Search results for 'Argument' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  41
    Finnur Dellsén (2015). Explanatory Rivals and the Ultimate Argument. Theoria 82 (1).
    Although many aspects of Inference to the Best Explanation have been extensively discussed, very little has so far been said about what it takes for a hypothesis to count as a rival explanatory hypothesis in the context of IBE. The primary aim of this article is to rectify this situation by arguing for a specific account of explanatory rivalry. On this account, explanatory rivals are complete explanations of a given explanandum. When explanatory rivals are conceived of in this way, I (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  90
    Napoleon Mabaquiao Jr (2015). The Phenomenal Concept Strategy and a Master Argument. Kemanusiaan 22 (1).
    The phenomenal concept strategy (PCS) is widely regarded as the most promising physicalist defence against the so-called epistemic arguments—the anti-physicalist arguments that establish an ontological gap between physical and phenomenal facts on the basis of the occurrence of epistemic gaps in our descriptions of these facts. The PCS tries to undercut the force of the epistemic arguments by attributing the occurrence of the epistemic gaps to the special character of phenomenal concepts—the concepts by means of which we think about our (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  68
    Christian List, What’s Wrong with the Consequence Argument: In Defence of Compatibilist Libertarianism.
    The most prominent argument for the incompatibility of free will and determinism is Peter van Inwagen’s consequence argument. In this paper, I offer a new diagnosis of what is wrong with this argument. Both proponents and critics of the argument typically accept the way it is framed and only disagree on whether the argument’s premises and the rules of inference on which it relies are true. I suggest that the argument involves a category (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. Kristin Mickelson (2015). The Zygote Argument is Invalid: Now What? Philosophical Studies 172 (11):2911-2929.
    Alfred Mele’s original Zygote Argument is invalid. At most, its premises entail the negative thesis that free action is incompossible with deterministic laws, but its conclusion asserts the positive thesis that deterministic laws preclude free action. The original, explanatory conclusion of the Zygote Argument can be defended only by supplementing the Zygote Argument with a best-explanation argument that identifies deterministic laws as menacing. Arguably, though, the best explanation for the manipulation victim’s lack (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  5.  39
    Kenneth L. Pearce, Foundational Grounding and the Argument From Contingency.
    The argument from contingency for the existence of God is best understood as a request for an explanation of the total sequence of causes and effects in the universe. Many puzzles about how there could be such an explanation arise from the assumption that God is being introduced as one more cause prepended to the sequence of causes that (allegedly) needed explaining. In response to this difficulty, I defend three theses. First, I argue that, if the (...) from contingency is to succeed, the explanation of History in terms of God must not be a causal explanation. Second, I argue that a particular hypothesis about God's relation to History -- that God is what I call the foundational ground of History -- is intelligible and explanatory. Third and finally, I argue that the explanatory advantages of this hypothesis cannot be had within the confines of naturalism. (shrink)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  64
    Christopher Gregory Weaver (forthcoming). Yet Another New Cosmological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion:1-21.
    I argue that the existence of a necessary concrete being can be derived from an exceedingly weak causal principle coupled with two contingent truths one of which falls out of very popular positions in contemporary analytic metaphysics. I then show that the argument resists a great many objections commonly lodged against natural theological arguments of the cosmological variety.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. Christopher Evan Franklin (2011). Farewell to the Luck (and Mind) Argument. Philosophical Studies 156 (2):199-230.
    In this paper I seek to defend libertarianism about free will and moral responsibility against two well-known arguments: the luck argument and the Mind argument. Both of these arguments purport to show that indeterminism is incompatible with the degree of control necessary for free will and moral responsibility. I begin the discussion by elaborating these arguments, clarifying important features of my preferred version of libertarianism—features that will be central to an adequate response to the arguments—and showing why a (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   16 citations  
  8.  29
    Benjamin Matheson (forthcoming). In Defence of the Four-Case Argument. Philosophical Studies:1-20.
    Pereboom’s Four-Case Argument was once considered to be the most powerful of the manipulation arguments against compatibilism. However, because of Demetriou’s :595–617, 2010) response, Pereboom has significantly weakened his argument. Manipulation arguments in general have also been challenged by King : 65–83, 2013). In this paper, I argue that the Four-Case Argument resists both these challenges. One upshot is that Pereboom doesn’t need weaken his argument. Another is that compatibilists still need a response the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. Henry Prakken (2005). AI & Law, Logic and Argument Schemes. Argumentation 19 (3):303-320.
    This paper reviews the history of AI & Law research from the perspective of argument schemes. It starts with the observation that logic, although very well applicable to legal reasoning when there is uncertainty, vagueness and disagreement, is too abstract to give a fully satisfactory classification of legal argument types. It therefore needs to be supplemented with an argument-scheme approach, which classifies arguments not according to their logical form but according to their content, in particular, according (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  10. Markus E. Schlosser (2014). The Luck Argument Against Event-Causal Libertarianism: It is Here to Stay. Philosophical Studies 167 (2):375-385.
    The luck argument raises a serious challenge for libertarianism about free will. In broad outline, if an action is undetermined, then it appears to be a matter of luck whether or not one performs it. And if it is a matter of luck whether or not one performs an action, then it seems that the action is not performed with free will. This argument is most effective against event-causal accounts of libertarianism. Recently, Franklin (Philosophical Studies (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  11.  63
    Stephen Kearns (2012). Aborting the Zygote Argument. Philosophical Studies 160 (3):379-389.
    Alfred Mele’s zygote argument for incompatibilism is based on a case involving an agent in a deterministic world whose entire life is planned by someone else. Mele’s contention is that Ernie (the agent) is unfree and that normal determined agents are relevantly similar to him with regards to free will. In this paper, I examine four different ways of understanding this argument and then criticize each interpretation. I then extend my criticism to manipulation arguments in general. (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  12.  3
    Fabio Paglieri (2015). Bogency and Goodacies: On Argument Quality in Virtue Argumentation Theory. Informal Logic 35 (1):65-87.
    Virtue argumentation theory has been charged of being incomplete, given its alleged inability to account for argument cogency in virtue-theoretical terms. Instead of defending VAT against that challenge, I suggest it is misplaced, since it is based on a premise VAT does not endorse, and raises an issue that most versions of VAT need not consider problematic. This in turn allows distinguishing several varieties of VAT, and clarifying what really matters for them.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  13. Justin Morton & Eric Sampson (2014). Parsimony and the Argument From Queerness. Res Philosophica 91 (4):609-627.
    In his recent book Error Theory: History, Critique, Defence, Jonas Olson attempts to revive the argument from queerness originally made famous by J.L. Mackie. In this paper, we do three things. First, we eliminate four untenable formulations of the argument. Second, we argue that the most plausible formulation is one that depends crucially upon considerations of parsimony. Finally, we evaluate this formulation of the argument. We conclude that it is unproblematic for proponents of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14. Nicholas Stang (2015). Kant's Argument That Existence is Not a Determination. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 91 (1):583-626.
    In this paper, I examine Kant's famous objection to the ontological argument: existence is not a determination. Previous commentators have not adequately explained what this claim means, how it undermines the ontological argument, or how Kant argues for it. I argue that the claim that existence is not a determination means that it is not possible for there to be non-existent objects; necessarily, there are only existent objects. I argue further that Kant's target is not merely (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15.  36
    James N. Anderson & Greg Welty (2011). The Lord of Noncontradiction: An Argument for God From Logic. Philosophia Christi 13 (2):321 - 338.
    In this paper we offer a new argument for the existence of God. We contend that the laws of logic are metaphysically dependent on the existence of God, understood as a necessarily existent, personal, spiritual being; thus anyone who grants that there are laws of logic should also accept that there is a God. We argue that if our most natural intuitions about them are correct, and if they are to play the role in our intellectual activities that (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  16. Steven M. Duncan, Kant's Critique of the Ontological Argument: FAIL.
    In this paper, I argue that Kant's famous critique of the Ontological Argument largely begs the question against that argument, and is no better when supplemented by the modern quantificational analysis of "exists." In particular, I argue that the claim, common to Hume and Kant, that conceptual truths can never entail substantive existential claims is false,and thus no ground for rejecting the Ontological Argument.
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17. Rachel Barney (2008). Aristotle's Argument for a Human Function. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 34:293-322.
    A generally ignored feature of Aristotle’s famous function argument is its reliance on the claim that practitioners of the crafts (technai) have functions: but this claim does important work. Aristotle is pointing to the fact that we judge everyday rational agency and agents by norms which are independent of their contingent desires: a good doctor is not just one who happens to achieve his personal goals through his work. But, Aristotle argues, such norms can only be (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18.  96
    Greg Frost-Arnold (2010). The No-Miracles Argument for Realism: Inference to an Unacceptable Explanation. Philosophy of Science 77 (1):35-58.
    I argue that a certain type of naturalist should not accept a prominent version of the no-miracles argument (NMA). First, scientists (usually) do not accept explanations whose explanans-statements neither generate novel predictions nor unify apparently disparate established claims. Second, scientific realism (as it appears in the NMA) is an explanans that makes no new predictions and fails to unify disparate established claims. Third, many proponents of the NMA explicitly adopt a naturalism that forbids philosophy of science from using (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  19. Danny Frederick (2009). To Follow the Argument Wherever It Leads. The Reasoner 3 (11):5-6.
    This paper rejects the claim that, rationally, we should follow the argument wherever it leads.
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. Moti Mizrahi (2012). Why the Ultimate Argument for Scientific Realism Ultimately Fails. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43 (1):132-138.
    In this paper, I argue that the ultimate argument for Scientific Realism, also known as the No-Miracles Argument (NMA), ultimately fails as an abductive defence of Epistemic Scientific Realism (ESR), where (ESR) is the thesis that successful theories of mature sciences are approximately true. The NMA is supposed to be an Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) that purports to explain the success of science. However, the explanation offered as the best explanation for success, namely (ESR), fails to (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  21. Markus E. Schlosser (2015). Manipulation and the Zygote Argument: Another Reply. Journal of Ethics 19 (1):73-84.
    Alfred Mele’s zygote argument is widely considered to be the strongest version of the manipulation argument against compatibilism (about free will and determinism). Opponents have focused largely on the first of its two premises and on the overall dialectic. My focus here will be on the underlying thought experiment—the Diana scenario—and on the second premise of the argument. I will argue that reflection on the Diana scenario shows that the second premise does not hold, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  22.  9
    Richard Oxenberg, In Search of the Ontological Argument.
    We can attend to the logic of Anselm's ontological argument, and amuse ourselves for a few hours unraveling its convoluted word-play, or we can seek to look beyond the flawed logic, to the search for God it expresses. From the perspective of this second approach the Ontological Argument proves to be more than a mere argument; it is a contemplative exercise. One can see in the argument a tantalizing attempt to capture in logical form the devotee’s (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23.  35
    Andrea Guardo (2009). The Argument from Normativity against Dispositional Analyses of Meaning. In Volker A. Munz, Klaus Puhl & Joseph Wang (eds.), Language and World – Papers of the XXXII International Wittgenstein Symposium. Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society
    A talk given at the XXXII International Wittgenstein Symposium. In his well-known essay on Wittgenstein, Saul Kripke maintains that dispositional analyses of meaning cannot work mainly because whereas the concept of disposition is descriptive, that of meaning is normative. Unfortunately, neither Kripke nor his followers have ever spelled out this "argument from normativity" in full detail. As a result, the argument does not have good press. This paper offers an explicit version of the (...). In particular, (1) I try to explain what the claim that meaning is normative amounts to, (2) I try to clarify what supports it, and (3) I sketch a valid version of the argument. (shrink)
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  24.  91
    Patrick Todd (2013). Defending (a Modified Version of) the Zygote Argument. Philosophical Studies 164 (1):189-203.
    Think of the last thing someone did to you to seriously harm or offend you. And now imagine, so far as you can, becoming fully aware of the fact that his or her action was the causally inevitable result of a plan set into motion before he or she was ever even born, a plan that had no chance of failing. Should you continue to regard him or her as being morally responsible—blameworthy, in this case—for what he or she did? (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  25. Jeff Speaks (2010). Epistemic Two-Dimensionalism and the Epistemic Argument. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (1):59 – 78.
    One of Kripke's fundamental objections to descriptivism was that the theory misclassifies certain _a posteriori_ propositions expressed by sentences involving names as _a priori_. Though nowadays very few philosophers would endorse a descriptivism of the sort that Kripke criticized, many find two-dimensional semantics attractive as a kind of successor theory. Because two-dimensionalism needn't be a form of descriptivism, it is not open to the epistemic argument as formulated by Kripke; but the most promising versions of two-dimensionalism are open (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  26. Charles Hermes (2013). Truthmakers and the Direct Argument. Philosophical Studies (2):401-418.
    The truthmaker literature has recently come to the consensus that the logic of truthmaking is distinct from classical propositional logic. This development has huge implications for the free will literature. Since free will and moral responsibility are primarily ontological concerns (and not semantic concerns) the logic of truthmaking ought to be central to the free will debate. I shall demonstrate that counterexamples to transfer principles employed in the direct argument occur precisely where a plausible logic of truthmaking diverges from (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  27. Maarten Van Dyck (2007). Constructive Empiricism and the Argument From Underdetermination. In Bradley John Monton (ed.), Images of Empiricism: Essays on Science and Stances, with a Reply From Bas C. Van Fraassen. Oxford University Press
    It is argued that, contrary to prevailing opinion, Bas van Fraassen nowhere uses the argument from underdetermination in his argument for constructive empiricism. It is explained that van Fraassen’s use of the notion of empirical equivalence in The Scientific Image has been widely misunderstood. A reconstruction of the main arguments for constructive empiricism is offered, showing how the passages that have been taken to be part of an appeal to the argument from (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. Simon Fitzpatrick (2013). Doing Away with the No Miracles Argument. In Dennis Dieks & Vassilios Karakostas (eds.), Recent Progress in Philosophy of Science: Perspectives and Foundational Problems. Springer
    The recent debate surrounding scientific realism has largely focused on the “no miracles” argument (NMA). Indeed, it seems that most contemporary realists and anti-realists have tied the case for realism to the adequacy of this argument. I argue that it is mistake for realists to let the debate be framed in this way. Realists would be well advised to abandon the NMA altogether and pursue an alternative strategy, which I call the “local strategy”.
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29.  37
    Paul Redding & Paolo Diego Bubbio (2014). Hegel and the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God. Religious Studies 50 (04):485-486.
    We reconstruct Hegel’s implicit version of the ontological argument in the light of his anti-representationalist idealist metaphysics. For Hegel, the ontological argument had been a peculiarly modern form of argument for the existence of God, presupposing a ‘representationalist’ account of the mind and its concepts. As such, it was susceptible to Kant’s famous refutation, but Kant himself had provided a model for an alternative conception of concept, one developed by Fichte with his notion of the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  30. Robert C. Koons (1997). A New Look at the Cosmological Argument. American Philosophical Quarterly 34 (2):193 - 211.
    The cosmological argument for God’s existence has a long history, but perhaps the most influential version of it has been the argument from contingency. This is the version that Frederick Copleston pressed upon Bertrand Russell in their famous debate about God’s existence in 1948 (printed in Russell’s 1957 Why I am not a Christian). Russell’s lodges three objections to the Thomistic argument.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   13 citations  
  31.  90
    Seth Shabo (2013). Free Will and Mystery: Looking Past the Mind Argument. Philosophical Studies 162 (2):291-307.
    Among challenges to libertarians, the _Mind_ Argument has loomed large. Believing that this challenge cannot be met, Peter van Inwagen, a libertarian, concludes that free will is a mystery. Recently, the _Mind_ Argument has drawn a number of criticisms. Here I seek to add to its woes. Quite apart from its other problems, I argue, the _Mind_ Argument does a poor job of isolating the important concern for libertarians that it raises. Once this concern (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  32. Eddy Nahmias, The State of the Free Will Debate: From Frankfurt Cases to the Consequence Argument.
    In this paper I tie together the reasoning used in the Consequence Argument with the intuitions that drive Frankfurt cases in a way that illuminates some of the underlying differences between compatibilists and incompatibilists. I begin by explaining the ‘basic mechanism’ at work in Frankfurt cases: the existence of sufficient conditions for an outcome that do not actually bring about that outcome. I suggest that other potential threats to free will, such as God’s foreknowledge, can be understood in (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33. Luke Elson (2014). Heaps and Chains: Is the Chaining Argument for Parity a Sorites? Ethics 124 (3):557-571.
    I argue that the Ruth Chang’s Chaining Argument for her parity view of value incomparability trades illicitly on the vagueness of the predicate ‘is comparable with’. Chang is alert to this danger and argues that the predicate is not vague, but this defense does not succeed. The Chaining Argument also faces a dilemma. The predicate is either vague or precise. If it is vague, then the argument is most plausibly a sorites. If it is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  34.  15
    Daniel Howard-Snyder (ed.) (1996). The Evidential Argument From Evil. Indiana University Press.
    Is evil evidence against the existence of God? Even if God and evil are compatible, it remains hotly contested whether evil renders belief in God unreasonable. The Evidential Argument from Evil presents five classic statements on this issue by eminent philosophers and theologians and places them in dialogue with eleven original essays reflecting new thinking by these and other scholars. The volume focuses on two versions of the argument. The first affirms that there is no reason for God (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   15 citations  
  35. John Turri (2009). On the Regress Argument for Infinitism. Synthese 166 (1):157 - 163.
    This paper critically evaluates the regress argument for infinitism. The dialectic is essentially this. Peter Klein argues that only an infinitist can, without being dogmatic, enhance the credibility of a questioned non-evident proposition. In response, I demonstrate that a foundationalist can do this equally well. Furthermore, I explain how foundationalism can provide for infinite chains of justification. I conclude that the regress argument for infinitism should not convince us.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  36.  90
    Moti Mizrahi (forthcoming). The Fine-Tuning Argument and the Simulation Hypothesis. Think.
    In this paper, I propose that, in addition to the multiverse hypothesis, which is commonly taken to be an alternative explanation for fine-tuning, other than the design hypothesis, the simulation hypothesis is another explanation for fine-tuning. I then argue that the simulation hypothesis undercuts the alleged evidential connection between ‘designer’ and ‘supernatural designer of immense power and knowledge’ in much the same way that the multiverse hypothesis undercuts the alleged evidential connection between ‘fine-tuning’ and ‘fine-tuner’ (or ‘designer’). If this is (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37. Moti Mizrahi (2013). Why the Argument From Zombies Against Physicalism is Question-Begging. The Reasoner 7 (8):94-95.
    I argue that the argument from zombies against physicalism is question-begging unless proponents of the argument from zombies can justify the inference from the metaphysical possibility of zombies to the falsity of physicalism in an independent and non-circular way, i.e., a way that does not already assume the falsity of physicalism.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38.  51
    Jacob Busch (2011). Is the Indispensability Argument Dispensable? Theoria 77 (2):139-158.
    When the indispensability argument for mathematical entities (IA) is spelled out, it would appear confirmational holism is needed for the argument to work. It has been argued that confirmational holism is a dispensable premise in the argument if a construal of naturalism, according to which it is denied that we can take different epistemic attitudes towards different parts of our scientific theories, is adopted. I argue that the suggested variety of naturalism will only appeal to a (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  39.  24
    Jacobus Erasmus & Anné Hendrik Verhoef (forthcoming). The Kalām Cosmological Argument and the Infinite God Objection. Sophia:1-17.
    In this article, we evaluate various responses to a noteworthy objection, namely, the infinite God objection to the kalām cosmological argument. As regards this objection, the proponents of the kalām argument face a dilemma—either an actual infinite cannot exist or God cannot be infinite. More precisely, this objection claims that God’s omniscience entails the existence of an actual infinite with God knowing an actually infinite number of future events or abstract objects, such as mathematical truths. We (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40.  59
    C’Zar Bernstein (2014). Giving the Ontological Argument Its Due. Philosophia 42 (3):665-679.
    In this paper, I shall present and defend an ontological argument for the existence of God. The argument has two premises: possibly, God exists, and necessary existence is a perfection. I then defend, at length, arguments for both of these premises. Finally, I shall address common objections to ontological arguments, such as the Kantian slogan, and Gaunilo-style parodies, and argue that they do not succeed. I conclude that there is at least one extant ontological (...) that is plausibly sound. (shrink)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  41.  11
    Ulrike Hahn, Adam J. L. Harris & Adam Corner (2009). Argument Content and Argument Source: An Exploration. Informal Logic 29 (4):337-367.
    Argumentation is pervasive in everyday life. Understanding what makes a strong argument is therefore of both theoretical and practical interest. One factor that seems intuitively important to the strength of an argument is the reliability of the source providing it. Whilst traditional approaches to argument evaluation are silent on this issue, the Bayesian approach to argumentation (Hahn & Oaksford, 2007) is able to capture important aspects of source reliability. In particular, the Bayesian approach predicts (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  42.  39
    Yishai Cohen (2015). Molinists Cannot Endorse the Consequence Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 77 (3):231-246.
    Perszyk has argued that Molinists cannot consistently endorse the consequence argument because of a structurally similar argument for the incompatibility of true Molinist counterfactuals of freedom and the ability to do otherwise. Wierenga has argued that on the proper understanding of CCFs, there is a relevant difference between the consequence argument and the anti-Molinist argument. I argue that, even on Wierenga’s understanding of CCFs, there is in fact no relevant difference between the two arguments. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  43.  93
    Thomas Kelly (2011). Following the Argument Where It Leads. Philosophical Studies 154 (1):105-124.
    Throughout the history of western philosophy, the Socratic injunction to ‘follow the argument where it leads’ has exerted a powerful attraction. But what is it, exactly, to follow the argument where it leads? I explore this intellectual ideal and offer a modest proposal as to how we should understand it. On my proposal, following the argument where it leaves involves a kind of modalized reasonableness. I then consider the relationship between the ideal and common (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  44.  93
    John Bishop & Ken Perszyk (2011). The Normatively Relativised Logical Argument From Evil. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 70 (2):109-126.
    It is widely agreed that the ‘Logical’ Argument from Evil (LAFE) is bankrupt. We aim to rehabilitate the LAFE, in the form of what we call the Normatively Relativised Logical Argument from Evil (NRLAFE). There are many different versions of a NRLAFE. We aim to show that one version, what we call the ‘right relationship’ NRLAFE, poses a significant threat to personal-omniGod-theism—understood as requiring the belief that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  45.  16
    Alastair Wilson (forthcoming). The Quantum Doomsday Argument. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axv035.
    If the most familiar overlapping interpretation of Everettian quantum mechanics is correct, then each of us is constantly splitting into multiple people. This consequence gives rise to the quantum doomsday argument, which threatens to draw crippling epistemic consequences from EQM. However, a diverging interpretation of EQM undermines the quantum doomsday argument completely. This appears to tell in favour of the diverging interpretation. But it is surprising that a metaphysical question that is apparently underdetermined by the physics (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46.  82
    Jonathan Birch (2013). On the 'Simulation Argument' and Selective Scepticism. Erkenntnis 78 (1):95-107.
    Nick Bostrom’s ‘Simulation Argument’ purports to show that, unless we are confident that advanced ‘posthuman’ civilizations are either extremely rare or extremely rarely interested in running simulations of their own ancestors, we should assign significant credence to the hypothesis that we are simulated. I argue that Bostrom does not succeed in grounding this constraint on credence. I first show that the Simulation Argument requires a curious form of selective scepticism, for it presupposes that we possess good (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  47.  6
    Michael Hoffmann & Jason Borenstein (2014). Understanding Ill-Structured Engineering Ethics Problems Through a Collaborative Learning and Argument Visualization Approach. Science and Engineering Ethics 20 (1):261-276.
    As a committee of the National Academy of Engineering recognized, ethics education should foster the ability of students to analyze complex decision situations and ill-structured problems. Building on the NAE’s insights, we report about an innovative teaching approach that has two main features: first, it places the emphasis on deliberation and on self-directed, problem-based learning in small groups of students; and second, it focuses on understanding ill-structured problems. The first innovation is motivated by an abundance of scholarly research (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  48.  13
    Eddo Rigotti & Sara Greco Morasso (2010). Comparing the Argumentum Model of Topics to Other Contemporary Approaches to Argument Schemes: The Procedural and Material Components. Argumentation 24 (4):489-512.
    This paper focuses on the inferential configuration of arguments, generally referred to as argument scheme. After outlining our approach, denominated Argumentum Model of Topics, we compare it to other modern and contemporary approaches, to eventually illustrate some advantages offered by it. In spite of the evident connection with the tradition of topics, emerging also from AMT’s denomination, its involvement in the contemporary dialogue on argument schemes should not be overlooked. The model builds in particular on the theoretical and (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  49.  72
    Seth Shabo (2010). The Fate of the Direct Argument and the Case for Incompatibilism. Philosophical Studies 150 (3):405-424.
    In this paper, I distinguish causal from logical versions of the direct argument for incompatibilism. I argue that, contrary to appearances, causal versions are better equipped to withstand an important recent challenge to the direct-argument strategy. The challenge involves arguing that support for the argument’s pivotal inference principle falls short just when it is needed most, namely when a deterministic series runs through an agent’s unimpaired deliberations. I then argue that, while there are limits to what causal (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  50.  73
    Patrick S. Dieveney (2007). Dispensability in the Indispensability Argument. Synthese 157 (1):105 - 128.
    One of the most influential arguments for realism about mathematical objects is the indispensability argument. Simply put, this is the argument that insofar as we are committed to the existence of the physical objects existentially quantified over in our best scientific theories, we are also committed to the mathematical objects existentially quantified over in these theories. Following the Quine–Putnam formulation of the indispensability argument, some proponents of the indispensability argument have made the mistake (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
1 — 50 / 1000