Skip to main content

Analyticity, Linguistic Rules and Epistemic Evaluation


We can characterise thought in two different ways. Which is preferred can have implications for important issues about reasoning and the norms that govern cognition. The first, which owes much to the picture of the mind encountered in Descartes' Meditations, observes that paradigmatic examples of thoughts and inferences are events and processes whose special characteristics stem from their being ‘mental’ occurrences. For example they are conscious or, if unconscious, they stand in some special relation to thought processes that are conscious. They typically involve attitudes towards contents or propositions. In general, thoughts have a distinctive onto-logical status and this status depends upon their being mental and typically conscious. The second emphasises that thought is a kind of activity with a definite function. It involves the use of intelligence to solve problems, answer questions, make plans and so on. Thought should be studied as a kind of goal-directed activity. Those interested in the norms that govern thought should attend to the role of responsible disciplined reflection in carrying out this activity.

Hide All
Belnap N. and Steel T. 1976. The Logic of Questions and Answers. New Haven: Yale University Press
Bromberger S. 1992. On What We Know We Don't Know. University of Chicago Press
Carnap R. 1937. The Logical Syntax of Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
Dewey J. 1938. Logic: the Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt
Grice H. P. and Strawson P. F. 1956. ‘In Defense of a Dogma’, The Philosophical Review 65, 141–58
Harrah D. 1963. Communication: A Logical Model. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Harrah D. 1984. ‘The Logic of Questions’, in Gabbay D. and Guenther F. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Volume II. Dordrecht:
Reidel D., Hookway C. 1993. ‘Mimicking Foundationalism: On Sentiment and Self-Control’, The European Journal of Philosophy 1, 156–74
Reidel D., Hookway C. 1994. ‘Naturalised Epistemology and Epistemic Evaluation’, Inquiry 37, 465–85
Lipton P. 1991. Inference to the Best Explanation. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
Popper K. R. 1972. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford University Press
Quine W. V. 1953. From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Quine W. V. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Quine W. V. 1973. The Roots of Reference. La Salle, IL: Open Court
Quine W. V. 1994a. ‘Responses’, Inquiry 37, 495505
Quine W. V. 1994b. ‘Exchange between Donald Davidson and W. V. Quine following Davidson's lecture’, Theoria 40, 226–31
Van Fraassen B. C. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford University Press
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements
  • ISSN: 1358-2461
  • EISSN: 1755-3555
  • URL: /core/journals/royal-institute-of-philosophy-supplements
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 8 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 105 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th January 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.