Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T11:17:49.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Teleology first: Goals before knowledge and belief

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

Tobias Schlicht Open the ORCID record for Tobias Schlicht [Opens in a new window] ,
Johannes L. Brandl ,
Frank Esken ,
Hans-Johann Glock ,
Albert Newen ,
Josef Perner ,
Franziska Poprawe ,
Eva Schmidt ,
Anna Strasser  and
Julia Wolf
Tobias Schlicht
Affiliation:
Institute of Philosophy II, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, GA3/29, 44780Bochum, [email protected], www.rub.de/philosophy/[email protected], [email protected]
Johannes L. Brandl
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy KGW, University of Salzburg, A-5020Salzburg, [email protected], http://www.johannesbrandl.com
Frank Esken
Affiliation:
University of Europe for Applied Sciences, 58636Iserlohn, [email protected]
Hans-Johann Glock
Affiliation:
Philosophisches Seminar, Universität Zürich, CH-8044Zürich, [email protected], https://www.isle.uzh.ch/[email protected], https://www.philosophie.uzh.ch/de/seminar/people/research/theory_glock/poprawe.html Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Language Evolution (ISLE), University of Zurich, CH-8044Zurich, Switzerland
Albert Newen
Affiliation:
Institute of Philosophy II, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, GA3/29, 44780Bochum, [email protected], www.rub.de/philosophy/[email protected], [email protected]
Josef Perner
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience, 5020Salzburg, [email protected], https://ccns.sbg.ac.at/people/perner/
Franziska Poprawe
Affiliation:
Philosophisches Seminar, Universität Zürich, CH-8044Zürich, [email protected], https://www.isle.uzh.ch/[email protected], https://www.philosophie.uzh.ch/de/seminar/people/research/theory_glock/poprawe.html
Eva Schmidt
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and Political Science, TU Dortmund, 44227 Dortmund, [email protected]
Anna Strasser
Affiliation:
Independent Researcher, 10245Berlin, [email protected]://www.denkwerkstatt.berlin/ANNA-STRASSER/
Julia Wolf
Affiliation:
Institute of Philosophy II, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, GA3/29, 44780Bochum, [email protected], www.rub.de/philosophy/[email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Comparing knowledge with belief can go wrong in two dimensions: If the authors employ a wider notion of knowledge, then they do not compare like with like because they assume a narrow notion of belief. If they employ only a narrow notion of knowledge, then their claim is not supported by the evidence. Finally, we sketch a superior teleological view.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 44 , 2021 , e169
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Alvarez, M. (2010). Kinds of reasons. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behne, T., Liszkowski, U., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2012). Twelve-month-olds’ comprehension and production of pointing. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30, 359–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butterfill, S. A., & Apperly, I. (2013). How to construct a minimal theory of mind. Mind and Language, 28(5), 606–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2003). Teleological reasoning in infancy: The naïve theory of rational action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 287–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glock, H. (2019). Agency, intelligence and reasons in animals. Philosophy (London, England), 94, 645–671.Google Scholar
Glock, H., & Schmidt, E. (2019). Objectivism and causalism about reasons for action, with E. Schmidt. In Schumann, G. (Ed.), Explanation in action theory and historiography: Causal and teleological approaches. Routledge studies in contemporary philosophy (pp. 124–145). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovács, Á. M., Tauzin, T., Téglás, E., Gergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2014). Pointing as epistemic request: 12-month-olds point to receive new information. Infancy, 19(6), 543–557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krachun, C., Carpenter, M., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2009). A competitive nonverbal false belief task for children and apes. Developmental Science, 12(4), 521–535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luo, Y., & Johnson, S. C. (2009). Recognizing the role of perception in action at 6 months. Developmental Science, 12(1), 142–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newen, A., & Starzak, T. (2020). How to ascribe beliefs to animals. Mind and Language, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12302.Google Scholar
Perner, J., & Esken, F. (2015). Evolution of human cooperation in homo heidelbergensis: Teleology versus mentalism. In Barrouillet, P. (Ed.), Recent advances in cognitive-developmental theory. Special issue, developmental review (Vol. 38, pp. 69–88). Elsevier.Google Scholar
Perner, J., & Roessler, J. (2010). Teleology and causal reasoning in children's theory of mind. In Aguilar, J. & Buckareff, A. (Eds.), Causing human action: New perspectives on the causal theory of action (pp. 199–228). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Perner, J., & Roessler, J. (2012). From infant's to children's appreciation of belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(10), 519–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roessler, J., & Perner, J. (2013). Teleology: Belief as perspective. In Baron-Cohen, S., Tager-Flusberg, H. & Lombardo, M. (Eds.), UOM-3: Understanding other minds (3rd ed., Chapter 3, pp. 35–50). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception. Cognition, 13(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar