This book is a defense of the methods of analytic philosophy against a recent empirical challenge to the soundness of those methods. The challenge is raised by practitioners of “experimental philosophy” and concerns the extent to which analytic philosophy relies on intuition—in particular, the extent to which analytic philosophers treat intuitions as evidence in arguing for philosophical conclusions. Experimental philosophers say that analytic philosophers place a great deal of evidential weight on people’s intuitions about hypothetical cases and thought experiments. This (...) book argues that this view of traditional philosophical method is a myth, part of “metaphilosophical folklore.” Analytic philosophy makes regular use of hypothetical examples and thought experiments, but philosophers argue for their claims about what is true or not true in these examples and thought experiments. It is these arguments, not intuitions, that are treated as evidence for the claims. The book discusses xphi and some recent xphi studies; critiques a variety of other metaphilosophical claims; examines such famous arguments as Gettier’s refutation of the JTB theory and Kripke’s Gödel Case argument against descriptivism about proper names, and shows that they rely on reasoning rather than intuition; and finds existing critiques of xphi, the “Multiple Concepts” and “Expertise” replies, to be severely lacking. (shrink)

Advocates of conceptual engineering as a method of philosophy face a dilemma: either they are ignorant of how conceptual engineering can be implemented, or else it is trivial to implement but of very little value, representing no new or especially fruitful method of philosophizing. Two key distinctions frame this dilemma and explain its two horns. First, the distinction between speaker’s meaning and reference and semantic meaning and reference reveals a severe implementation problem for one construal of conceptual engineering. Second, the (...) distinction between stipulating meanings and conceptually analyzing allows us to see why, on another construal of what conceptual engineering involves, the practice is neither a new nor neglected philosophical methodology. The article also argues that semantic externalism is not the root of the implementation problem for conceptual engineering, and that the usual rationale for adopting the practice, one that ties its value to the amelioration of “conceptual defects”, is unsound. (shrink)

INTRODUCTION: In accounts of the two-factor theory of delusional belief, the second factor in this theory has been referred to only in the most general terms, as a failure in the processes of hypothesis evaluation, with no attempt to characterise those processes in any detail. Coltheart and Davies attempted such a characterisation, proposing a detailed eight-step model of how unexpected observations lead to new beliefs based on the concept of abductive inference as introduced by Charles Sanders Peirce. METHODS: In this (...) paper, we apply that model to the explanation of various forms of delusional belief. RESULTS: We provide evidence that in cases of delusion there is a specific failure of the seventh step in our model: the step at which predictions from hypotheses are considered in the light of relevant evidence. CONCLUSIONS: In the two-factor theory of delusional belief, the second factor consists of a failure to reject hypotheses in the face of disconfirmatory evidence. (shrink)

Steffen Koch raises several objections to my critique of conceptual engineering. Here, I reply to these objections, arguing that Koch fails to adequately defend the “standard rationale” for conceptual engineering, and that the dilemma I have posed for “conceptual re-engineering”, a dilemma that presents this practice as either infeasible or else trivial, survives Koch’s objections unscathed. I conclude that conceptual engineering, both in terms of its conception and rationale, remains problematic.

“Conceptual analysis” is a misnomer—it refers, but it does not refer to a method or practice that involves the analysis of concepts. Once this is recognized, many of the main arguments for skepticism about conceptual analysis can be answered, since many of these arguments falsely assume that conceptual analyses target concepts. The present paper defends conceptual analysis from skepticism about its viability and, positively, presents an argument for viewing conceptual analyses as targeting philosophical phenomena, not our concepts of these phenomena.

People acquire new beliefs in various ways. One of the most important of these is that new beliefs are acquired as a response to experiencing events that one did not expect. This involves a form of inference distinct from both deductive and inductive inference: abductive inference. The concept of abduction is due to the American pragmatist philosopher C. S. Peirce. Davies and Coltheart elucidated what Peirce meant by abduction, and identified two problems in his otherwise promising account requiring solution if (...) that account were to become fully workable. Here we propose solutions to these problems and offer an explicit cognitive model of how people derive new beliefs from observations of unexpected events, based on Peirce's work and Sokolov's ideas about prediction error triggering new beliefs. We consider that this model casts light not only upon normal processes of belief formation but also upon the formation of delusional beliefs. (shrink)

This article argues that the “_qua_ problem” for purely causal theories of reference grounding is an illusion. Reference _can_ be grounded via description and fit, but purely causal reference grounding is possible too. In fact, “arguments from ignorance and error” suggest that many of our terms have had their reference grounded purely causally. If the _qua_ problem is illusory, then there is no need to adopt a “hybrid” theory of reference grounding of the kind recently recommended by Amie Thomasson (Ontology (...) made easy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015) and Ron Mallon (The construction of human kinds, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016). This opens the door to a “discovery model” of philosophical knowledge, a model we could then choose to accept. (shrink)

Chords are not pure sets of tones or notes. They are mainly characterized by their matrices. A chord matrix is the pattern of all the lengths of intervals given without further context. Chords are well-structured invariants. They show their inner logical form. This opens up the possibility to develop a molecular logic of chords. Chords are our primitive, but, nevertheless, already interrelated expressions. The logical space of internal harmony is our well-known chromatic scale represented by an infinite line of integers. (...) Internal harmony is nothing more than the pure interrelatedness of two or more chords. We consider three cases: chords inferentially related to subchords, pairs of chords in the space of major–minor tonality and arbitrary chords as arguments of unary chord operators in relation to their outputs. One interesting result is that chord negation transforms any pure major chord into its pure minor chord and vice versa. Another one is the fact that the negation of chords with symmetric matrices does not change anything. A molecular logic of chords is mainly characterized by combining general rules for chord operators with the inner logical form of their arguments. (shrink)

I present a reconstruction of the logical system of the Tractatus, which differs from classical logic in two ways. It includes an account of Wittgenstein’s “form-series” device, which suffices to express some effectively generated countably infinite disjunctions. And its attendant notion of structure is relativized to the fixed underlying universe of what is named. -/- There follow three results. First, the class of concepts definable in the system is closed under finitary induction. Second, if the universe of objects is countably (...) infinite, then the property of being a tautology is \Pi^1_1-complete. But third, it is only granted the assumption of countability that the class of tautologies is \Sigma_1-definable in set theory. -/- Wittgenstein famously urges that logical relationships must show themselves in the structure of signs. He also urges that the size of the universe cannot be prejudged. The results of this paper indicate that there is no single way in which logical relationships could be held to make themselves manifest in signs, which does not prejudge the number of objects. (shrink)

La lógica formal no es una ciencia que se encuentre libre de presupuestos. Más bien, su representación de la forma lógica se basa en presupuestos a los cuales la lógica misma no llega. Este artículo se propone aclararlos. Para ello, en un primer momento, consideraremos las determinaciones fundamentales de la forma lógica. En un segundo paso, esta consideración será profundizada a partir del análisis del concepto lógico-formal de “concepto”. Con él se plantean problemas que hacen necesario avanzar en la reflexión (...) sobre la forma lógica. Ese avance necesario es la lógica trascendental en el sentido en el que la entiende Kant. /// Formal logic cannot claim to represent a presuppositionless science. In fact, its account of logical form rests upon a set of presuppositions, which is not justified within logic itself. This article shall elaborate on this in two steps. First, we shall highlight the primal determinations in formal logic’s account of logical form. Second, we shall deepen this with regard to the account of the concept. In doing so, we will encounter systematic problems, the resolution of which necessarily gives rise to a genuine self-reflection of logical form, which is transcendental logic in terms of Kant. /// Formale Logik ist keine voraussetzungsfreie Wissenschaft, sondern ihre Darstellung der logischen Form beruht auf Voraussetzungen, die sie selbst nicht einholt. Der Aufsatz soll dies verdeutlichen. Dazu werden in einem ersten Schritt die grundlegendsten Bestimmungen in der Fassung der logischen Form vergegenwärtigt. In einem zweiten Schritt wird dies mit Blick auf den formallogischen Begriff des Begriffs vertieft. Dabei treten systematische Probleme auf, deren Auflösung einen Fortschritt in der Selbstreflexion der logischen Form nötig macht: die transzendentale Logik im Sinne Kants. (shrink)

Epistemic externalism is a view about what it takes for a belief to be epistemically justified or to be an item of knowledge. Externalism has grown considerably in popularity over the past few decades and this development has spilled over into the philosophy of religion, where we find externalist theories of justification and knowledge being employed to make the case for the positive epistemic status of religious beliefs. In §1, I offer an overview of epistemic externalism and its rival, internalism. (...) In §2, I outline some of the most significant applications of externalism to the philosophy of religion. In §3, I consider whether externalist theories are really required to secure various desiderata that externalist religious epistemologists take to be important. In §4, I explore an objection according to which the facts of religious diversity indicate that religious beliefs do not meet externalist requirements for justification or knowledge. Finally, in §5, I consider a worry about whether externalist accounts can really be used to evaluate the epistemic standing of religious beliefs. (shrink)

Abstract“Let us think of the intention to play chess”. On the Role of Chess Analogies in Wittgenstein’s Philosophy starting from 1929. Chess analogies represent a neglected topic in the studies on Wittgenstein. However, already a closer look at the Philosophical Investigations shows the great variety of contexts in which there are analogies to very different aspects of chess. An examination of the entire Nachlass illustrates Wittgenstein’s ongoing interest in chess which began in 1929 and lasted until his death in 1951. (...) The integration of a thorough analysis of the references to chess sheds new light on an adequate understanding of the transition from his early philosophy of the Tractatus logico-philosophicus to his later philosophy, especially in the years 1929 to 1931. In our language of analysis, chess is understood as a codex-based strategy game. In this context and in contrast to it, we consider selected instructive uses of chess analogies in Wittgenstein's Nachlass. By means of such analogies similarities as well as filigree or significant differences in the meanings of linguistic expressions can be very convincingly illustrated, misunderstandings can be removed and complete clarity can be attained. Starting from Wittgenstein's considerations, the method of finding and inventing chess analogies can be developed in perspective into a creative form of practice of linguistic-analytic philosophizing. (shrink)