152 found
Order:
Disambiguations:
Jonathan E. Adler [88]Jonathan Adler [23]Jacob Adler [18]Joseph A. Adler [5]
J. E. Adler [4]Judith Adler [3]Jonathan Eric Adler [3]J. Adler [2]

Not all matches are shown. Search with initial or firstname to single out others.

See also:
Profile: Joe Adler
  1. J. Adler (2002). Belief's Own Ethics. MIT Press.
    In this book Jonathan Adler offers a strengthened version of evidentialism, arguing that the ethics of belief should be rooted in the concept of belief--that...
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   123 citations  
  2. Eva Feder Kittay, Carol Gilligan, Annette C. Baier, Michael Stocker, Christina H. Sommers, Kathryn Pyne Addelson, Virginia Held, Thomas E. Hill Jr, Seyla Benhabib, George Sher, Marilyn Friedman, Jonathan Adler, Sara Ruddick, Mary Fainsod, David D. Laitin, Lizbeth Hasse & Sandra Harding (1989). Women and Moral Theory. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
    To find more information about Rowman and Littlefield titles, please visit www.rowmanlittlefield.com.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   112 citations  
  3. Jonathan E. Adler (1994). Testimony, Trust, Knowing. Journal of Philosophy 91 (5):264-275.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   26 citations  
  4.  10
    Jonathan E. Adler (1994). More on Race and Crime: Levin's Reply. Journal of Social Philosophy 25 (2):105-114.
  5. Jonathan Adler, Epistemological Problems of Testimony. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  6. Jonathan E. Adler (1997). Lying, Deceiving, or Falsely Implicating. Journal of Philosophy 94 (9):435-452.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   13 citations  
  7.  54
    Jonathan E. Adler (2006). Withdrawal and Contextualism. Analysis 66 (4):280–285.
  8.  48
    Jonathan Adler & Michael Levin (2002). Is the Generality Problem Too General? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65 (1):87-97.
    Reliabilism holds that knowledge is true belief reliably caused. Reliabilists should say something about individuating processes; critics deny that the right degree of generality can be specified without arbitrariness. It is argued that this criticism applies as well to processes mentioned in scientific explanations. The gratuitous puzzles created thereby show that the “generality problem” is illusory.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  9.  97
    Jonathan Eric Adler & Lance J. Rips (eds.) (2008). Reasoning: Studies of Human Inference and its Foundations. Cambridge University Press.
    This interdisciplinary work is a collection of major essays on reasoning: deductive, inductive, abductive, belief revision, defeasible (non-monotonic), cross cultural, conversational, and argumentative. They are each oriented toward contemporary empirical studies. The book focuses on foundational issues, including paradoxes, fallacies, and debates about the nature of rationality, the traditional modes of reasoning, as well as counterfactual and causal reasoning. It also includes chapters on the interface between reasoning and other forms of thought. In general, this last set of essays represents (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  10. Jonathan E. Adler (2009). Another Argument for the Knowledge Norm. Analysis 69 (3):407-411.
    The knowledge norm of assertion is mainly in competition with a high probability or rational credibility norm. The argument for the knowledge norm that I offer turns on cases in which a hearer responds to a speaker's assertion by asserting another sentence that would lower the probability of the speaker's assertion, were its probability less than one. In cases like this, though with qualifications, is the hearer's contribution a challenge to the speaker's assertion or complementary to it? My answer is (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  11. Jonathan E. Adler (1999). The Ethics of Belief: Off the Wrong Track. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 23 (1):267–285.
  12.  19
    Jonathan Adler (2013). Are Conductive Arguments Possible? Argumentation 27 (3):245-257.
    Conductive Arguments are held to be defeasible, non-conclusive, and neither inductive nor deductive (Blair and Johnson in Conductive argument: An overlooked type of defeasible reasoning. College, London, 2011). Of the different kinds of Conductive Arguments, I am concerned only with those for which it is claimed that countervailing considerations detract from the support for the conclusion, complimentary to the positive reasons increasing that support. Here’s an example from Wellman (Challenge and response: justification in ethics. Southern Illinois University Press, Chicago, 1971): (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  13. Jonathan E. Adler (1996). Transmitting Knowledge. Noûs 30 (1):99-111.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  14.  64
    Jonathan E. Adler (2005). Reliabilist Justification (or Knowledge) as a Good Truth-Ratio. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (4):445–458.
    Fair lotteries offer familiar ways to pose a number of epistemological problems, prominently those of closure and of scepticism. Although these problems apply to many epistemological positions, in this paper I develop a variant of a lottery case to raise a difficulty with the reliabilist's fundamental claim that justification or knowledge is to be analyzed as a high truth-ratio (of the relevant belief-forming processes). In developing the difficulty broader issues are joined including fallibility and the relation of reliability to understanding.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  15. Jonathan E. Adler (2002). Akratic Believing? Philosophical Studies 110 (1):1 - 27.
    Davidson's account of weakness of will depends upon a parallel that he draws between practical and theoretical reasoning. I argue that the parallel generates a misleading picture of theoretical reasoning. Once the misleading picture is corrected, I conclude that the attempt to model akratic belief on Davidson's account of akratic action cannot work. The arguments that deny the possibility of akratic belief also undermine, more generally, various attempts to assimilate theoretical to practical reasoning.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  16. Jonathan E. Adler (2012). Pragmatic Encroachment, Methods and Contextualism. Analysis 72 (3):526-534.
    Defence of conditions to withdraw an assertion that require evidence or epistemic reasons that the assertion is not true or warranted. (Adler, J. 2006. Withdrawal and contextualism. Analysis 66: 280–85) The defence replies to the claim that better methods justify withdrawal without meeting that requirement and without pragmatic encroachment.
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17. Jonathan E. Adler (1987). Luckless Desert is Different Desert. Mind 96 (382):247-249.
  18.  49
    Jonathan E. Adler (2012). Contextualism and Fallibility: Pragmatic Encroachment, Possibility, and Strength of Epistemic Position. Synthese 188 (2):247-272.
    A critique of conversational epistemic contextualism focusing initially on why pragmatic encroachment for knowledge is to be avoided. The data for pragmatic encroachment by way of greater costs of error and the complementary means to raise standards of introducing counter-possibilities are argued to be accountable for by prudence, fallibility and pragmatics. This theme is sharpened by a contrast in recommendations: holding a number of factors constant, when allegedly higher standards for knowing hold, invariantists still recommend assertion (action), while contextualists do (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  19. Spinoza, Samuel Shirley, Steven Barbone, Lee Rice & Jacob Adler (1997). The Letters. Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 59 (1):174-175.
    No categories
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  20. Jonathan H. Adler (2009). Taking Property Rights Seriously: The Case of Climate Change. Social Philosophy and Policy 26 (2):296-316.
    The dominant approach to environmental policy endorsed by conservative and libertarian policy thinkers, so-called (FME), is grounded in the recognition and protection of property rights in environmental resources. Despite this normative commitment to property rights, most self-described FME advocates adopt a utilitarian, welfare-maximization approach to climate change policy, arguing that the costs of mitigation measures could outweigh the costs of climate change itself. Yet even if anthropogenic climate change is decidedly less than catastrophic, human-induced climate change is likely to contribute (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  21.  11
    Jonathan Adler (2003). The Revisability Paradox. Philosophical Forum 34 (3-4):383–390.
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  22.  66
    Jonathan E. Adler (2005). William James and What Cannot Be Believed. The Harvard Review of Philosophy 13 (1):65-79.
  23. Jonathan E. Adler & Bradley Armour-Garb (2007). Moore's Paradox and the Transparency of Belief. In Mitchell S. Green & John N. Williams (eds.), Moore's Paradox: New Essays on Belief, Rationality, and the First Person. Oxford University Press
  24.  62
    Jonathan E. Adler (1990). Conservatism and Tacit Confirmation. Mind 99 (396):559-570.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  25.  10
    Jonathan E. Adler (1984). Abstraction is Uncooperative. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 14 (2):165–181.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  26.  6
    Jonathan E. Adler (2004). Shedding Dialectical Tiers: A Social-Epistemic View. [REVIEW] Argumentation 18 (3):279-293.
    Is there a duty to respond to objections in order to present a good argument? Ralph Johnson argues that there is such a duty, which he refers to as the ‘dialectical tier’ of an argument. I deny the (alleged) duty primarily on grounds that it would exert too great a demand on arguers, harming argumentation practices. The valuable aim of responding to objections, which Johnson’s dialectical tier is meant to satisfy, can be achieved in better ways, as argumentation is a (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  27. Jonathan E. Adler (2009). Resisting the Force of Argument. Journal of Philosophy 106 (6):339-364.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28.  8
    Jonathan E. Adler (1996). Charity, Interpretation, Fallacy. Philosophy and Rhetoric 29 (4):329 - 343.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  29.  10
    Jerry Adler & John Carey, Enigmas of Evolution.
    n 1902, 70 million years after it tripped lightly through the Mesozoic forests in search of meat, the skeleton of a 20-foothightyrannosaurus was dynamited out of a sandstone bluff near Hell Creek, Mont. Wrapped in burlap and plaster and shipped back to New York, the bones were painstakingly reassembled by fossil curator Barnum Brown of the American Museum of Natural History. It was there, one day in 1947, that they happened to scare the bejesus out of 5-year-old Stephen Jay Gould. (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  30.  11
    Jonathan E. Adler & J. Anthony Blair (2000). Belief and Negation. Informal Logic 20 (3).
    This paper argues for the importance of the distinction between internal and external negation over expressions for belief. The common fallacy is to confuse statement like (1) and (2): (1) John believes that the school is not closed on Tuesday; (2) John does not believe that the school is closed on Tuesday. The fallacy has ramifications in teaching, reasoning, and argumentation. Analysis of the fallacy and suggestions for teaching are offered.
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  31.  31
    Jonathan E. Adler (2008). Sticks and Stones: A Reply to Warren. Journal of Social Philosophy 39 (4):639-655.
  32.  4
    J. E. Adler (1996). An Overlooked Argument for Epistemic Conservatism. Analysis 56 (2):80-84.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33.  59
    Jonathan E. Adler (1996). An Overlooked Argument for Epistemic Conservatism. Analysis 56 (2):80–84.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  34.  50
    Jonathan E. Adler (1975). Stove on Hume's Inductive Scepticism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 53 (2):167 – 170.
  35.  69
    Jonathan Adler (2007). Argumentation and Distortion. Episteme 4 (3):382-401.
    Why is there so much misrepresentation of arguments in public forums? Standard explanations, such as self-interested biases, are insufficient. An additional part of the explanation is our commitment to, or belief in, norms that disallow responses that amount to no firm judgment, as contrasted with definite agreement or disagreement. In disallowing no-firm-judgment responses, these norms deny not only degrees of support or dissent and a variety of ways of suspending judgment, but also indifference. Since these norms leave us with only (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36.  53
    Jonathan E. Adler (2000). Three Fallacies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):665-666.
    Three fallacies in the rationality debate obscure the possibility for reconciling the opposed camps. I focus on how these fallacies arise in the view that subjects interpret their task differently from the experimenters (owing to the influence of conversational expectations). The themes are: first, critical assessment must start from subjects' understanding; second, a modal fallacy; and third, fallacies of distribution.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  37.  58
    Jonathan E. Adler (1989). Epistemics and the Total Evidence Requirement. Philosophia 19 (2-3):227-243.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  38.  6
    J. E. Adler (2007). Asymmetrical Analogical Arguments. Argumentation 21 (1):83-92.
    Analogies must be symmetric. If a is like b, then b is like a. So if a has property R, and if R is within the scope of the analogy, then b (probably) has R. However, analogical arguments generally single out, or depend upon, only one of a or b to serve as the basis for the inference. In this respect, analogical arguments are directed by an asymmetry. I defend the importance of this neglected – even when explicitly mentioned – (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  39.  22
    Jonathan E. Adler (1993). Crime Rates by Race and Causal Relevance: A Reply to Levin. Journal of Social Philosophy 24 (1):176-184.
  40.  9
    Jonathan E. Adler (2009). Resisting the Force of Argument. Journal of Philosophy 106 (6):339-364.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41.  7
    Jonathan E. Adler (1983). Human Rationality: Essential Conflicts, Multiple Ideals. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6 (2):245.
  42.  37
    Jonathan E. Adler (1981). Skepticism and Universalizability. Journal of Philosophy 78 (3):143-156.
  43.  17
    Jonathan E. Adler (2002). Conundrums of Belief Self-Control. The Monist 85 (3):456-467.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  44.  9
    Jonathan Adler (1990). Reconceptions in Philosophy and Other Arts and Sciences by Nelson Goodman and Catherine Z. Elgin. Journal of Philosophy 87 (12):711-716.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45. J. E. Adler (2008). Philosophical Foundations. In Jonathan Eric Adler & Lance J. Rips (eds.), Reasoning: Studies of Human Inference and its Foundations. Cambridge University Press 1--34.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  46.  16
    Jacob Adler (1990). Murphy and Mercy. Analysis 50 (4):262 - 268.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  9
    Joseph A. Adler (2015). Minford, John, Trans., I Ching : The Book of Change. Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 14 (1):147-152.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  8
    Jonathan E. Adler (1986). Motivated Irrationality by David Pears. Journal of Philosophy 83 (2):119-123.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  12
    Jonathan E. Adler (1993). Reasonableness, Bias, and the Untapped Power of Procedure. Synthese 94 (1):105 - 125.
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  50.  7
    Jonathan E. Adler (1982). Jennifer Trusted, "The Logic of Scientific Inference". [REVIEW] Philosophical Quarterly 32 (28):291.
1 — 50 / 152