Misunderstandings of epistemic tit for tat: Reply to John Woods
Journal of Philosophy 87 (7):369-374 (1990)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJohn Woods (1979). Laws of Thought and Epistemic Proofs. Idealistic Studies 9 (1):55-65.
John C. Moskop (1982). Potential Persons and Murder: A Reply to John Woods. Dialogue 21 (02):307-316.
Peter Danielson (1986). The Moral and Ethical Significance of Tit for Tat. Dialogue 25 (03):449-.
Massimo Pigliucci (2001). The Ethics of Tit-for-Tat. Philosophy Now 33:28-29.
Michel J. Blais (1987). Epistemic Tit for Tat. Journal of Philosophy 84 (7):363-375.
John Woods (1989). The Maladroitness of Epistemic Tit for Tat. Journal of Philosophy 86 (6):324-331.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads4 ( #178,844 of 551,006 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 551,006 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
