4 found
Sort by:
  1. Niels Skovgaard Olsen, Logical Omniscience and Acknowledged Vs. Consequential Commitments. Questions, Discourse and Dialogue: 20 Years After Making It Explicit, Proceedings of AISB50.
    The purpose of this paper is to consider the explanatory resources that Robert Brandom‟s distinction between acknowledged and consequential commitments affords in relation to the problem of logical omniscience. With this distinction the importance of the doxastic perspective under consideration for the relationship between logic and norms of reasoning is emphasized, and it becomes possible to handle a number of problematic cases discussed in the literature without thereby incurring a commitment to revisionism about logic. 12.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Niels Skovgaard Olsen (2014). Making Ranking Theory Useful for Psychology of Reasoning. Dissertation, University of Konstanz
    An organizing theme of the dissertation is the issue of how to make philosophical theories useful for scientific purposes. An argument for the contention is presented that it doesn’t suffice merely to theoretically motivate one’s theories, and make them compatible with existing data, but that philosophers having this aim should ideally contribute to identifying unique and hard to vary predictions of their theories. This methodological recommendation is applied to the ranking-theoretic approach to conditionals, which emphasizes the epistemic relevance and the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Niels Skovgaard Olsen (2014). Philosophical Theory-Construction and the Self-Image of Philosophy. Open Journal of Philosophy 4 (3):231-243.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Niels Skovgaard Olsen (2010). Reinterpreting Sellars in the Light of Brandom, McDowell, and A. D. Smith. European Journal of Philosophy 18 (4):510-538.
    Abstract: The intent of this paper is to indicate a development in Sellars' writings which points in another direction than the interpretations offered by Brandom, McDowell, and A. D. Smith. Brandom and McDowell have long claimed to preserve central insights of Sellars's theory of perception; however, they disagree over what exactly these insights are. A. D. Smith has launched a critique of Sellars in chapter 2 of his book The Problem of Perception which is so penetrating that it would tear (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation