Methods,minds, memory,and kinds

ABSTRACT

The acquisition of a skill, or knowledge-how, on the one hand, and the acquisition of a piece of propositional knowledge on the other, appear to be different sorts of epistemic achievements. Does this difference lie in the nature of the knowledge involved, marking a joint between knowledge-how and propositional knowledge? Intellectualists say no: All knowledge is propositional knowledge. Anti-intellectualists say yes: Knowledge-how and propositional knowledge are different in kind. What resources or methods may we legitimately and fruitfully employ to adjudicate this debate? What is (or are) the right way(s) to show the nature of the knowledge knowers know? Here too there is disagreement. I defend the legitimacy of the anti-intellectualist appeal to cognitive neuroscientific findings against a recent claim that anti-intellectualists conflate the scientific categories of procedural and declarative knowledge with the mental kinds of skill (knowledge-how) and propositional knowledge, respectively. I identify two kinds of arguments for this claim and argue that neither succeeds.     

Tailored interventions for motivating smoking cessation: using placebo tailoring to examine the influence of expectancies and personalization.

The present study examined mechanisms underlying the effectiveness of tailored interventions for motivating smoking cessation. The study used a placebo-tailoring design to test whether the efficacy of tailoring was due, in part, to personalized features in addition to the theoretically based content. Two hundred forty adult smokers were randomized to 1 of 3 conditions: standard booklet, minimally personalized booklet, or extensively personalized booklet. The interventions varied in their degree of ostensible tailoring, yet the actual smoking-related content of the booklets was identical. A dose-response relationship was hypothesized, with the greatest apparent tailoring producing the most positive outcomes. This pattern was found for evaluation of the booklets, with trends for readiness to change and self-efficacy increases. Moreover, as hypothesized, the effect of the interventions on readiness was moderated by participants' expectancies about tailoring.