Ilia Patronnikov

What is inference? This paper discusses a recent account that aims to answer this question—Susanna Siegel’s Response Hypothesis. The hallmark of inference, on Siegel’s account, is the epistemic dependence of a mental transition’s output state(s) on its input state(s). In this paper, I argue that some alleged non-inferential transitions exhibit the kind of epistemic dependence that Siegel’s account takes to be characteristic of inference. More precisely, I argue that some associative transitions exhibit this kind of epistemic dependence—a problematic conclusion, since Siegel takes inference and association to be mutually exclusive kinds of mental transitions. I then suggest a way out of this problem: to reject the assumption that association and inference are mutually exclusive. This may be considered a bold move, for associative transitions are often considered a paradigm example of non-inferential transitions. So, I end up discussing the motivation behind the move and arguing that it opens up an attractive niche for the development of some philosophical projects.

Implicit attitudes (IAs) are mental states that are responsible for discriminatory behaviour called 'implicit bias'. There is no agreement about the nature of IAs. Some argue that they don't differ from beliefs. This paper defends this view from the following objection: one is in a good epistemic position with respect to one's beliefs; if one believes that P, one tends to know that one believes that P. However, studies show that often people are not aware of having IAs. How can it be if IAs are beliefs? I address this objection by defending the claim that implicit beliefs constitute a special kind of belief — beliefs that are not accompanied by the relevant judgments. More precisely, if one implicitly believes that P, a tokening of this belief is not accompanied by judging that P. Since judging is a route to knowing one's beliefs, this route is blocked for implicit beliefs.