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

956 found
Order:
  1. Matthew Kopec & Michael G. Titelbaum (2016). The Uniqueness Thesis. Philosophy Compass 11 (4):189-200.
    The Uniqueness Thesis holds, roughly speaking, that there is a unique rational response to any particular body of evidence. We first sketch some varieties of Uniqueness that appear in the literature. We then discuss some popular views that conflict with Uniqueness and others that require Uniqueness to be true. We then examine some arguments that have been presented in its favor and discuss why permissivists find them unconvincing. Last, we present some purported counterexamples that have been (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  32
    Thomas Raleigh (forthcoming). Another Argument Against Uniqueness. Philosophical Quarterly.
    I present an argument against the thesis of Uniqueness and in favour of Permissivism. Counterexamples to Uniqueness are provided, based on ‘Safespot’ propositions – i.e. a proposition that is guaranteed to be true provided the subject adopts a certain attitude towards it. The argument relies on a plausible principle: (roughly stated) If S knows that her believing p would be a true belief, then it is rationally permitted for S to believe p. One motivation for denying this principle (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  70
    Matthew Kopec (2015). A Counterexample to the Uniqueness Thesis. Philosophia 43 (2):403-409.
    In this essay, I present a straightforward counterexample to the Uniqueness Thesis, which holds, roughly speaking, that there is a unique rational response to any particular body of evidence.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  4.  49
    Alberto Naibo & Mattia Petrolo (2015). Are Uniqueness and Deducibility of Identicals the Same? Theoria 81 (2):143-181.
    A comparison is given between two conditions used to define logical constants: Belnap's uniqueness and Hacking's deducibility of identicals. It is shown that, in spite of some surface similarities, there is a deep difference between them. On the one hand, deducibility of identicals turns out to be a weaker and less demanding condition than uniqueness. On the other hand, deducibility of identicals is shown to be more faithful to the inferentialist perspective, permitting definition of genuinely proof-theoretical concepts. This (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  5. Matthew Brandon Lee (2013). Conciliationism Without Uniqueness. Grazer Philosophische Studien 88:161-188.
    I defend Conciliationism: rationality requires belief revision of epistemic peers who find themselves in disagreement and lack dispute-independent reason to suspect each other of error. (Kelly 2010) argues that Conciliationists are committed to the Uniqueness Thesis: a given body of evidence rationalizes a unique degree of confidence for a given proposition. (Ballantyne & Coffman 2012) cogently critique Kelly's argument and propose an improved version. I contend that their version of the argument is unsound, and I offer some friendly amendments. (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  6. Luis Rosa (2012). Justification and the Uniqueness Thesis. Logos and Episteme (4):571-577.
    In this paper, I offer two counterexamples to the so-called ‘Uniqueness Thesis.’ As one of these examples rely on the thesis that it is possible for a justified belief to be based on an inconsistent body of evidence, I also offer reasons for this further thesis. On the assumption that doxastic justification entails propositional justification, the counterexamples seem to work.
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  7. Jonathan Matheson (2011). The Case for Rational Uniqueness. Logic and Episteme 2 (3):359-373.
    The Uniqueness Thesis, or rational uniqueness, claims that a body of evidence severely constrains one’s doxastic options. In particular, it claims that for any body of evidence E and proposition P, E justifies at most one doxastic attitude toward P. In this paper I defend this formulation of the uniqueness thesis and examine the case for its truth. I begin by clarifying my formulation of the Uniqueness Thesis and examining its close relationship to evidentialism. I proceed (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  8. Nancy R. Howell (2008). Uniqueness in Context. Zygon 43 (2):493-503.
    Wentzel van Huyssteen's Gifford Lectures, published as Alone in the World? Human Uniqueness in Science and Theology, accomplish critical and constructive thinking about interdisciplinary reflection on science and religion and about the meaning of human uniqueness. One approach to discussion of van Huyssteen's text entails consideration of three issues: the contextual character of research on humans and animals, the difficult problem of defining uniqueness, and the important consequences of exploring human uniqueness. Evolutionary biology and primatology contribute (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  9.  25
    Jaemin Jung (2016). Conservatism and Uniqueness. Philosophical Studies 173 (8):2233-2248.
    Credal Conservatism says that an agent’s credal states should be conserved as far as possible when she undergoes a learning experience. Uniqueness says that for any given total evidence, there is a unique credal state that any agent with that total evidence should have. Epistemic Impartiality is the idea that there are no significant differences between intrapersonal and interpersonal rationality requirements when determining what credal states one ought to have for purposes of epistemic evaluation. I construe Epistemic Impartiality as (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  94
    Luis J. Boya (2006). The Uniqueness of the World. Foundations of Physics 36 (3):385-395.
    We follow some wild speculations in trying to understand the uniqueness of our physical world, from the field concept to F-Theory.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  28
    Barbara Abbott (2003). A Reply to Szabó's “Descriptions and Uniqueness”. Philosophical Studies 113 (3):223 - 231.
    Szabó follows Heim in viewing familiarity, rather than uniqueness, as the essence of the definite article, but attempts to derive both familiarity and uniqueness implications pragmatically, assigning a single semantic interpretation to both the definite and indefinite articles. I argue that if there is no semantic distinction between the articles, then there is no way to derive these differences between them pragmatically.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  12.  38
    Natika Newton (2001). Emergence and the Uniqueness of Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies 8 (9-10):47-59.
    This paper argues that phenomenal consciousness arises from the forced blending of components that are incompatible, or even logically contradictory, when combined by direct methods available to the subject; and that it is, as a result, analytically, ostensively and comparatively indefinable. First, I examine a variety of cases in which unpredictable novelties arise from the forced merging of contradictory elements, or at least elements that are unable in human experience to co-occur. The point is to show that the uniqueness (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  13.  47
    Evangelos D. Protopapadakis (20014). Clones, Prototypes and the Right to Uniqueness. Agrafa 1 (2):40-47.
    Human cloning until recently has been considered to belong to the domain of science fiction; now it is a tangible possibility, a hopeful as well as a fearsome one. One of the fears that necessarily come along with it is about the peril cloning might represent for human uniqueness, since the clones are expected to be identical to their prototypes; this would unavoidably compromise moral agents’ right to a unique identity. In this paper I will put under examination the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  49
    Chuansheng He (2013). E-Type Interpretation Without E-Type Pronoun: How Peirce's Graphs Capture the Uniqueness Implication of Donkey Pronouns in Discourse Anaphora. Synthese 192 (4):1-20.
    In this essay, we propose that Peirce’s Existential Graphs can derive the desired uniqueness implication (or in a weaker claim, the definite description readings) of donkey pronouns in conjunctive discourse (A man walks in the park. He whistles), without postulating a separate category of E-type pronouns.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15.  3
    Mary Trachsel (2010). Human Uniqueness in the Age of Ape Language Research. Society and Animals 18 (4):397-412.
    This paper summarizes the debate on human uniqueness launched by Charles Darwin’s publication of The Origin of Species in 1859. In the progress of this debate, Noam Chomsky’s introduction of the Language-Acquisition Device in the mid-1960s marked a turn to the machine model of mind that seeks human uniqueness in uniquely human components of neural circuitry. A subsequent divergence from the machine model can be traced in the short history of ape language research . In the past fifty (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  16.  6
    Mikael Lindfelt (2016). Meaning of Life in Fragile Witnessing: On Experiencing Radical Uniqueness as Gift and Grace. Foundations of Science 21 (2):305-309.
    In this comment-response Mikael Lindfelt makes some suggestions to how one could develop the argument for witnessing as experiencing meaningfulness in life as put forward by Nicole Note and Emilie Van Deale. While being positive to the main phenomenological approach, and especially the dialectical relational aspect of the phenomenological argument, Lindfelt uses Alain Badiou’s talk of Event in trying both to develop the phenomenological argument and to point out some idealistic tendencies in the line of the argument. Lindfelt suggests that (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  34
    Herman T. Tavani (2002). The Uniqueness Debate in Computer Ethics: What Exactly is at Issue, and Why Does It Matter? [REVIEW] Ethics and Information Technology 4 (1):37-54.
    The purpose of this essay is to determinewhat exactly is meant by the claimcomputer ethics is unique, a position thatwill henceforth be referred to as the CEIUthesis. A brief sketch of the CEIU debate is provided,and an empirical case involving a recentincident of cyberstalking is briefly consideredin order to illustrate some controversialpoints of contention in that debate. To gain aclearer understanding of what exactly isasserted in the various claims about theuniqueness of computer ethics, and to avoidmany of the confusions currently (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  18. Daniel Greco & Brian Hedden (forthcoming). Uniqueness and Metaepistemology. Journal of Philosophy.
    We defend Uniqueness, the claim that given a body of total evidence, there is a uniquely rational doxastic state that it is rational for one to be in. Epistemic rationality doesn't give you any leeway in what beliefs to form in response to your evidence. We argue for Uniqueness by appealing to two metaepistemological pictures about the roles played by rational evaluations. First, rational evaluative terms serve to guide our practices of deference to the opinions of others. Second, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  19.  15
    Luis Rosa (2016). Justification and the Uniqueness Thesis Again - A Reply to Anantharaman. Logos and Episteme 7 (1):95-100.
    I reinforce my defense of permissivism about the rationality of doxastic attitudes on the face of a certain body of evidence against criticism published in this journal by Anantharaman. After making some conceptual clarifications, I manage to show that at least one of my original arguments pro-permissivism is left unscathed by Anantharaman's points.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  50
    J. Wentzel van Huyssteen (2006). Emergence and Human Uniqueness: Limiting or Delimiting Evolutionary Explanation? Zygon 41 (3):649-664.
  21.  29
    Takahito Aoto (1999). Uniqueness of Normal Proofs in Implicational Intuitionistic Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 8 (2):217-242.
    A minimal theorem in a logic L is an L-theorem which is not a non-trivial substitution instance of another L-theorem. Komori (1987) raised the question whether every minimal implicational theorem in intuitionistic logic has a unique normal proof in the natural deduction system NJ. The answer has been known to be partially positive and generally negative. It is shown here that a minimal implicational theorem A in intuitionistic logic has a unique -normal proof in NJ whenever A is provable without (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  22.  33
    Gary J. Purpura Jr (2006). In Search of Human Uniqueness. Philosophical Psychology 19 (4):443 – 461.
    Typically in the philosophical literature, kinds of minds are differentiated by the range of cognitive tasks animals accomplish as opposed to the means by which they accomplish the tasks. Drawing on progress in cognitive ethology (the study of animal cognition), I argue that such an approach provides bad directions for uncovering the mark of the human mind. If the goal is to determine what makes the human mind unique, philosophers should focus on the means by which animals interact with objects (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23.  24
    G. J. Purpura (2006). In Search of Human Uniqueness. Philosophical Psychology 19 (4):443-461.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  9
    Anne J. Davis (2001). Labelled Encounters and Experiences: Ways of Seeing, Thinking About and Responding to Uniqueness. Nursing Philosophy 2 (2):101-111.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. Nathan Ballantyne & E. J. Coffman (2012). Conciliationism and Uniqueness. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (4):657-670.
    Two theses are central to recent work on the epistemology of disagreement: Conciliationism:?In a revealed peer disagreement over P, each thinker should give at least some weight to her peer's attitude. Uniqueness:?For any given proposition and total body of evidence, the evidence fully justifies exactly one level of confidence in the proposition. 1This paper is the product of full and equal collaboration between its authors. Does Conciliationism commit one to Uniqueness? Thomas Kelly 2010 has argued that it does. (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  26. David Christensen (2016). Conciliation, Uniqueness and Rational Toxicity1. Noûs 50 (3):584-603.
    Conciliationism holds that disagreement of apparent epistemic peers often substantially undermines rational confidence in our opinions. Uniqueness principles say that there is at most one maximally rational doxastic response to any given batch of total evidence. The two views are often thought to be tightly connected. This paper distinguishes two ways of motivating conciliationism, and two ways that conciliationism may be undermined by permissive accounts of rationality. It shows how conciliationism can flourish under certain strongly permissive accounts of rationality. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  27. Nathan Ballantyne & E. J. Coffman (2011). Uniqueness, Evidence, and Rationality. Philosophers' Imprint 11 (18).
    Two theses figure centrally in work on the epistemology of disagreement: Equal Weight (‘EW’) and Uniqueness (‘U’). According to EW, you should give precisely as much weight to the attitude of a disagreeing epistemic peer as you give to your own attitude. U has it that, for any given proposition and total body of evidence, some doxastic attitude is the one the evidence makes rational (justifies) toward that proposition. Although EW has received considerable discussion, the case for U has (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  28.  65
    Joshua M. Moritz (2012). Human Uniqueness, the Other Hominids, and “Anthropocentrism of the Gaps” in the Religion and Science Dialogue. Zygon 47 (1):65-96.
    Abstract. The concept of human uniqueness has long played a central role within key interpretations of the hominid fossil record and within numerous theological understandings of the imago Dei. More recently, the status of humans as evolutionarily unique has come under strong criticism owing to the discovery of certain nonhuman hominids who, as language and culture-bearing beings, lived as contemporaries with early anatomically modern humans. Nevertheless, many scholars, including those in the field of religion and science, continue to interpret (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  29.  7
    Sinan Dogramaci & Sophie Horowitz (2016). An Argument for Uniqueness About Evidential Support. Philosophical Issues 26 (1):130-147.
    White, Christensen, and Feldman have recently endorsed uniqueness, the thesis that given the same total evidence, two rational subjects cannot hold different views. Kelly, Schoenfield, and Meacham argue that White and others have at best only supported the weaker, merely intrapersonal view that, given the total evidence, there are no two views which a single rational agent could take. Here, we give a new argument for uniqueness, an argument with deliberate focus on the interpersonal element of the thesis. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30.  99
    J. Adam Carter (forthcoming). Assertion, Uniqueness and Epistemic Hypocrisy. Synthese:1-14.
    Pascal Engel (2008) has insisted that a number of notable strategies for rejecting the knowledge norm of assertion are put forward on the basis of the wrong kinds of reasons. A central aim of this paper will be to establish the contrast point: I argue that one very familiar strategy for defending the knowledge norm of assertion—viz., that it is claimed to do better in various respects than its competitors (e.g. the justification and the truth norms)— relies on a presupposition (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31.  55
    Mark Balaguer (1998). Non-Uniqueness as a Non-Problem. Philosophia Mathematica 6 (1):63-84.
    A response is given here to Benacerraf's (1965) non-uniqueness (or multiple-reductions) objection to mathematical platonism. It is argued that non-uniqueness is simply not a problem for platonism; more specifically, it is argued that platonists can simply embrace non-uniqueness—i.e., that one can endorse the thesis that our mathematical theories truly describe collections of abstract mathematical objects while rejecting the thesis that such theories truly describe unique collections of such objects. I also argue that part of the motivation for (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   16 citations  
  32.  13
    David Christensen (2016). Conciliation, Uniqueness and Rational Toxicity1. Noûs 50 (3):584-603.
    Conciliationism holds that disagreement of apparent epistemic peers often substantially undermines rational confidence in our opinions. Uniqueness principles say that there is at most one maximally rational doxastic response to any given batch of total evidence. The two views are often thought to be tightly connected. This paper distinguishes two ways of motivating conciliationism, and two ways that conciliationism may be undermined by permissive accounts of rationality. It shows how conciliationism can flourish under certain strongly permissive accounts of rationality. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33.  61
    J. Bub & R. Clifton (1996). A Uniqueness Theorem for 'No Collapse' Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 27 (2):181-219.
    We prove a uniqueness theorem showing that, subject to certain natural constraints, all 'no collapse' interpretations of quantum mechanics can be uniquely characterized and reduced to the choice of a particular preferred observable as determine (definite, sharp). We show how certain versions of the modal interpretation, Bohm's 'causal' interpretation, Bohr's complementarity interpretation, and the orthodox (Dirac-von Neumann) interpretation without the projection postulate can be recovered from the theorem. Bohr's complementarity and Einstein's realism appear as two quite different proposals for (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  34.  14
    Aristidis Arageorgis, John Earman & Laura Ruetsche (2003). Fulling Non‐Uniqueness and the Unruh Effect: A Primer on Some Aspects of Quantum Field Theory. Philosophy of Science 70 (1):164-202.
    We discuss the intertwined topics of Fulling non‐uniqueness and the Unruh effect. The Fulling quantization, which is in some sense the natural one for an observer uniformly accelerated through Minkowski spacetime to adopt, is often heralded as a quantization of the Klein‐Gordon field which is both physically relevant and unitarily inequivalent to the standard Minkowski quantization. We argue that the Fulling and Minkowski quantizations do not constitute a satisfactory example of physically relevant, unitarily inequivalent quantizations, and indicate what it (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  35. Tim O'Keefe & Harald Thorsrud (2003). Aristotle's 'Cosmic Nose' Argument for the Uniqueness of the World. Apeiron 36 (4):311 - 326.
    David Furley's work on the cosmologies of classical antiquity is structured around what he calls "two pictures of the world." The first picture, defended by both Plato and Aristotle, portrays the universe, or all that there is (to pan), as identical with our particular ordered world-system. Thus, the adherents of this view claim that the universe is finite and unique. The second system, defended by Leucippus and Democritus, portrays an infinite universe within which our particular kosmos is only one of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36.  27
    Zoltán Gendler Szabó (2005). The Loss of Uniqueness. Mind 114 (456):1185 - 1222.
    Philosophers and linguists alike tend to call a semantic theory ‘Russellian’ just in case it assigns to sentences in which definite descriptions occur the truth-conditions Russell did in ‘On Denoting’. This is unfortunate; not all aspects of those particular truth-conditions do explanatory work in Russell's writings. As far as the semantics of descriptions is concerned, the key insights of ‘On Denoting’ are that definite descriptions are not uniformly referring expressions, and that they are scope-bearing elements. Anyone who accepts these two (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  37.  61
    Aristidis Arageorgis, John Earman & and Laura Ruetsche (2003). Fulling Non‐Uniqueness and the Unruh Effect. Philosophy of Science 70 (1):164-202.
    We discuss the intertwined topics of Fulling non-uniqueness and the Unruh effect. The Fulling quantization, which is in some sense the natural one for an observer uniformly accelerated through Minkowski spacetime to adopt, is often heralded as a quantization of the Klein-Gordon field which is both physically relevant and unitarily inequivalent to the standard Minkowski quantization. We argue that the Fulling and Minkowski quantizations do not constitute a satisfactory example of physically relevant, unitarily inequivalent quantizations, and indicate what it (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  38.  98
    Javier Kalhat (2008). Structural Universals and the Principle of Uniqueness of Composition. Grazer Philosophische Studien 76 (1):57-77.
    Lewis has objected to Armstrong's notion of a structural universal on the grounds that it violates the Principle of Uniqueness of Composition (PUC), which says that given some parts, there is only one whole that they compose. This paper reviews Armstrong's case for structural universals, and then attempts to reconcile structural universals with PUC by arguing for the existence of arrangement universals. The latter are not only a key to defending structural universals against Lewis' objection, but are in fact (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  39.  4
    Ulrich Kohlenbach (1993). Effective Moduli From Ineffective Uniqueness Proofs. An Unwinding of de La Vallée Poussin's Proof for Chebycheff Approximation. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 64 (1):27-94.
    Kohlenbach, U., Effective moduli from ineffective uniqueness proofs. An unwinding of de La Vallée Poussin's proof for Chebycheff approximation, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 64 27–94.We consider uniqueness theorems in classical analysis having the form u ε U, v1, v2 ε Vu = 0 = G→v 1 = v2), where U, V are complete separable metric spaces, Vu is compact in V and G:U x V → is a constructive function.If is proved by arithmetical means from analytical (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  40.  58
    Peter Carruthers (2008). On Fodor-Fixation, Flexibility, and Human Uniqueness: A Reply to Cowie, Machery, and Wilson. Mind and Language 23 (3):293–303.
    This paper argues that two of my critics (Cowie and Wilson) have become fixated on Fodor’s notion of modularity, both to their own detriment and to the detriment of their understanding of Carruthers, 2006. The paper then focuses on the supposed inadequacies of the latter’s explanations of both content flexibility and human uniqueness, alleged by Machery and Cowie respectively.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  41.  46
    Gregory R. Peterson (2008). Uniqueness, the Image of God, and the Problem of Method: Engaging Van Huyssteen. Zygon 43 (2):467-474.
    Wentzel van Huyssteen's book Alone in the World? provides a thoughtful and nuanced account of human evolution from a theological perspective. Not only does his work provide what is perhaps the only sustained theological reflection specifically on human evolution, but his working through of many of the issues, particularly on the image of God literature in theology, has few parallels. Despite this, I focus on what I consider to be several weaknesses of the text, including areas of theological method, theological (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  42.  45
    J. Wentzel van Huyssteen (2008). Primates, Hominids, and Humans—From Species Specificity to Human Uniqueness? A Response to Barbara J. King, Gregory R. Peterson, Wesley J. Wildman, and Nancy R. Howell. [REVIEW] Zygon 43 (2):505-525.
    In this response to essays by Barbara J. King, Gregory R. Peterson, Wesley J. Wildman, and Nancy R. Howell, I present arguments to counter some of the exciting and challenging questions from my colleagues. I take the opportunity to restate my argument for an interdisciplinary public theology, and by further developing the notion of transversality I argue for the specificity of the emerging theological dialogue with paleoanthropology and primatology. By arguing for a hermeneutics of the body, I respond to criticism (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  43. Wesley J. Wildman (2008). Hand in Glove: Evaluating the Fit Between Method and Theology in Van Huyssteen's Interpretation of Human Uniqueness. Zygon 43 (2):475-491.
    Wentzel van Huyssteen's Alone in the World? (2006) presents an interpretation of human uniqueness in the form of a dialogue between classical Christian theological affirmations and cutting-edge scientific understandings of the human and animal worlds. The sheer amount of information from different thinkers and fields that van Huyssteen absorbs and integrates makes this book extraordinary and, indeed, very rich as a work of interdisciplinary theology. The book commands respect and deserves close attention. In this essay I evaluate van Huyssteen's (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  44. Brent Mundy (1991). Embedding and Uniqueness in Relationist Theories. Philosophy of Science 58 (1):102-124.
    Relationist theories of space or space-time based on embedding of a physical relational system A into a corresponding geometrical system B raise problems associated with the degree of uniqueness of the embedding. Such uniqueness problems are familiar in the representational theory of measurement (RTM), and are dealt with by imposing a condition of uniqueness of embeddings up to composition with an "admissible transformation" of the space B. Friedman (1983) presents an alternative treatment of the uniqueness problem (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  45.  15
    Erik Curiel, A Simple Proof of the Uniqueness of the Einstein Field Equation in All Dimensions.
    The standard argument for the uniqueness of the Einstein field equation is based on Lovelock's Theorem, the relevant statement of which is restricted to four dimensions. I prove a theorem similar to Lovelock's, with a physically modified assumption: that the geometric object representing curvature in the Einstein field equation ought to have the physical dimension of stress-energy. The theorem is stronger than Lovelock's in two ways: it holds in all dimensions, and so supports a generalized argument for uniqueness; (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46.  4
    Z. Gendler Szabo (2005). The Loss of Uniqueness. Mind 114 (456):1185-1222.
    Philosophers and linguists alike tend to call a semantic theory ‘Russellian’ just in case it assigns to sentences in which definite descriptions occur the truth-conditions Russell did in ‘On Denoting’. This is unfortunate; not all aspects of those particular truth-conditions do explanatory work in Russell's writings. As far as the semantics of descriptions is concerned, the key insights of ‘On Denoting’ are that definite descriptions are not uniformly referring expressions, and that they are scope-bearing elements. Anyone who accepts these two (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  47.  23
    John Thrasher (2014). Uniqueness and Symmetry in Bargaining Theories of Justice. Philosophical Studies 167 (3):683-699.
    For contractarians, justice is the result of a rational bargain. The goal is to show that the rules of justice are consistent with rationality. The two most important bargaining theories of justice are David Gauthier’s and those that use the Nash’s bargaining solution. I argue that both of these approaches are fatally undermined by their reliance on a symmetry condition. Symmetry is a substantive constraint, not an implication of rationality. I argue that using symmetry to generate uniqueness undermines the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  48.  6
    Z. Gendler Szabo (2005). The Loss of Uniqueness. Mind 114 (456):1185-1222.
    Philosophers and linguists alike tend to call a semantic theory ‘Russellian’ just in case it assigns to sentences in which definite descriptions occur the truth-conditions Russell did in ‘On Denoting’. This is unfortunate; not all aspects of those particular truth-conditions do explanatory work in Russell's writings. As far as the semantics of descriptions is concerned, the key insights of ‘On Denoting’ are that definite descriptions are not uniformly referring expressions, and that they are scope-bearing elements. Anyone who accepts these two (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  49.  62
    J. Bub, R. Clifton & S. Goldstein (2000). Revised Proof of the Uniqueness Theorem for 'No Collapse' Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 31 (1):95-98.
    We show that the Bub-Clifton uniqueness theorem (1996) for 'no collapse' interpretations of quantum mechanics can be proved without the 'weak separability' assumption.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  50.  4
    Elisabetta Pastori & Pablo Spiga (2011). Failure of N‐Uniqueness: A Family of Examples. Mathematical Logic Quarterly 57 (2):133-148.
    In this paper, the connections between model theory and the theory of infinite permutation groups are used to study the n-existence and the n-uniqueness for n-amalgamation problems of stable theories. We show that, for any n ⩾ 2, there exists a stable theory having -existence and k-uniqueness, for every k ⩽ n, but has neither -existence nor -uniqueness. In particular, this generalizes the example, for n = 2, due to Hrushovski given in 3. © 2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
1 — 50 / 956