MY PAPER EXAMINES THE ’VIOLATION’ CONCEPT OF THE MIRACULOUS, INVOLVING THE OCCURRENCE OF AN EVENT RULED OUT BY A LAW OF NATURE. ANY BELIEF IN THE OCCURRENCE OF SUCH AN EVENT IS IRRATIONAL, IN THE SENSE IN WHICH IT WOULD BE IRRATIONAL FOR YOU TO BELIEVE AT THIS MOMENT THAT YOU WERE NOT READING THIS ABSTRACT BUT WERE HALLUCINATING. TO SHOW THAT IT IS NOT ALWAYS IRRATIONAL TO BELIEVE IN MIRACLES, ONE MUST ASSERT THAT TO KNOW WITH CERTAINTY THAT AN (...) EVENT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, IS NOT TO KNOW WITH CERTAINTY THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, ON GROUNDS THAT ITS OCCURRENCE DOES NOT INVOLVE A SELF-CONTRADICTION. BUT SUCH A PREMISE LEADS TO A FORM OF GENERAL SKEPTICISM WHICH WOULD MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE EVER TO ESTABLISH THAT ANY EVENT HAD OCCURRED. (shrink)

IN the final section of his chapter on ‘Perception’ in The Problem of Knowledge, Ayer makes the statement that ‘The failure of phenomenalism does not mean, however, that there is no logical connection of any kind between the way physical objects appear to us and the way they really are’. To prove his contention, he sets out ‘a pair of limiting cases’ of conditions in which the truth of premises referring exclusively to ‘appearance’ would allegedly afford logical guarantees for the (...) existence, or the non-existence, of physical objects. In this paper I wish to raise some serious reservations concerning the viability of the second of these two limiting conditions, which reads. (shrink)

IN this note I propose to make some general remarks concerning the analytical forays carried out into moral discourse by some leading figures in the modern ‘linguistic’ tradition. The philosophers I am going to speak of, may all be said to be attempting some sort of ‘descriptive’ analysis, but my thesis is that philosophers such as Toulmin and Baier are attempting something that is significantly different from what a philosopher such as Nowell-Smith is attempting. I will suggest, in the following (...) section, that the expression—‘the logic of moral discourse’—seems to be understood by these two groups of linguistic philosophers in two different ways and that one of these ways involves a more ambitious claim, than does the other, on behalf of the philosopher embarking upon a conceptual analysis of moral discourse. The manner in which, it seems to me, Toulmin and Baier understand this expression is the one that involves the more ambitious claim. In the final section of this paper I suggest that the more ambitious claim involves overloading the so-called Linguistic method to force it do a job that it seems at least not suited to perform. (shrink)

IT has been some time now since anyone professing himself to be a phenomenalist has characterized physical objects as ‘logical constructions out of sense-data’ in the strict sense of this expression. If he is to be justified in applying the expression in the strict sense, the phenomenalist must demonstrate that there exists a relation of mutual entailment between a statement implying the existence of a physical object and a statement referring exclusively to our ‘sense-experiences’. As a matter of historical fact, (...) no phenomenalist has ever succeeded in doing this; and it is now generally acknowledged, even by those who still wish to adhere to some form of a phenomenalistic analysis of physical object statements, that there are difficulties in principle why the reductivist programme of the early phenomenalists cannot be carried out. The modern-day phenomenalist, in an attempt to avoid the pitfalls in his predecessors’ position, tends to regard physical objects as fruitful and convenient theoretical constructions for interpreting and predicting our sense-experiences. Thus, although still committed to the view that physical objects are ‘constructed’ out of sense-data, he is no longer committed to the thesis of a strict logical equivalence between statements about objects and statements about experiences. Professor A J Ayer, perhaps the foremost exponent of this type of view today, put the matter this way not so long ago. (shrink)

The author sides with the linguistic philosophers in that to analyse 'moral reasoning' is to provide a conceptual description of a prescriptive or normative area of language. He considers the question of why we should adopt a "moral point of view" in terms of toulmin (who thinks it is a meaningless question) and baier and nelson (who think it is legitimate). The author argues that it is a crucial question which must be answered. He concludes that baier has not proven (...) that the normative criteria of justification involved in morality constitute a question for the philosopher. (wstaff). (shrink)