Kane and the Physical Indeterminism Luck Objection: A Reply to Moore

Philosophia - Dwayne Moore (2021) argues that libertarians about free will who are reductive physicalists cannot make proper sense of free will. In doing so, he presents what he calls “the...     

知觉符号理论及其研究范式

知觉符号理论是第二代认知科学的核心理论之一, 研究者采用多种实验范式、在各个领域对该理论进行了探讨。分析以往的研究发现, 大量的研究主要探讨语言表征、概念获得、具身情绪、推理过程、社会认知和知觉符号发展等科学问题。本文对此领域的发展进行了简要梳理, 特别是以实验范式发展为主线详细介绍了知觉符号理论的发展, 并在此基础上提出了多元表征的思考。最后, 对知觉符号理论的发展提出了展望。     

Reply to: Roberts

In his critique of my views on supererogation, Rodney Roberts (Philosophia, 2014) claims that I treat care ethics as having a more general moral validity than other care ethicists do. He also claims that the kind of sentimentalism I espouse doesn’t sufficiently emphasize sentiment and then goes on to question what I say about supererogation. But in fact other care ethicists also think care ethics can cover the whole of morality, and my sentimentalism emphasizes sentiment just as much and as little as that paradigm sentimentalist Francis Hutcheson does. Further, the critique Roberts makes of my view on supererogation doesn’t allow for the full range of possible cases of supererogation.     

重构象数:《太玄》的赞《易》之道

"重构象数"是<太玄>赞<易>的主要方法,扬雄由此开创了"以三为本"的玄数系统、"象应于数"的取象法则,其学说渊源主要为"老子生成说"、"天文历法说"、"自然音律说"、"阴阳五行说".这一"综合性创新"的象数构建,注重<太玄>象数研究的宋明思想家以"是否合<易>"为标准,对其评判也是毁誉参半,赞同者认为<玄><易>"道同法异",互为补充;批判者则立足<玄><易>义例差异,责<玄>缺陷.     

Reply to Psarros: Popper and Chemistry

In this article I reply to criticism of my published work by N. Psarros (Journal for the General Philosophy of Science 28: 297–305,1997). I show that I had already answered the first criticism in my published work and not overlooked his supposed refutation. However I offer a plausible argument which he could have used to strengthen his claim. Psarros cites my work on Hopkins in his opening paragraph, but then makes no further reference to it in the text. I indicated to Psarros verbally at Ilkley 1994 (and reiterate the message here) that Hopkins' work on Vitamins is the exemplar of a Popperian historical episode and must require addressing by the opponents of critical rationalism. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Impartiality and Realism: Reply to Mancuso

In Chapter 2 of Taking Morality Seriously, I put forward an argument for morality's objectivity that is based on the (purported) first-order implications of denying such objectivity. In her contribution to this volume, Mancuso criticizes that argument. This paper is a response to some of her main points.