The Argument from Pain: A New Argument for Indirect Realism
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
Thinking About the Ultimate Argument for Realism
Alan Musgrave has been one of the most passionate defenders of scientific realism. Most of his papers in this area are, by now, classics. The title of my paper alludes to Musgrave’s piece “The Ultimate Argument for Realism”, though the expression is Bas van Fraassen’s (1980, 39), and the argument is Hilary Putnam’s (1975, 73): realism “is the only philosophy of science that does not make the su...
متن کاملWhat is Hacking's argument for entity realism?
According to Ian Hacking’s Entity Realism, unobservable entities that scientists carefully manipulate to study other phenomena are real. Although Hacking presents his case in an intuitive, attractive, and persuasive way, his argument remains elusive. I present five possible readings of Hacking’s argument: a no‐miracle argument, an indispensability argument, a transcendental argument, a Vichian ...
متن کاملConsequentialism, Metaphysical Realism, and the Argument from Clueless- ness†
The most powerful version of the classic epistemic argument against consequentialism is stated in an article by James Lenman. Lenman’s “argument from cluelessness” claims that a significant percentage of the consequences of our actions are wholly unknowable and hence, when it comes to assessing the moral quality of our actions, we are literally without a clue. In this paper, I distinguish the a...
متن کاملD. Loeb Moral Realism and the Argument from Disagreement
The argument from disagreement is among the most important that has been directed against moral realism.1 Yet, in recent years it has been widely rejected – so widely, in fact, that even those who are sympathetic with irrealism have often found it unconvincing. One reason for this has to do with the fact that newer, more sophisticated versions of moral realism have recently emerged. Some of the...
متن کاملA New Argument for Evidentialism
When we deliberate whether to believe some proposition, we feel immediately compelled to look for evidence of its truth. Philosophers have labelled this feature of doxastic deliberation ‘transparency’. I argue that resolving the disagreement in the ethics of belief between evidentialists and pragmatists turns on the correct explanation of transparency. My hypothesis is that it reflects a concep...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Grazer Philosophische Studien
سال: 2016
ISSN: 0165-9227,1875-6735
DOI: 10.1163/18756735-09301006