Search results for 'Russo-Williamson thesis' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Federica Russo & Jon Williamson (2012). EnviroGenomarkers: The Interplay Between Mechanisms and Difference Making in Establishing Causal Claims. Medicine Studies 3 (4):249-262.score: 29700.0
    According to Russo and Williamson (Int Stud Philos Sci 21(2):157–170, 2007, Hist Philos Life Sci 33:389–396, 2011a, Philos Sci 1(1):47–69, 2011b), in order to establish a causal claim of the form, ‘C is a cause of E’, one typically needs evidence that there is an underlying mechanism between C and E as well as evidence that C makes a difference to E. This thesis has been used to argue that hierarchies of evidence, as championed by evidence-based movements, tend to (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Federica Russo & Jon Williamson (2007). Interpreting Causality in the Health Sciences. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21 (2):157 – 170.score: 2400.0
    We argue that the health sciences make causal claims on the basis of evidence both of physical mechanisms, and of probabilistic dependencies. Consequently, an analysis of causality solely in terms of physical mechanisms or solely in terms of probabilistic relationships, does not do justice to the causal claims of these sciences. Yet there seems to be a single relation of cause in these sciences - pluralism about causality will not do either. Instead, we maintain, the health sciences require a theory (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Phyllis McKay Illari, Federica Russo & Jon Williamson (eds.) (2011). Causality in the Sciences. Oxford University Press.score: 2400.0
    The book tackles these questions as well as others concerning the use of causality in the sciences.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Federica Russo & Jon Williamson (2011). Generic Versus Single-Case Causality: The Case of Autopsy. [REVIEW] European Journal for Philosophy of Science 1 (1):47-69.score: 2400.0
    This paper addresses questions about how the levels of causality (generic and single-case causality) are related. One question is epistemological: can relationships at one level be evidence for relationships at the other level? We present three kinds of answer to this question, categorised according to whether inference is top-down, bottom-up, or the levels are independent. A second question is metaphysical: can relationships at one level be reduced to relationships at the other level? We present three kinds of answer to this (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Lorenzo Casini, Phyllis Mckay Illari, Federica Russo & Jon Williamson (2011). Models for Prediction, Explanation and Control. Theoria 26 (1):5-33.score: 2400.0
    The Recursive Bayesian Net (RBN) formalism was originally developed for modelling nested causal relationships. In this paper we argue that the formalism can also be applied to modelling the hierarchical structure of mechanisms. The resulting network contains quantitative information about probabilities, as well as qualitative information about mechanistic structure and causal relations. Since information about probabilities, mechanisms and causal relations is vital for prediction, explanation and control respectively, an RBN can be applied to all these tasks. We show in particular (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Brendan Clarke, Donald Gillies, Phyllis Illari, Federica Russo & Jon Williamson (2014). Mechanisms and the Evidence Hierarchy. Topoi 33 (2):339-360.score: 2400.0
    Evidence-based medicine (EBM) makes use of explicit procedures for grading evidence for causal claims. Normally, these procedures categorise evidence of correlation produced by statistical trials as better evidence for a causal claim than evidence of mechanisms produced by other methods. We argue, in contrast, that evidence of mechanisms needs to be viewed as complementary to, rather than inferior to, evidence of correlation. In this paper we first set out the case for treating evidence of mechanisms alongside evidence of correlation in (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Federica Russo & Jon Williamson (2007). Interpreting Probability in Causal Models for Cancer. In Federica Russo & Jon Williamson (eds.), Causality and Probability in the Sciences. 217--242.score: 2400.0
    How should probabilities be interpreted in causal models in the social and health sciences? In this paper we take a step towards answering this question by investigating the case of cancer in epidemiology and arguing that the objective Bayesian interpretation is most appropriate in this domain.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Brendan Clarke, Donald Gillies, Phyllis Illari, Frederica Russo & Jon Williamson, The Evidence That Evidence-Based Medicine Omits.score: 2400.0
    According to current hierarchies of evidence for EBM, evidence of correlation (e.g., from RCTs) is always more important than evidence of mechanisms when evaluating and establishing causal claims. We argue that evidence of mechanisms needs to be treated alongside evidence of correlation. This is for three reasons. First, correlation is always a fallible indicator of causation, subject in particular to the problem of confounding; evidence of mechanisms can in some cases be more important than evidence of correlation when assessing a (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Federica Russo & Jon Williamson (2011). Epistemic Causality and Evidence-Based Medicine. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 33 (4).score: 2400.0
    Causal claims in biomedical contexts are ubiquitous albeit they are not always made explicit. This paper addresses the question of what causal claims mean in the context of disease. It is argued that in medical contexts causality ought to be interpreted according to the epistemic theory. The epistemic theory offers an alternative to traditional accounts that cash out causation either in terms of “difference-making” relations or in terms of mechanisms. According to the epistemic approach, causal claims tell us about which (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Phyllis McKay Illari, Federica Russo & Jon Williamson (2011). Why Look at Causality in the Sciences? In Phyllis McKay Illari, Federica Russo & Jon Williamson (eds.), Causality in the Sciences. Oup Oxford.score: 2400.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Phyllis McKay Illari, Federica Russo & Jon Williamson (eds.) (2011). Causality in the Sciences. Oxford University Press.score: 2400.0
    There is a need for integrated thinking about causality, probability and mechanisms in scientific methodology. Causality and probability are long-established central concepts in the sciences, with a corresponding philosophical literature examining their problems. On the other hand, the philosophical literature examining mechanisms is not long-established, and there is no clear idea of how mechanisms relate to causality and probability. But we need some idea if we are to understand causal inference in the sciences: a panoply of disciplines, ranging from epidemiology (...)
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Federica Russo & Jon Williamson (eds.) (2007). Causality and Probability in the Sciences.score: 2400.0
    No categories
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. George Darby & Jon Williamson (2011). Imaging Technology and the Philosophy of Causality. Philosophy and Technology 24 (2):115-136.score: 900.0
    Russo and Williamson (Int Stud Philos Sci 21(2):157–170, 2007) put forward the thesis that, at least in the health sciences, to establish the claim that C is a cause of E, one normally needs evidence of an underlying mechanism linking C and E as well as evidence that C makes a difference to E. This epistemological thesis poses a problem for most current analyses of causality which, in virtue of analysing causality in terms of just one of mechanisms (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Jon Williamson (2011). Imaging Technology and the Philosophy of Causality. Philosophy and Technology 24 (2):115-136.score: 900.0
    Russo and Williamson (Int Stud Philos Sci 21(2):157–170, 2007) put forward the thesis that, at least in the health sciences, to establish the claim that C is a cause of E, one normally needs evidence of an underlying mechanism linking C and E as well as evidence that C makes a difference to E. This epistemological thesis poses a problem for most current analyses of causality which, in virtue of analysing causality in terms of just one of mechanisms (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Phyllis McKay Illari (2011). Mechanistic Evidence: Disambiguating the Russo–Williamson Thesis. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 25 (2):139 - 157.score: 540.0
    Russo and Williamson claim that establishing causal claims requires mechanistic and difference-making evidence. In this article, I will argue that Russo and Williamson's formulation of their thesis is multiply ambiguous. I will make three distinctions: mechanistic evidence as type vs object of evidence; what mechanism or mechanisms we want evidence of; and how much evidence of a mechanism we require. I will feed these more precise meanings back into the Russo?Williamson thesis and argue that it is both true (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Donald Gillies (2011). The Russo-Williamson Thesis and the Question of Whether Smoking Causes Heart Disease. In Phyllis McKay Illari, Federica Russo & Jon Williamson (eds.), Causality in the Sciences. Oxford University Press. 110--125.score: 450.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Claudio Pizzi & Timothy Williamson (1997). Strong Boethius' Thesis and Consequential Implication. Journal of Philosophical Logic 26 (5):569-588.score: 420.0
    The paper studies the relation between systems of modal logic and systems of consequential implication, a non-material form of implication satisfying "Aristotle's Thesis" (p does not imply not p) and "Weak Boethius' Thesis" (if p implies q, then p does not imply not q). Definitions are given of consequential implication in terms of modal operators and of modal operators in terms of consequential implication. The modal equivalent of "Strong Boethius' Thesis" (that p implies q implies that p (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Colwyn Williamson (1969). Watkins and the Taylor-Warrender Thesis. Mind 78 (312):600-606.score: 360.0
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Phyllis Illari & Federica Russo (forthcoming). Information Channels and Biomarkers of Disease. Topoi:1-16.score: 300.0
    Current research in molecular epidemiology uses biomarkers to model the different disease phases from environmental exposure, to early clinical changes, to development of disease. The hope is to get a better understanding of the causal impact of a number of pollutants and chemicals on several diseases, including cancer and allergies. In a recent paper Russo and Williamson (Med Stud, 2012) address the question of what evidential elements enter the conceptualisation and modelling stages of this type of biomarkers research. Recent research (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Brendan Clarke (2011). Causality in Medicine with Particular Reference to the Viral Causation of Cancers. Dissertation, University College Londonscore: 270.0
    In this thesis, I give a metascientific account of causality in medicine. I begin with two historical cases of causal discovery. These are the discovery of the causation of Burkitt’s lymphoma by the Epstein-Barr virus, and of the various viral causes suggested for cervical cancer. These historical cases then support a philosophical discussion of causality in medicine. This begins with an introduction to the Russo- Williamson thesis (RWT), and discussion of a range of counter-arguments against it. Despite these, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Patrick Greenough, Duncan Pritchard & Timothy Williamson (eds.) (2009). Williamson on Knowledge. Oxford University Press.score: 210.0
    16 leading philosophers offer critical assessments of Timothy Williamson's ground-breaking work on knowledge and its impact on philosophy today.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Stefan Dragulinescu (2012). On 'Stabilising' Medical Mechanisms, Truth-Makers and Epistemic Causality: A Critique to Williamson and Russo's Approach. Synthese 187 (2):785-800.score: 192.0
    In this paper I offer an anti-Humean critique to Williamson and Russo’s approach to medical mechanisms. I focus on one of the specific claims made by Williamson and Russo, namely the claim that micro-structural ‘mechanisms’ provide evidence for the stability across populations of causal relationships ascertained at the (macro-) level of (test) populations. This claim is grounded in the epistemic account of causality developed by Williamson, an account which—while not relying exclusively on mechanistic evidence for justifying causal judgements—appeals nevertheless to (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Timothy Williamson (2009). The Philosophy of Philosophy • by Timothy Williamson • Blackwell, 2007. X + 332 Pp. £ 15.99 Paper: Summary. [REVIEW] Analysis 69 (1):99-100.score: 180.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Timothy Williamson, B. O. Chen & Koji Nakatogawa (2009). Thinking Deeply, Contributing Originally: An Interview with Timothy Williamson (Special Contribution). Annals of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science 18:57-87.score: 180.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Timothy Williamson (2011). Williamson's Philosophy of Philosophy Reply. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82 (2):534-542.score: 180.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. J. H. Quincey & C. F. Russo (1953). Hesiodi Scutum. Introduzione, testo critico e commento con traduzione e indici a cura di C. F. Russo. Journal of Hellenic Studies 73:149.score: 180.0
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Timothy Williamson (2011). Williamson on the A Priori and the Analytic Reply. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82 (2):498-506.score: 180.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. François Claveau (2012). The Russo–Williamson Theses in the Social Sciences: Causal Inference Drawing on Two Types of Evidence. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 43 (4):806-813.score: 140.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Jordan Bartol (2013). Causality in the Sciences. Edited by Russo, Williamson and Illari. Oxford University Press, 2011, Pp. 952, £95. ISBN: 978-0-19-957413-1. [REVIEW] Philosophy 88 (3):487-493.score: 140.0
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Stamatios Gerogiorgakis (2013). [Review of] Jon Williamson/Federica Russo (Eds.), Key Terms in Logic, London: Continuum, 2010. [REVIEW] Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 16:384-386.score: 120.0
  31. Raffaella Campaner (2011). Understanding Mechanisms in the Health Sciences. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32 (1):5-17.score: 81.0
    This article focuses on the assessment of mechanistic relations with specific attention to medicine, where mechanistic models are widely employed. I first survey recent contributions in the philosophical literature on mechanistic causation, and then take issue with Federica Russo and Jon Williamson’s thesis that two types of evidence, probabilistic and mechanistic, are at stake in the health sciences. I argue instead that a distinction should be drawn between previously acquired knowledge of mechanisms and yet-to-be-discovered knowledge of mechanisms and that (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen (2005). Williamson on Knowledge, Action, and Causation. SATS: Northern European Journal of Philosophy 6 (1):15-28.score: 54.0
    In his Knowledge and its Limits (2000) Timothy Williamson argues that knowledge can be causally efficacious and as such figure in psychological explanation. His argument for this claim figures as a response to a key objection to his overall thesis that knowing is a mental state. In this paper I argue that although Williamson succeeds in establishing that knowledge in some cases is essential to the power of certain causal explanations of actions, he fails to do this in a (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. John Turri (2010). Does Perceiving Entail Knowing? Theoria 76 (3):197-206.score: 48.0
    This article accomplishes two closely connected things. First, it refutes an influential view about the relationship between perception and knowledge. In particular, it demonstrates that perceiving does not entail knowing. Second, it leverages that refutation to demonstrate that knowledge is not the most general factive propositional attitude.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Arthur Sullivan (forthcoming). What Do Deviant Logians Show About the Epistemology of Logic? Acta Analytica:1-13.score: 36.0
    What I will call “the deviant logician objection” [DLO] is one line of attack against the common and compelling tenet that our justification for logical truths is grounded in our understanding of their constituent concepts. This objection seeks to undermine the possibility of any deep constitutive connection, in the epistemology of logic (and also beyond), between understanding and justification. I will consider varieties of the deviant logician objection developed by Horwich (2000, 2006) and by Williamson (2006, 2008). My thesis (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Helge Rückert (2004). A SOLUTION TO FITCH'S PARADOX OF KNOWABILITY. In S. Rahman J. Symons (ed.), Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science. Kluwer Academic Publisher. 351--380.score: 36.0
    There is an argument (first presented by Fitch), which tries to show by formal means that the anti-realistic thesis that every truth might possibly be known, is equivalent to the unacceptable thesis that every truth is actually known (at some time in the past, present or future). First, the argument is presented and some proposals for the solution of Fitch's Paradox are briefly discussed. Then, by using Wehmeier's modal logic with subjunctive marks (S5*), it is shown how the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. J. Adam Carter & Duncan Pritchard (2013). Knowledge‐How and Epistemic Luck. Noûs 47 (4).score: 24.0
    Reductive intellectualists (e.g., Stanley & Williamson ; Stanley ; ; Brogaard ; ; ) hold that knowledge-how is a kind of knowledge-that. For this thesis to hold water, it is obviously important that knowledge-how and knowledge-that have the same epistemic properties. In particular, knowledge-how ought to be compatible with epistemic luck to the same extent as knowledge-that. It is argued, contra reductive intellectualism, that knowledge-how is compatible with a species of epistemic luck which is not compatible with knowledge-that, and (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Aaron Rizzieri (2009). Evidence Does Not Equal Knowledge. Philosophical Studies 153 (2):235-242.score: 24.0
    Timothy Williamson has argued that a person S ’s total evidence is constituted solely by propositions that S knows. This theory of evidence entails that a false belief can not be a part of S ’s evidence base for a conclusion. I argue by counterexample that this thesis (E = K for now) forces an implausible separation between what it means for a belief to be justified and rational from one’s perspective and what it means to base one’s beliefs (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. John Hawthorne (2005). Knowledge and Evidence. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70 (2):452–458.score: 24.0
    Most of us, tacitly or explicitly, embrace a more or less Cartesian conception of our epistemic condition. According to such a conception, "what we have to go on" in learning about the world is, on the one hand, that which is a priori accessible to us, and, on the other, the inner experiences - visual imagery, tactile sensations, recollective episodes and so on - that pop into our Carte- sian theaters. One of the central themes of Knowledge and its Limits (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Aaron Smuts (2009). Film as Philosophy: In Defense of a Bold Thesis. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 67 (3):409-420.score: 24.0
    I argue for a position close to what Paisley Livingston calls the bold thesis of cinema as philosophy. The bold thesis I defend is that films can make innovative, independent philosophical contributions by paradigmatic cinematic means. I clarify the thesis before presenting what Livingston thinks is a fatal problem for any similar position—the problem of paraphrase. As an example in defense of the bold thesis, I offer the "For God and Country" sequence in Sergei Eisenstein’s October (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Darrell P. Rowbottom (2010). Corroboration and Auxiliary Hypotheses: Duhem's Thesis Revisited. Synthese 177 (1):139-149.score: 24.0
    This paper argues that Duhem’s thesis does not decisively refute a corroboration-based account of scientific methodology (or ‘falsificationism’), but instead that auxiliary hypotheses are themselves subject to measurements of corroboration which can be used to inform practice. It argues that a corroboration-based account is equal to the popular Bayesian alternative, which has received much more recent attention, in this respect.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Carol E. Cleland (1993). Is the Church-Turing Thesis True? Minds and Machines 3 (3):283-312.score: 24.0
    The Church-Turing thesis makes a bold claim about the theoretical limits to computation. It is based upon independent analyses of the general notion of an effective procedure proposed by Alan Turing and Alonzo Church in the 1930''s. As originally construed, the thesis applied only to the number theoretic functions; it amounted to the claim that there were no number theoretic functions which couldn''t be computed by a Turing machine but could be computed by means of some other kind (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Michael Rescorla (2007). Church's Thesis and the Conceptual Analysis of Computability. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 48 (2):253-280.score: 24.0
    Church's thesis asserts that a number-theoretic function is intuitively computable if and only if it is recursive. A related thesis asserts that Turing's work yields a conceptual analysis of the intuitive notion of numerical computability. I endorse Church's thesis, but I argue against the related thesis. I argue that purported conceptual analyses based upon Turing's work involve a subtle but persistent circularity. Turing machines manipulate syntactic entities. To specify which number-theoretic function a Turing machine computes, we (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Mark Schroeder, Knowledge is Belief for Sufficient (Objective and Subjective) Reason.score: 24.0
    This paper defends a simple thesis: that knowledge is belief for reasons that are both objectively and subjectively sufficient. I take a dogmatic approach, devoting the bulk of the paper to an explanation of what this means, and of why it explains both what knowledge is like, and why it is important; the theory is justified by its fruits. I go on to illustrate, by appeal to my main thesis, how knowledge comes to play some of the key (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. E. J. Lowe (2012). What is the Source of Our Knowledge of Modal Truths? Mind 121 (484):919-950.score: 24.0
    There is currently intense interest in the question of the source of our presumed knowledge of truths concerning what is, or is not, metaphysically possible or necessary. Some philosophers locate this source in our capacities to conceive or imagine various actual or non-actual states of affairs, but this approach is open to certain familiar and seemingly powerful objections. A different and ostensibly more promising approach has been developed by Timothy Williamson, according to which our capacity for modal knowledge is just (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Chris Ranalli (2014). Luck, Propositional Perception, and the Entailment Thesis. Synthese 191 (6):1223-1247.score: 24.0
    Looking out the window, I see that it's raining outside. Do I know that it’s raining outside? According to proponents of the Entailment Thesis, I do. If I see that p, I know that p. In general, the Entailment Thesis is the thesis that if S perceives that p, S knows that p. But recently, some philosophers (McDowell 2002; Turri 2010; Pritchard 2011, 2012) have argued that the Entailment Thesis is false. On their view, we can (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra (2006). Truthmaking, Entailment, and the Conjunction Thesis. Mind 115 (460):957-982.score: 24.0
    In this paper I undermine the Entailment Principle according to which if an entity is a truthmaker for a certain proposition and this proposition entails another, then the entity in question is a truthmaker for the latter proposition. I argue that the two most promising versions of the principle entail the popular but false Conjunction Thesis, namely that a truthmaker for a conjunction is a truthmaker for its conjuncts. One promising version of the principle understands entailment as strict implication (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Nachum Dershowitz & Yuri Gurevich (2008). A Natural Axiomatization of Computability and Proof of Church's Thesis. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 14 (3):299-350.score: 24.0
    Church's Thesis asserts that the only numeric functions that can be calculated by effective means are the recursive ones, which are the same, extensionally, as the Turing-computable numeric functions. The Abstract State Machine Theorem states that every classical algorithm is behaviorally equivalent to an abstract state machine. This theorem presupposes three natural postulates about algorithmic computation. Here, we show that augmenting those postulates with an additional requirement regarding basic operations gives a natural axiomatization of computability and a proof of (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Eric Dietrich & Chris Fields (1996). Role of the Frame Problem in Fodor's Modularity Thesis. In Ken Ford & Zenon Pylyshyn (eds.), The Robot's Dilemma Revisited.score: 24.0
    It is shown that the Fodor's interpretation of the frame problem is the central indication that his version of the Modularity Thesis is incompatible with computationalism. Since computationalism is far more plausible than this thesis, the latter should be rejected.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Alan Hájek (2012). The Fall of “Adams' Thesis”? Journal of Logic, Language and Information 21 (2):145-161.score: 24.0
    The so-called ‘Adams’ Thesis’ is often understood as the claim that the assertibility of an indicative conditional equals the corresponding conditional probability—schematically: $${({\rm AT})}\qquad\qquad\quad As(A\rightarrow B)=P({B|A}),{\rm provided}\quad P(A)\neq 0.$$ The Thesis is taken by many to be a touchstone of any theorizing about indicative conditionals. Yet it is unclear exactly what the Thesis is . I suggest some precise statements of it. I then rebut a number of arguments that have been given in its favor. Finally, I (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Anna Mahtani (2008). Williamson on Inexact Knowledge. Philosophical Studies 139 (2):171 - 180.score: 24.0
    Timothy Williamson claims that margin for error principles govern all cases of inexact knowledge. I show that this claim is unfounded: there are cases of inexact knowledge where Williamson’s argument for margin for error principles does not go through. The problematic cases are those where the value of the relevant parameter is fixed across close cases. I explore and reject two responses to my objection, before concluding that Williamson’s account of inexact knowledge is not compelling.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000