Abstract
We argue that the majority of intelligence definitions fail to recognize that
the normative epistemic status of intelligence is knowledge and not an inferior
alternative. We refute the counter-arguments that intelligence ought not to be seen as knowledge because of 1) its action-oriented scope and 2) its future-oriented content. We dismiss the traditional infallibilistic understanding of knowledge and follow David Lewis’ argument, that knowledge is fallible and context-sensitive. Thus, we argue for the importance of developing a methodology by which the entitlement, justification and robustness of claims to intelligence-knowledge can be assessed.
the normative epistemic status of intelligence is knowledge and not an inferior
alternative. We refute the counter-arguments that intelligence ought not to be seen as knowledge because of 1) its action-oriented scope and 2) its future-oriented content. We dismiss the traditional infallibilistic understanding of knowledge and follow David Lewis’ argument, that knowledge is fallible and context-sensitive. Thus, we argue for the importance of developing a methodology by which the entitlement, justification and robustness of claims to intelligence-knowledge can be assessed.
| Originalsprog | Engelsk |
|---|---|
| Tidsskrift | Intelligence and National Security |
| Sider (fra-til) | 1-23 |
| Antal sider | 23 |
| ISSN | 0268-4527 |
| DOI | |
| Status | Udgivet - okt. 2013 |