Reply to Boghossian on Intuition, Understanding, and the A Priori1

This chapter is a response to Boghossian’s arguments in Chapter 13. The first part explains the failure of his objections to the author’s counterexamples to inferentialism, involving unorthodox experts who retain linguistic understanding of a term by ordinary standards while rejecting a rule associated with it by an inferentialist possession condition. The key point is that although one can retain a disposition (e.g. to accept a rule) while inhibiting it, one can also gradually lose the disposition itself. The second part argues that Boghossian’s account of intuitions fails to distinguish them adequately from conscious inclinations to believe, lacks a convincing basis in phenomenology, and will not properly serve the purposes of his account of a priori justification.

Understanding and Inference1

The chapter challenges the inferentialist account of concept possession on which Boghossian relies in Chapter 2 in his account of the transmission of justification by deductive reasoning. Unorthodox speakers who reject the inferences in alleged possession condition can still have the concept by understanding a word for it. In that sense, the inferences are not analytic. Inferentialist accounts of logical constants, theoretical terms (using the method developed by Frank Ramsey, Rudolf Carnap, and David Lewis), and pejorative expressions such as ‘Boche’ are examined and rejected. It is suggested that epistemological questions cannot be reduced to questions in the theory of thought and meaning.

External Load Variations Between Medium- and Large-Sided Soccer Games: Ball Possession Games vs Regular Games with Small Goals

This study compared external load variations between 5 vs 5 and 10 vs 10 sided game formats played under two conditions: (i) a ball possession game with two floaters, and (ii) a regular game with goalkeepers and small goals. Twenty-two professional soccer players participated in this study: four central defenders, four wide defenders, nine central midfielders, three wide forwards, and three strikers. Total distance (TD), running distance (RD), sprinting distance (SD), number of sprints (NS), and player’s training load (PL) were recorded by GPS units. Within-format analyses revealed very likely large increases in TD (20.0%, [9.2; 31.9]; effect size (ES): 1.48, [0.71; 2.25]) and RD (130.9%, [20.2; 343.7]; ES: 1.32, [0.29; 2.35]) during the regular game when compared to the ball possession game in the 5 vs 5 format. In the 10 vs 10 format, large increases in TD (27.9%, [17.7; 39.1]; ES: 3.54, [2.34; 4.74]) and PL (27.4%, [12.6; 44.1]; ES: 2.46, [1.20; 3.72]) were observed in the regular condition when compared to the ball possession condition. Between-formats analyses revealed that, in the 10 vs 10 format, when compared to the 5 vs 5 format, RD was very likely larger (123.5%, [33.7; 273.7]), as was SD (195.8%, [20.5; 626.2]). However, very likely large decreases in PL were observed in the 10 vs 10 format (-19.6%; [-29.4; -8.3]) in the ball possession condition. Unclear differences were revealed based on variations in external load variables between formats in the regular condition. Smaller formats reduce the area available for running and sprinting and, thus, may be more adequate for increasing player’s training load (based on accelerometer data).