Knowing How
Knowing How
复制标题
知道如何
作者：
Yuri Cath
“知识”是你知道如何做某事时所拥有的知识。受赖尔（1949）的影响，传统的知识观有两个组成部分：（i）一个消极的主张（反智主义），即知识不是任何一种知识（或任何其他命题态度状态）;（ii）一个积极的主张（能力主义或倾向主义），即知识是某种能力或复杂的倾向状态。在很长一段时间里，这种传统的赖尔观点在很大程度上是正统哲学的一个不容置疑的特征。[1]偶尔会有对传统观点的挑战，但这些挑战几乎没有引起持续的辩论，也没有严重威胁到赖恩主义的正统地位。斯坦利和威廉姆森（2001）的论文《知道如何》（Knowing How）颠覆了这种舒适的状态，该论文：（i）为理智主义辩护，认为知道是一种知道，反对赖尔著名的倒退论点和其他反对意见，（二）反对赖恩的积极主张，知道如何是一种能力和（三）为一种理智主义观点提供了一个语言学论证，根据这种观点，知道如何去思考就是知道一个命题，这个命题回答了嵌入的“如何去做”。你的问题。斯坦利和威廉姆森的论文帮助引发了一场关于知识-如何的新工作的爆炸。本文的目的是调查一些主要的发展，在这方面的文献在过去的10年（必要时，一些早期的作品，仍然是重要的，这些辩论也将讨论）。
‘Knowledge-how’is the knowledge you have when you know how to do something. For example, when you know how to dance the tango, or solve a certain equation, or ride a bike etc. Influenced by Ryle (1949), the traditional view of knowledge-how had two components:(i) a negative claim (anti-intellectualism) that knowledge-how is not any kind of knowledgethat (or any other propositional attitude state); and (ii) a positive claim (abilitism or dispositionalism) that knowledge-how is some kind of ability or complex dispositional state. This traditional Rylean view was, for a long time, a largely unquestioned feature of philosophical orthodoxy. 1 There were occasional challenges to the traditional view but these challenges generated little sustained debate, and did not seriously threaten the orthodox status of Ryleanism.This comfortable state of affairs was turned on its head by Stanley and Williamson’s (2001) paper ‘Knowing How’, which:(i) defended intellectualism—the view that knowing-how is a kind of knowing-that—against Ryle’s famous regress argument and other objections,(ii) argued against the Rylean’s positive claim that knowing-how is a kind of ability and (iii) provided a linguistic argument for an intellectualist view according to which knowing how to È is a matter of knowing a proposition that answers the embedded ‘how to È’question. Stanley and Williamson’s paper helped to set off an explosion of new work on knowledge-how. The purpose of this paper is to survey some of the main developments in this literature over the last 10 years (when necessary, some earlier works that are still important to these debates will also be discussed).