 59 (5): 917927.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Abrol Fairweather, San Francisco State University, Carlos Montemayor, San Francisco State University
  • Book: Knowledge, Dexterity, and Attention
  • Online publication: 18 May 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316105849.009
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Abrol Fairweather, San Francisco State University, Carlos Montemayor, San Francisco State University
  • Book: Knowledge, Dexterity, and Attention
  • Online publication: 18 May 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316105849.009
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Abrol Fairweather, San Francisco State University, Carlos Montemayor, San Francisco State University
  • Book: Knowledge, Dexterity, and Attention
  • Online publication: 18 May 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316105849.009
Available formats
×