Movatterモバイル変換

The aim of this paper is to expose the intimate relationship between deep disagreements and skepticism. Philosophers have explored how deep disagreements lead to skepticism about their resolution at the metalevel (about whether one knows that P), but they have paid little attention to how they also lead to first- or object-level skepticism (about whether P is the case) and how skepticism also produces deep disagreements. I show how engaging in a discussion about any topic against a radical skeptic position (...) always leads to deep disagreement. Furthermore, the disagreement engendered by radical skepticism is a kind of deep disagreement at the level of epistemic evaluation of propositions that covaries with deep disagreements at the object level. Deep disagreement and radical skepticism are intimately linked. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

I argue that knowing and having points of view are fundamentally different epistemic states if we assume that having justified true beliefs is necessary for knowledge. Knowers necessarily possess justified true beliefs, but persons holding points of view may, for example, lack justification, have false beliefs, or both. I examine these differences and expose other crucial differentiating patterns between the structure of knowledge and points of view that make the latter more likely to lead to disagreements. I hypothesize that these (...) patterns remain invariant in alternative views of knowledge like contextualism as long as we preserve the classical structure. Yet there is much research to be done on the multiple and contrasting properties that emerge if we consider non‐classical analyses of knowledge and points of view. (shrink)

Direct download(5 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

It is fundamental that, in philosophy, we make sure that we are not mistaking merely verbal disputes, or “conceptual” disputes, for substantive ones. This essay presents a tripartite framework that is useful for clarifying cases where it is difficult to tell whether we are engaged in substantive or non-substantive disputes. For this purpose, the essay offers some combinatorial possibilities between the following levels: verbal, conceptual, and objectual. We need to distinguish whether we are arguing about the world, concepts, or words (...) to avoid talking at cross-purposes and to recognize when our disputes are not worth the time. Distinguishing between these three levels can also throw light and guide research on conceptual engineering, metalinguistic negotiations, metaontology, and so on. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Philosophers interested in conceptual engineering take it for granted that the same concept can unproblematically play diverse functions, but this view overlooks the fact that conceptual and functional change often impair concepts and even functions themselves. I demonstrate that while conceptual and functional engineering may improve concepts and functions, they can also produce detrimental effects. Therefore, it is crucial to carefully assess the potential benefits or problems before making any modifications. Frequently, we overlook the fact that, for instance, adding extra (...) functions to our concepts modifies them; this may increase, but also impair, their theoretical and practical efficacy. I analyze and clarify these possibilities through a general classificatory framework encompassing concepts, functions, and conceptual and functional change. The larger aim of this paper is to bring attention to these complex and under-researched relationships and pave the way for further research in this area. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

My objective in this paper is to demonstrate how conceptual analysis, with a little help from empirical evidence, can help us to coordinate the efforts of the two chief schools of anthropological thought, evolutionary anthropology and sociocultural anthropology, to understand human nature. The marked differences between these two branches of anthropology (especially in their sophisticated forms) tend to block cooperation, impede the consideration of each other’s arguments, and stall the progress of anthropological science. Conceptual analysis is a basic philosophical tool (...) that can help us resolve the differences between the two anthropological paradigms. Coordinating these branches of anthropology would facilitate a deeper understanding of human nature. In doing so, it can also help us resolve some of the theoretical and practical problems that anthropological science faces. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Conceptual analysis has been typically recognized as a traditional methodology within analytic philosophy, but many philosophers have heavily criticized it. In contrast, the methodology of Carnapian explication has been undergoing a revival as a methodological alternative due to its revisionary aim. I will make explicit the shared structural properties and goals of Carnapian explication and the kind of conceptual analysis advanced by the advocates of the Canberra Plan. Also, I will argue that although their goal to make philosophy more scientific (...) is desirable, they cannot achieve their goal of clearly distinguishing philosophy from science. Moreover, since traditional conceptual analysis is an element of both revisionary methodologies, it is also unable to mark a clear distinction between them. The comparison throws some light on the relationship between traditional conceptual analysis and the two revisionary methodologies, their implicit theoretical commitments and deficiencies. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark