Logical Revision Re-revisited: On the Wright/Salerno Case for Intuitionism

In ``Revising the Logic of LogicalRevision' (Philosophical Studies 99,211–227) J. Salerno attempts to undermineCrispin Wright's recent arguments forintuitionism, and to replace Wright andDummett's arguments with a revisionary argumentof his own. I show that Salerno's criticismsof Wright involve both attributing an inferenceto Wright that no intuitionist would make andfallaciously treating a negative universal asan existential negative. Then I show how verygeneral considerations about the nature ofwarrant undermine both Wright and Salerno'sarguments, when these arguments are applied todiscourses with defeasible warrants. WhileSalerno explicitly restricts his discussion tomathematics, Wright and Dummett intend theirrevisionary arguments to have much widerscope.     

How to endure presentism

Presentism and endurantism are natural bedfellows: arguments have been mounted from endurantism to presentism and vice versa. I generalise an argument against the compatibility between presentism and endurantism offered recently by Tallant (forthcoming. “Presentism, Persistence and Trans-temporal Dependence.” Philosophical Studies). I then show how to reformulate endurantism so that it is compatible with presentism. I demonstrate that this reformulated version of endurantism can do the same work with respect to the problem of temporary intrinsics as can standard definitions.     

Lehrer's Case Against Foundationalism

In this essay, I assess Keith Lehrer's case against Foundationalism, which consists of variations on three objections: The Independent Information or Belief Objection, The Risk of Error Objection, and the Hidden Argument Objection. I conclude that each objection fails for reasons that can be endorsed – indeed, I would say for reasons that should be endorsed – byantifoundationalists and foundationalists alike.     

A DEFENSE OF BUDDHISM,MEDITATION, AND FREE WILL: A THEORY OF MENTAL FREEDOM

This is my response to the criticisms of Gregg Caruso, David Cummiskey, and Karin Meyers, in their roles as members of the “Author Meets Critics” panel devoted to my book, Buddhism, Meditation, and Free Will: A Theory of Mental Freedom at the 2019 annual meeting of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association, organized by Christian Coseru. Caruso's main objection is that I am not sufficiently attentive to details of opposing arguments in Western philosophy, and Cummiskey's and Meyers’ objections, similarly, are that I am insufficiently attentive to details of Buddhism. I argue that all such objections, however putatively correct, do not rise to the level of objections that actually undermine my account of mental freedom.     

Johnson on the Metaphysics of Argument

This paper responds to two aspects of Ralph Johnson's Manifest Rationality (2000). The first is his critique of deductivism. The second is his failure to make room for some species of argument (e.g., visual and kisceral arguments) proposed by recent commentators. In the first case, Johnson holds that argumentation theorists have adopted a notion of argument which is too narrow. In the second, that they have adopted one which is too broad. I discuss the case Johnson makes for both claims, and possible objections to his analysis.     

Intentionalism and Intransitivity

I argue in this paper that the existence of sorites series of color patches – series of color patches arranged so that the patches on each end look different in color though no two adjacent patches do – shows that the relation of same phenomenal charac­ter as is not a transitive relation. I then argue that the intransitivity of same phenomenal character as conflicts with certain versions of intentionalism, the view that an experiences phenomenal character is exhausted, or fully determined by its intentional content. Lastly, I consider various objections to the arguments and reply to them.     

Switched-words skepticism: A case study in semantical anti-skeptical argument

Conclusion Semantically based arguments play a crucial role in responding to a certain sort of skeptical strategy, a strategy that is widely generalizable, and which is otherwise peculiarly difficult to answer. The anti-skeptical arguments we have been studying do this while avoiding reliance on the insupportable linguistic claims of co-optionism. Instead, they rely on the prevalence of a certain plausible general feature of the semantics of our language. Not surprisingly, this epistemologically important feature is itself frankly epistemological: in essence, we must (typically) be able to tell what a word refers to, in a way independent of the beliefs we use the word to express. In addition to rendering valuable anti-skeptical service, then, the arguments we have been studying display an additional dimension of interest, for they help to illuminate the ways in which our knowledge of the world at large is bound up with our knowledge of a particular part of that world — the language we use to describe it.I would like to thank Joseph Almog, Richard Healey, David Kaplan, Hilary Kornblith, Arthur Kuflik, William E. Mann, Derk Pereboom, George Sher, and a referee forPhilosophical Studies for helpful discussions and comments on earlier drafts.     

I OUGHT,THEREFORE I CAN

I defend the following version of the ought-implies-can principle: (OIC) by virtue of conceptual necessity, an agent at a given time has an (objective, pro tanto) obligation to do only what the agent at that time has the ability and opportunity to do. In short, obligations correspond to ability plus opportunity. My argument has three premises: (1) obligations correspond to reasons for action; (2) reasons for action correspond to potential actions; (3) potential actions correspond to ability plus opportunity. In the bulk of the paper I address six objections to OIC: three objections based on putative counterexamples, and three objections based on arguments to the effect that OIC conflicts with the is/ought thesis, the possibility of hard determinism, and the denial of the Principle of Alternate Possibilities.     

Subclinical delusional ideation and a self‐reference bias in everyday reasoning

Previous studies (e.g. Moller & Husby, 2000 ; Blackwood et al., 2004 ) have revealed that delusional thinking is accompanied by an exaggerated focus upon the self and upon stimuli that are perceived to be related to the self. The objective was to examine whether those high in subclinical delusional ideation exhibit a heightened tendency for self‐reference. Using a mixed design, healthy individuals, classified into high‐ and low‐scoring groups on the Peters et al. Delusions Inventory ( Peters, Day, & Garety, 1996 ), were compared on everyday reasoning tasks across three experiments. High‐PDI scorers, in contrast to the low‐PDI group, rated self‐referent objections to everyday arguments as stronger than other‐referent objections and formulated more self‐referent assertion‐based objections to everyday arguments. The findings support the notion that subclinical delusional ideation is linked to a self‐reference bias, which is evident in the sort of everyday thinking that people engage in when forming or evaluating their beliefs and which may contribute to delusion formation.     

A Wild West of the Mind

§258 of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations is often seen as the core of his private language argument. While its role is certainly overinflated and it is a mistake to think that there is anything that could be called the private language argument, §258 is an important part of the private language sections of the Philosophical Investigations. As with so much of Wittgenstein's work, there are widely diverse interpretations of why exactly the private diarist's attempted ostensive definition fails. I argue for a version of the no-stage-setting interpretation of the failure of private ostension. On this interpretation, the reason why the diarist cannot establish a meaning for ‘S’ is that she lacks the conceptual-linguistic stage-setting needed to disambiguate the concentration of her attention (the private analogue of an ostensive definition). Thus, the problem with any subsequent use of ‘S’ is not that there is no criterion of correctness for remembering the meaning of ‘S’ correctly, or for re-identifying S correctly in the future. Rather, it is because of the initial failure to define ‘S’ that there is nothing that could count as a criterion of correctness for the future use of ‘S’; there is nothing to remember or re-identify. My argument for the no-stage-setting interpretation consists in showing how well it fits into the rest of the Philosophical Investigations and in defending it against objections from Robert J. Fogelin, Anthony Kenny, and most recently John V. Canfield. Kenny's and Canfield's objections are found to suffer from problems regarding memory scepticism.     

The First Sense: A Philosophical Study of the Sense of Touch

In this essay, I review Matthew Fulkerson's The First Sense: A Philosophical Study of the Sense of Touch. In this first philosophical book on the sense of touch, Fulkerson provides an account of the nature and content of tactual experience. Central to Fulkerson's view is the claim that exploratory action plays a fundamental role in touch. In this review, I put pressure on two of his arguments: (1) the argument that tactual experience is unisensory and (2) the argument that tactual experience does not depend on explicit bodily awareness.     

A semantic account of rigidity

I would like to thank Thomas A. Blackson, David O. Brink, Ted Everett and an anonymous referee forPhilosophical Studies for helpful discussion and comments.     

"不可或缺性论证"与反实在论数学哲学

The indispensability argument for abstract mathematical entities has been an important issue in the philosophy of mathematics. The argument relies on several assumptions. Some objections have been made against these assumptions, but there are several serious defects in these objections. Ameliorating these defects leads to a new anti-realistic philosophy of mathematics, mainly: first, in mathematical applications, what really exist and can be used as tools are not abstract mathematical entities, but our inner representations that we create in imagining abstract mathematical entities; second, the thoughts that we create in imagining infinite mathematical entities are bounded by external conditions. __________ Translated from Zhexue Yanjiu 哲学研究 (Philosophical Researches), 2006, (8): 74–83     

Language switching in the bilingual brain: What’s next?

Recent work using functional neuroimaging with early bilinguals has found little evidence for separate neural systems for each language during picture naming (Hernandez, A. E., Dapretto, M., Mazziotta, J., & Bookheimer, S. (2001). Language switching and language representation in Spanish–English bilinguals: An fMRI study. Neuroimage, 14, 510–520). However, switching between languages in early bilinguals during picture naming shows increased activity in the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex (DLPFC) suggesting the importance of maintaining goal related information in order to bias subsequent response selection (Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Kelley, W. M., Buckner, R. L., Cohen, N. J., Miezin, F. M., et al. (2001). Direct comparison of prefrontal cortex regions engaged by working and long-term memory tasks. Neuroimage, 14, 48–59; Cohen, J. D., Braver, T. S., & O’Reilly, R. C. (1996). A computational approach to prefrontal cortex, cognitive control and schizophrenia: Recent developments and current challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 351, 1515–1527; O’Reilly, R. C., Braver, T. S., & Cohen, J. D. (1999). A biologically based computational model of working memory. In E. Akira Miyake, E. Priti Shah & et al. (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. (pp. 375–411): New York, NY, USA). The current study set out to test early bilinguals using a picture naming paradigm. Results revealed increased activity in the DLPFC and the superior parietal lobule during language switching compared to naming of pictures in a single language. Increased activity was also observed between early learned first and second languages. The results from single language conditions revealed differences in areas devoted to language processing such as the Superior Temporal Gyrus. However, increased activity in brain areas devoted to memory, somatosensory processing and emotion were also observed. Taken together these results replicate previous studies on language switching. They also extend studies on the neural bases of bilingualism by suggesting that early bilinguals’ representation of the two languages may be mediated by neural systems not typically associated with language. The article ends by considering future directions in understanding the brain bases of language switching and single language processing in bilinguals.     

Coherence and disagreement

I wish to thank Lars Bergström, Carl Ginet, Joseph Moore, Christian Munthe, Torbjörn Tännsjö, and an anonymous referee for Philosophical Studies for valuable comments on earlier drafts of this paper. The remaining errors are of course my own.     

Are We Rarely Free? A Response to Restrictivism

Arguments for Restrictivism – the position that we are rarely free– have been proposed by incompatibilists Peter van Inwagen and David Vander Laan among others. This article is concerned much more with these arguments than with quantifying the frequency of free actions. There are two general ways to argue for restrictivism. First, one may take a Negative Strategy, arguing that the situations in which one is not free are common and predominant. Second, one may focus on situations in which one is apparently free, and argue directly that these situations are rare – the Inventory Strategy. I conclude that both types of arguments for restrictivism are unconvincing.     

Is gerontology a branch of astrology? The role of advanced age in scientific explanation

Although gerontologists have been troubled by meta-scientific problems such as the proper definition of their discipline, the nature of time and age, and the lack of a nonarbitrary distinction between the old and the not old [e.g., Baltes & Goulet (1970) In Life-span developmental psychology (pp. 4–23). New York: Academic Press; Birren (1959) In Handbook of aging and theindividual (pp. 3–42). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; McKee (1982) Philosophical foundations of gerontology. New York: Human Sciences Press; Reese & Overton (1970) In Life-span developmental psychology (pp. 116–149). New York: Academic Press; Wohlwill (1970) Psychological Review, 77, 49–647], philosophers of science have paid little attention to the meta-scientific problems of gerontology. In this paper some philosophical problems in gerontology are examined through an analysis of the nature of scientific explanation. An argument is presented that claims that gerontology avoids many of the meta-scientific problems associated with time and advanced chronological age because these terms will tend to be obviated or “screened off” in scientific explanations in gerontology.     

Proxy “Actualism” *

Bernard Linsky and Edward Zalta have recently proposed a new form of actualism. I characterize the general form of their view and the motivations behind it. I argue that it is not quite new – it bears interesting similarities to Alvin Plantinga’s view – and that it definitely isn’t actualist. * I would like to thank Rae Langton, Jim Pryor, Robert Stalnaker, Ed Zalta, and, especially, an anonymous referee for Philosophical Studies for very helpful comments. Thanks also to Andrew Cortens, Michael Jubien, and an audience at the ANU for helpful discussion of an early version of this paper.