Sport Philosophy Inquiry in 3D: A Pragmatic Response to the (Sport) Philosophy Paradox

A paradoxical attitude exists toward professional philosophy: philosophical inquiry is considered important and complex, but professionals are deemed irrelevant and unnecessary. This paradox doubly affects sport philosophy as evidenced by the field’s marginalization in higher education and sociopolitical discourse. To counter the sport philosophy paradox, I present a pragmatically oriented three-dimensional approach to inquiry that turns the field “inside-out”. A community of engaged, melioratively oriented sport philosophy inquirers in this 3D model collectively conducts theoretical (horizontal dimension), applied (vertical dimension), and instrumental (depth dimension) inquiry. Each dimension is outlined in detail from a professional sport philosophy perspective, and implications are considered relative to the field’s future endeavors.     

Intrinsic Qualities of Experience: Surviving Harman's Critique

Gilbert Harman (1990) seeks to defend psychophysical functionalism by articulating a representationalist view of the qualities of experience. The negative side of the present paper argues that the resources of this representationalist view are insufficient to ground the evident distinction between perception and (mere) thought. This failure makes the view unable to support the uses to which Harman wishes to put it. Several rescuing moves by other representationalists are considered, but none is found successful. Part of the difficulty in Harman's work is that he does not adequately specify the view he rejects. The positive aim of the present paper is to provide a robust intrinsic quality account of experience that offers advantages in comparison with Harman's view, and that plainly does not fall to any of the arguments he advances. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

The Fundamental Attribution Error and Harman's Case against Character Traits

Abstract

Gilbert Harman argues that the warrant for the lay attribution of character traits is completely undermined by the “fundamental attribution error” (FAE). He takes it to have been established by social psychologists, that the FAE pervades ordinary instances of lay person perception. However, examination of recent work in psychology reveals that there are good reasons to doubt that the effects observed in experimental settings, which ground the case for the FAE, pervade ordinary instances of person perception. Furthermore, it is possible to make sense of these experimental results without invoking the FAE. Harman's argument against lay character trait attribution is unsubstantiated.     

A Pragmatic Case against Pragmatic Scientific Realism

Pragmatic Scientific Realism (PSR) urges us to take up the realist aim or the goal of truth although we have good reason to think that the goal can neither be attained nor approximated. While Newton-Smith thinks that pursuing what we know we cannot achieve is clearly irrational, Rescher disagrees and contends that pursuing an unreachable goal can be rational on pragmatic grounds—if in pursuing the unreachable goal one can get indirect benefits. I have blocked this attempt at providing a pragmatic justification for the realist aim of PSR on precisely the same pragmatic grounds—since there is a competing alternative to PSR, and the alternative can provide whatever indirect benefits PSR can offer while being less risky than it is, prudential reasoning favours the alternative to PSR. This undermines the pragmatic case for the realist aim of science since the instrumentalist alternative does not aim at the truth.     

A New Paradox of Time Travel

Time travel and its associated paradoxes are a topic of academic discussion that has historically been of interest only in physics and philosophy. This paper presents a new paradox of time travel that puts psychological issues at the forefront. The new time traveller faces conflicts between agency and agency awareness that are not addressed in other paradoxes. Further, in considering these other paradoxes it is seen how concerns about the time traveller's psychological state can lead to new challenges to the accepted deterministic paradox resolutions.     

A Solution to the Paradox of Analysis

This essay attempts to solve the so-called paradox of analysis: if one is to have any questions about x , one must know x ; but if one knows x , one has no questions about x . The obvious solution is this: one can inquire into x if one knows some, but not all, of x 's parts. But this solution is erroneous. Let x ' be those parts of x with which one is acquainted, and let S be the percipient in question. As with x , either S knows x ', in which case he has no questions about it; or S does not know x ', in which case he has no questions about it.
My solution is this. Perception and cognition give us, not the thing-in-itself, but a certain analogue of the thing-in-itself. To inquire into x , it is necessary to know not x , but only some analogue of x ; and to learn more about x is to become acquainted with increasingly precise analogues of x .     

A New Solution to Moore's Paradox

Moore's paradox pits our intuitions about semantic oddnessagainst the concept of truth-functional consistency. Most solutions tothe problem proceed by explaining away our intuitions. But``consistency' is a theory-laden concept, having different contours indifferent semantic theories. Truth-functional consistency is appropriateonly if the semantic theory we are using identifies meaning withtruth-conditions. I argue that such a framework is not appropriate whenit comes to analzying epistemic modality. I show that a theory whichaccounts for a wide variety of semantic data about epistemic modals(Update Semantics) buys us a solution to Moore's paradox as a corollary.It turns out that Moorean propositions, when looked at through the lenseof an appropriate semantic theory, are inconsistent after all.     

A Normative Pragmatic Theory of Exhorting

We submit a normative pragmatic theory of exhorting—an account of conceptually necessary and potentially efficacious components of a coherent strategy for securing a sympathetic hearing for efforts to urge and inspire addressees to act on high-minded principles. Based on a Gricean analysis of utterance-meaning, we argue that the concept of exhorting comprises making statements openly urging addressees to perform some high-minded, principled course of action; openly intending to inspire addressees to act on the principles; and intending that addressees’ recognition of the intentions to urge and inspire creates reasons for addressees to grant a sympathetic hearing to what the speaker has to say. We show that the theory accounts for the design of Abraham Lincoln’s Cooper Union address. By doing so we add to the inventory of reasons why social actors make arguments, continue a line of research showing the relationship of arguing to master speech acts, and show that making arguments can be an effective strategy for inspiring principled action.     

The No-No Paradox Is a Paradox

The No-No Paradox consists of a pair of statements, each of which ‘says’ the other is false. Roy Sorensen claims that the No-No Paradox provides an example of a true statement that has no truthmaker: Given the relevant instances of the T-schema, one of the two statements comprising the ‘paradox’ must be true (and the other false), but symmetry constraints prevent us from determining which, and thus prevent there being a truthmaker grounding the relevant assignment of truth values. Sorensen's view is mistaken: situated within an appropriate background theory of truth, the statements comprising the No-No Paradox are genuinely paradoxical in the same sense as is the Liar (and thus, on Sorensen's view, must fail to have truth values). This result has consequences beyond Sorensen's semantic framework. In particular, the No-No Paradox, properly understood, is not only a new paradox, but also provides us with a new type of paradox, one which depends upon a general background theory of the truth predicate in a way that the Liar Paradox and similar constructions do not.     

意外考试悖论的博弈分析

本文从博弈的角度分析了意外考试悖论,指出了以往解决方案的不足,给出了一种新的方案。根据这个新方案,考试悖论的推理中使用了倒推法和弱下策反复剔除法。本文接着讨论了这些博弈推理方法的不足。然后把这个新的博弈方案用到卡片悖论和方格悖论这些考试悖论的变种里。最后指出,在考试悖论里,比起倒推法,弱下策剔除法是引起悖论的更根本的原因。     

A Solution to the Cable Guy Paradox

The Cable Guy will definitely come between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., and I can bet on one of two possibilities: that he will arrive between 8 and 12, or between 12 and 4. Since I have no more information, it seems (eminently) plausible to suppose the two bets are equally attractive. Yet Hajek has presented a tantalising argument that purports to show that the later interval is, initial appearances to the contrary, more choice worthy. In this paper, I rebut the argument.