| 1. |
- Eklund, Matti, 1974-
(författare)
-
Deconstructing Ontological Vagueness
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Canadian journal of philosophy. - 0045-5091 .- 1911-0820. ; 38, s. 117-140
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 2. |
- Häggqvist, Sören
(författare)
-
A Model for Thought Experiments
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Canadian journal of philosophy. - : Cambridge University Press (CUP). - 0045-5091 .- 1911-0820. ; 39:1, s. 55-76
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Philosophical interest in thought experiments has grown over the last couple of decades. Several positions have emerged, defined largely by their differing responses to a perceived epistemological challenge: how do thought experiments yield justified belief revision, even in science, when they provide no new empirical data? Attitudes towards this supposed explanandum differ. Many philosophers accept that it poses a genuine puzzle and hence seek to provide a substantive explanation. Others reject or deflate the epistemic claims made for thought experiments.In this paper I present a model for many thought experiments in philosophy and science. The model doesn't assume that thought experiments in fact manage to achieve epistemic justifi cation, but it allows us to see how they aspire to do so. It also emphasises both the parallels and the discrepancies between thought experiments and ordinary scientific experiments.
|
|
| 3. |
- Pagin, Peter, 1953-
(författare)
-
What is communicative success?
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Canadian journal of philosophy. - Calgary : University of Calgary Press. - 0045-5091 .- 1911-0820. ; 38:1, s. 85-115
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The author presents a classical view of communicative success and defends it against modern views that compel a requirement of knowledge or reliability. He believes that there is no well-defined pre-theoretic concept of communicative success that is present as object of conceptual analysis. Moreover, he offers a theoretical argument for taking agreement in the mental context to be more basic than agreement in linguistic meaning. Lastly, he claims that non-compositional theories would be chosen by the charity principle because one can select more freely what meaning to assign to his sentences.
|
|
