排序方式: 共有23条查询结果,搜索用时 78 毫秒
1.
Elliott Sober 《Synthese》2011,181(1):3-21
This paper is a sympathetic critique of the argument that Reichenbach develops in Chap. 2 of Experience and Prediction for the thesis that sense experience justifies belief in the existence of an external world. After discussing his attack
on the positivist theory of meaning, I describe the probability ideas that Reichenbach presents. I argue that Reichenbach
begins with an argument grounded in the Law of Likelihood but that he then endorses a different argument that involves prior
probabilities. I try to show how this second step in Reichenbach’s approach can be strengthened by using ideas that have been
developed recently for understanding causation in terms of the idea of intervention. 相似文献
2.
3.
Panglossian functionalism and the philosophy of mind 总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1
Elliott Sober 《Synthese》1985,64(2):165-193
4.
5.
6.
7.
Sober [2011] argues that some causal statements are a priori true and that a priori causal truths are central to explanations in the theory of natural selection. Lange and Rosenberg [2011] criticize Sober's argument. They concede that there are a priori causal truths, but maintain that those truths are only ‘minimally causal’. They also argue that explanations that are built around a priori causal truths are not causal explanations, properly speaking. Here we criticize both of Lange and Rosenberg's claims. 相似文献
8.
9.
Philosophical Studies - 相似文献
10.
In Chapter 12 of Warrant and Proper Function , Alvin Plantinga constructs two arguments against evolutionary naturalism, which he construes as a conjunction E&N . The hypothesis E says that "human cognitive faculties arose by way of the mechanisms to which contemporary evolutionary thought directs our attention" (p. 220). With respect to proposition N , Plantinga (p. 270) says "it isn't easy to say precisely what naturalism is," but then adds that "crucial to metaphysical naturalism, of course, is the view that there is no such person as the God of traditional theism." Plantinga tries to cast doubt on the conjunction E&N in two ways. His "preliminary argument" aims to show that the conjunction is probably false, given the fact ( R ) that our psychological mechanisms for forming beliefs about the world are generally reliable. His "main argument" aims to show that the conjunction E&N is self-defeating – if you believe E&N , then you should stop believing that conjunction. Plantinga further develops the main argument in his unpublished paper "Naturalism Defeated" (Plantinga 1994). We will try to show that both arguments contain serious errors. 相似文献