A note on ‘scepticism and absurdity’

In ‘Scepticism and Absurdity’ (Inquiry, Vol. 7, No. 2) Ingemund Gullvag concludes that recent attempts to counter scepticism have failed. It is suggested that where the attempts Gullvåg investigates are complex theories of a sociological and linguistic‐psychological nature, we need only refer to a simple and inspectable fact of language to counter scepticism.     

A Note on ‘Distributive Terms,Truth, and The Port Royal Logic’

A note correcting some technical terminology from linguistics found in ‘Distributive Terms, Truth, and The Port Royal Logic’, this journal, Jan. 17, 2013, 133–54.     

A Note on Bosbach’s Cone Algebras

In 2002, Dvure?enskij extended Mundici’s equivalence between unital abelian l-groups and MV-algebras to the non-commutative case. We analyse the relationship to Bosbach’s cone algebras and clarify the rôle of the corresponding pair of L-algebras. As a consequence, it follows that one of the two L-algebra axioms can be dropped.     

Sibley on ‘Beautiful’ and ‘Ugly’

Abstract

Frank Sibley's ideas have been particularly influential among contemporary philosophers interested in aesthetics. Most studies, however, have focused only on his earlier works. In this essay, I explore Sibley's account of the adjectives ‘beautiful’ and ‘ugly’, paying particular attention to three papers that have only recently been published and that have not yet received adequate attention. In particular, I discuss his account of the adjective ‘beautiful’, which relies on the controversial notion of an aesthetic ideal. In addition, I discuss an account of how aesthetic judgements may change in relation to our coming to know the kind of object being judged and whether, as Sibley maintains, ‘beautiful’ and ‘ugly’ are asymmetric in the sense specified by the author.     

Uncertainty in Clergy’s Perspectives on Homosexuality: A Research Note

This research note analyzes expressions of uncertainty in clergy??s perspectives on homosexuality. We conducted interviews with forty Christian clergy who lead congregations in the vicinity of one large southeastern US city. Seven in ten clergy interviewed expressed uncertainty in their personal opinions about homosexuality, uncertainty about how they should act pursuant to the issue, or both. We describe clergy??s experiences with these uncertainties and analyze the patterns in which it appears in their opinions and actions regarding homosexuality. The nuance evident in these patterns illustrates how a range of superseding factors influence clergy??s opinions about homosexuality and the extent to which they feel constrained in taking action with regard to the issue. We argue for the conceptual value of a framework that provides space for analysis of uncertainty in public opinion about contentious social issues such as homosexuality.     

A Theory Of Irrationality As A ‘Reasonable’ Response To An Incomplete Specification

Suppose the principles explaining how the human mind (brain) reaches logical conclusions and judgments were different from – and independent of – thoseinvolved innormatively valid reasoning. Then such principles should affect both conclusion generation and recognition that particular conclusions are or are not justified. People, however, demonstrate a discrepancy between impaired performance in generating logical conclusions as opposed to rather impressive competence in recognizing rational (versus irrational) ones. This discrepancy is hypothesized to arise from often generating an incomplete specification of a logical or judgmental problem when attempting to solve it – versus a recognition of such incompleteness when it is pointed out. The basic argument is developed, with common examples, in the context of specifying or failing to specify all possible combinations in simple logical arguments and is then extended to probabilistic reasoning, where complete versus incomplete specification corresponds to attending to all or to only some components of Bayes theorem-based reasoning.     

Against Some Recent Arguments for ‘Ought’ Implies ‘Can’: Reasons,Deliberation, Trying,and Furniture

Philosophia - Many philosophers claim that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’. In light of recent empirical evidence, however, some skeptics conclude that philosophers should stop...     

Strawson on ‘if’ and ⊃

Abstract

This paper is concerned with Sir Peter Strawson’s critical discussion of Paul Grice’s defence of the material implication analysis of conditionals. It argues that although Strawson’s own ‘consequentialist’ suggestion concerning the meaning of conditionals cannot be correct, a related and radically contextualist account is able to both account for the phenomena that motivated Strawson’s consequentialism, and to undermine the material implication analysis by providing a simpler account of the processes that we go through when interpreting conditionals.     

The ‘Magic Light’: A Discussion on Laser Ethics

Innovations in technology and science form novel fields that, although beneficial, introduce new bio-ethical issues. In their short history, lasers have greatly influenced our everyday lives, especially in medicine. This paper focuses particularly on medical and para-medical laser ethics and their origins, and presents the complex relationships within laser ethics through a three-dimensional matrix model. The term ‘laser’ and the myth of the ‘magic light’ can be identified as landmarks for laser related ethical issues. These ethical issues are divided into five major groups: (1) media, marketing, and advertising; (2) economic outcomes; (3) user training; (4) the user-patient/client relationship; and (5) other issues. In addition, issues arising from two of the most common applications of lasers, laser eye surgery and laser tattoo removal, are discussed. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the use of medical and para-medical lasers has so greatly influenced our lives that the scientific community must initiate an earnest discussion of medical laser ethics.     

‘Bildung’ and Intercultural Understanding: A Dialogical Approach

In this introduction to the special issue on Bildung and dialogical self theory (DST), I explain why the notion of Bildung warrants elaboration in a special issue of the Journal of Constructivist Psychology. The concept of Bildung—for some, too apolitical and individualistic—gains significance by relating it to intercultural understanding as a prime challenge for plural societies in which cultural and religious diversity easily leads to confrontation and even violent conflict. The special issue offers an interdisciplinary discussion of the relevance of DST for this topic, of Bildung and humanism, and of the practice of intercultural adult education. In three articles, arguments for dialogical self as a prerequisite for intercultural adult education are placed within the broader context of pivotal discussions conducted within psychology, philosophy, and religious studies on the subject of our globalizing world.     

Evaluating Arguments Based on Toulmin’s Scheme

Toulmin’s scheme for the layout of arguments (1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) represents an influential tool for the analysis of arguments. The scheme enriches the traditional premises-conclusion model of arguments by distinguishing additional elements, like warrant, backing and rebuttal. The present paper contains a formal elaboration of Toulmin’s scheme, and extends it with a treatment of the formal evaluation of Toulmin-style arguments, which Toulmin did not discuss at all. Arguments are evaluated in terms of a so-called dialectical interpretation of their assumptions. In such an interpretation, an argument’s assumptions can be evaluated as defeated, e.g., when there is a defeating reason against the assumption. The present work builds on recent research on defeasible argumentation (cf. e.g. the work of Pollock, Reiter, Loui, Vreeswijk, Prakken, Hage and Dung). More specifically, the author’s work on the dialectical logic DEFLOG and the argumentation tool ARGUMED serve as starting points.     

Editor's Introduction to C.I. Lewis and C.H. Langford ‘A Note on Strict Implication’

The article ‘A Note on Strict Implication’ was submitted for publication by C.I. Lewis and C.H. Langford but withdrawn in proof. The paper is, according to notes and letters by both Lewis and Langford, largely by Lewis. It constitutes an early attempt by Lewis to give meanings for the modal connectives using abstract objects. To be necessary, for example, is for a statement to have the same intension as a truth-functional tautology. This theory prefigures the view of Lewis's 1946 Lewis, C.I. 1946. Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation, La Salle, IL: Open Court. [Google Scholar] book, Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation. This introduction to the article looks at the historical background of the piece in addition to its argument and examines why it was withdrawn.