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.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Journal | Intelligence and National Security |
Volume | 28 |
Issue number | 5 |
Pages (from-to) | 694-716 |
ISSN | 0268-4527 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2013 |
Externally published | Yes |