What skill is not
A dispositional theory of skill, such as that defended by Stanley and Williamson (2016), might seem promising. Such a theory looks to provide a unified intellectualist account of skill reflecting insights from cognitive science and philosophy. I argue that any theory of the kind fails given that skill is broadly answerable to the will. A person may be characteristically disposed both against the exercise of her skill and against any associated intentional forming of knowledge. Clearly she does not cease thereby to be skilled. I consider four replies, none of which vindicate this kind of theory.
Riley, Evan, "What skill is not" (2017). Analysis, , 344-354. 10.1093/analys/anx059. Retrieved from https://openworks.wooster.edu/facpub/380