A form of Kripke's schema turns out to be equivalent to each of the following two statements from metric topology: every open subspace of a separable metric space is separable; every open subset of a separable metric space is a countable union of open balls. Thus Kripke's schema serves as a point of reference for classifying theorems of classical mathematics within Bishop-style constructive reverse mathematics.

The traditional problem of evil is set forth, by no means for the first time, in Part X of Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion in these familiar words: ‘Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?’ This formulation of the problem of evil obviously suggests an argument to the effect that the existence of evil in (...) the world demonstrates that God does not exist. The purpose of this paper is to examine this argument, with a view to showing that while it is not a conclusive argument, it is much stronger than some apologists for traditional theism allow. (shrink)

First I employ bayes' theorem to give some precision to the atheologian's thesis that it is improbable that God exists given the amount of evil in the world (e). Two arguments result from this: (1) e disconfirms god's existence, And (2) e tends to disconfirm god's existence. Secondly, I evaluate these inductive arguments, Suggesting against (1) that the atheologian has abstracted from and hence failed to consider the total evidence, And against (2) that the atheologian's evidence adduced to support his (...) thesis regarding the relevant probabilities is inadequate. (shrink)

After almost a decade, the discussion initiated by Professor Edmund Gettier's provocative paper “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” continues. The most recent contribution to this discussion is Professor John Turk Saunders' attempt to counter Professor Irving Thalberg's claim that a principle that Gettier employs in reaching his notorious negative conclusion is unjustified. I am moved to add to the discussion at this time because it seems to me that the principle in question is unjustified. But more fundamentally, Gettier's argument fails (...) because the putative counter-examples on which it rests fail to make their intended point. I shall discuss these claims in turn.The epistemic principle which I consider unjustified is the one which Thalberg has called the Principle of Deducibility for Justification and which Gettier formulates as follows: “for any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.”. (shrink)

The author attempts to answer critics of "ordinary language philosophy." he does this by offering examples of the mismatch of language and reality. A spade is a spade but we often do not call a spade a spade. He concludes that what we call something is an important consideration in determining what that thing is. And this fact points out the usefulness of analysis of ordinary language. (staff).

In this paper I argue for the following three claims. (1) the teleological argument is much weaker than plantinga allows, And, Indeed, As plantinga formulates it, It does not seem even to support a theistic position. (2) the argument from evil is much stronger than plantinga maintains, And, In any case, His attempt to show that it is without logical force is unsuccessful. (3) the analogical argument for other minds is indeed not strong, But it is not the best argument (...) we have. (edited). (shrink)

Atomic states are rigorously characterized by the total orbital angular momentum and the total spin angular momentum, but chemists persist in the use of electron configurations based on one-electron quantum numbers and simplified rules for predicting ground state configurations. This practice is defended against two lines of criticism, and its use in teaching chemistry is encouraged with the claim that the inductive approach of Mendeleev and the deductive approach initiated by Schrödinger compose the consummate example of that interaction of empirical (...) and rational epistemologies that defines how chemists think. (shrink)

The Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki: An Epic of Ancient India. Vol. 6: Yuddhakāṇḍa. Translation and annota tion by Robert P. Goldman, Sally J. Sutherland Goldman, and Barend A. van Nooten. Introduction by Robert P. Goldman and Sally J. Sutherland Goldman. Princeton Library of Asian Translations. Princeton. Princeton University Press, 2009. Pp. 1655 + xviii. $210, $75. The Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki: An Epic of Ancient India. Vol. 7: Uttarakāṇḍa. Introduction, translation, and annotation by Robert P. Goldman and Sally J. (...) Sutherland Goldman. Princeton Library of Asian Translations. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017. Pp. 1522 + xxii. $175. (shrink)

In a recent paper Robert J. Richman joins a host of doubters who question Gettier's claim that knowledge is not justified true belief. Richman's scepticism of Gettier's counterexamples to the traditional analysis of knowledge stems from what he says are two basic defects in the examples. One defect is that Gettier employs the Principle of Deducibility for Justification which Richman argues is false. The second defect is based on “the obvious consideration that a belief which is (...) justified on the basis of one set of facts or assumptions need not be justified on the basis of a different set.” I shall consider each of these alleged defects and argue that Richman has not shown that in fact they are defects and that Gettier's counterexamples do in fact show that knowledge is not justified true belief.The Principle of Deducibility for Justification states that for any proposition P, if P entails Q and S correctly deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then Sis justified in believing Q. (shrink)