David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Critical Review 7 (2-3):381-397 (1993)
Paul Davidson's critique of O'Driscoll and Rizzo is based on an ?official? philosophical position that turns on an opposition between knowledge and ignorance (in epistemology) and a corresponding opposition between ergodic and nonergodic processes (in ontology). But Davidson's substantive analysis reveals a very different ?unofficial? position, based on ?sensible expectations? and a realist ontology of enduring social structures. While O'Driscoll and Rizzo have the edge on Davidson in terms of their characterization of agents? beliefs, their ontology of event regularities is ultimately the same, and suffers from the same drawbacks, as Davidson's official ontology. The solution to some of these problems may lie in adopting an ontology similar to the one Davidson invokes in his unofficial capacity.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Karl R. Popper (1959). The Propensity Interpretation of Probability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10 (37):25-42.
Jochen Runde (1990). Keynesian Uncertainty and the Weight of Arguments. Economics and Philosophy 6 (2):275.
Jochen Runde (1994). Keynesian Uncertainty and Liquidity Preference. Cambridge Journal of Economics 18:129--144.
Citations of this work BETA
Paul Lewis (2013). Hayek, Social Theory, and the Contrastive Explanation of Socio-Economic Order. Critical Review 25 (3-4):386-408.
Paul A. Lewis (2011). On the Merits of Critical Realism and the “Ontological Turn” in Economics: Reply to Steele. Critical Review 23 (1-2):207-230.
Similar books and articles
Stephan Boehm & Karl Farmer (1993). Why the Acrimony? Reply to Davidson. Critical Review 7 (2-3):407-421.
Jeff Malpas (1994). Self-Knowledge and Scepticism. Erkenntnis 40 (2):165-184.
Sophie Gibb (2006). Why Davidson is Not a Property Epiphenomenalist. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 14 (3):407 – 422.
Ralf Stoecker (ed.) (1993). Reflecting Davidson: Donald Davidson Responding to an International Forum of Philosophers. W. De Gruyter.
Paul Davidson (1993). Austrians and Post Keynesians on Economic Reality: Rejoinder to Critics. Critical Review 7 (2-3):423-444.
Roger F. Gibson (1994). Quine and Davidson: Two Naturalized Epistemologists. Inquiry 37 (4):449 – 463.
Lynne Tirrell (1991). Seeing Metaphor as Seeing-As: Davidson's Positive View of Metaphor. Philosophical Investigations 14 (2):143-154.
Simone Gozzano (1999). Davidson on Rationality and Irrationality. In Mario de Caro (ed.), Interpretations and Causes: New Perspectives on Donald Davidson's Philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Pub
D. J. MacDermid (2004). Is Davidson's Epistemology Coherent? Grazer Philosophische Studien 67 (1):101-130.
Erik Stenius (1976). Comments on Donald Davidson's Paper Radical Interpretation. Dialectica 30 (1):35-60.
David L. Prychitko (1993). After Davidson, Who Needs the Austrians? Reply to Davidson. Critical Review 7 (2-3):371-380.
Brian P. McLaughlin (1992). On Davidson's Response to the Charge of Epiphenomenalism. In John Heil & Alfred R. Mele (eds.), Mental Causation. Oxford University Press
Pierfrancesco Basile (2005). Whitehead's Ontology and Davidson's Anomalous Monism. Process Studies 34 (1):3-9.
Added to index2011-10-18
Total downloads7 ( #459,665 of 2,121,929 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #459,263 of 2,121,929 )
How can I increase my downloads?