Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The Proximate–Ultimate Distinction and Evolutionary Developmental Biology: Causal Irrelevance Versus Explanatory Abstraction.Massimo Pigliucci & Raphael Scholl - 2015 - Biology and Philosophy 30 (5):653-670.
    Mayr’s proximate–ultimate distinction has received renewed interest in recent years. Here we discuss its role in arguments about the relevance of developmental to evolutionary biology. We show that two recent critiques of the proximate–ultimate distinction fail to explain why developmental processes in particular should be of interest to evolutionary biologists. We trace these failures to a common problem: both critiques take the proximate–ultimate distinction to neglect specific causal interactions in nature. We argue that this is implausible, and that the distinction (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • The Fake, the Flimsy, and the Fallacious: Demarcating Arguments in Real Life.Maarten Boudry, Fabio Paglieri & Massimo Pigliucci - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (4):10.1007/s10503-015-9359-1.
    Philosophers of science have given up on the quest for a silver bullet to put an end to all pseudoscience, as such a neat formal criterion to separate good science from its contenders has proven elusive. In the literature on critical thinking and in some philosophical quarters, however, this search for silver bullets lives on in the taxonomies of fallacies. The attractive idea is to have a handy list of abstract definitions or argumentation schemes, on the basis of which one (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Justice Without Retribution: An Epistemic Argument Against Retributive Criminal Punishment.Gregg D. Caruso - forthcoming - Neuroethics:1-16.
    Within the United States, the most prominent justification for criminal punishment is retributivism. This retributivist justification for punishment maintains that punishment of a wrongdoer is justified for the reason that she deserves something bad to happen to her just because she has knowingly done wrong—this could include pain, deprivation, or death. For the retributivist, it is the basic desert attached to the criminal’s immoral action alone that provides the justification for punishment. This means that the retributivist position is not reducible (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Free Will Fallibilism and the “Two-Standpoints” Account of Freedom.Michael Louis Corrado - forthcoming - Synthese:1-16.
    In this paper I propose a form of free will fallibilism. Unlike the free will realist who is fully persuaded that we have sufficient evidence of freedom to justify holding individuals morally responsible for what they do and imposing punishment, and unlike the free will skeptic who is fully persuaded that we do not have enough evidence to believe that we face a future of open alternatives, the free will fallibilist will believe that we have enough evidence to justify a (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Defining Atheism and the Burden of Proof.Shoaib Ahmed Malik - 2018 - Philosophy 93 (2):279-301.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Free Will, Punishment, and the Burden of Proof.Michael Louis Corrado - 2018 - Criminal Justice Ethics 37 (1):55-71.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations